Double-Click® ???

[RodNICE]

Wow, Microsoft is going all out!

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995072

[hard candy]

I would double click on the link but then I would have to pay. Can I set my file manager to single click and bypass this?

[sharth]

Originally posted by hard candy
I would double click on the link but then I would have to pay. Can I set my file manager to single click and bypass this? well.. i used middle click. :rolleyes:

[Parcival]

Yesterday they said in the heise newsletter that IBM was able to patent the implementation of a device (i.e. no matter wether it's a flashing LED on your keyboard, a beeping noise passed through the internal speaker, a hammer falling from the ceiling or electroshocks) showing wether Caps Lock is turned on or off. :rolleyes:

[cybertron]

I didn't think it was possible, but I think my dislike of software patents just doubled. On the plus side, this can't possibly stick can it? I mean Palm was into the PDA market well before MS and it had to have had some sort of clicking action to make things work. Now let's just pray that Palm doesn't get any ideas...

But still, who was the fscking idiot that approved this patent? Obviously s/he has never used a computer or they would have laughed this out of the patent office:mad:

[Tzar Kastik]

The patent office dont care if the patent is obvious, has prior art or possibly the fact that there may be another patent already covering it. As I understand it, USPTO gets $2500 for each patent filed and $1500 for each claim made to invalidate a patent. They have no incentive to not approve stupid patents - in fact, they have incentive to approve anything they get handed because they charge anyone who wants to challenge the patent. I should have been a patent lawyer.............

[saturn-vk]

Originally posted by Tzar Kastik
The patent office dont care if the patent is obvious, has prior art or possibly the fact that there may be another patent already covering it. As I understand it, USPTO gets $2500 for each patent filed and $1500 for each claim made to invalidate a patent. They have no incentive to not approve stupid patents - in fact, they have incentive to approve anything they get handed because they charge anyone who wants to challenge the patent. I should have been a patent lawyer.............

that's like legal corruption or something, jeez...

[blingbling!!]

Seems to me that most of these whacky patents are completly useless. I'm no lawyer, but i think i'm correct in saying that Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) would have a snowflakes' chance in a blast furnace of being able to make this stand up in court. This leaves the question of why they are bothering with this agressive patenting policy. Could it be that they know their OS and PC software is about to get hammered, and this is a way of protecting themselves in the hard times to come??? Just imagine (a few years from now) a Microsoft that has been through years of decline - falling profits, sales and market share - suddenly deciding that a nice source of new income could be all those patents it bought whist it was still fat and rich..... Sounds a bit like another comapny we all know and love (guess who - answers on a postcard!).

p.s. -- I've now patented this thread, so if you want to post a reply you'll have to pay me £50 per sentence.

[RedMap]

First patents...
Then patents on software & DNA...
Next will be patents on laws of physics and all derivatives and uses thereof.

All protected by rich shareholder interests rather then the common good of democracy and the republic.

[hard candy]

Well, I just filed my patent on forum posting, trolling, flaming, and private messaging. I thought of this when I was 3 years old and wrote it down on a diaper which got thrown away. But I did think of this first and actually built a working design using an Etch-A-Sketch and some crayons. So now everyone here needs to send me $1 per month to keep the privilege of using these tools. You would not want to trample on my intellectual property rights and throw me out of business. So fork it over or I'm calling SCO. :eek:

[cybertron]

Originally posted by blingbling!!
Seems to me that most of these whacky patents are completly useless. I'm no lawyer, but i think i'm correct in saying that Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) would have a snowflakes' chance in a blast furnace of being able to make this stand up in court. This leaves the question of why they are bothering with this agressive patenting policy. Could it be that they know their OS and PC software is about to get hammered, and this is a way of protecting themselves in the hard times to come??? Just imagine (a few years from now) a Microsoft that has been through years of decline - falling profits, sales and market share - suddenly deciding that a nice source of new income could be all those patents it bought whist it was still fat and rich..... Sounds a bit like another comapny we all know and love (guess who - answers on a postcard!).

p.s. -- I've now patented this thread, so if you want to post a reply you'll have to pay me £50 per sentence.

You're right, it wouldn't stand up in court. It basically says that this patent wouldn't hold up in court either if someone challenges it, but the problem is who has the money to take MS to court over it?

[RodNICE]

Yeah you guys are right about that corrupt
patent office scheme. I'm going to patent
my DNA because I don't want anyone cloning
me or doing forensic tests without giving
me some dough! "You want my blood? It's
gonna cost ya."

[mengle]

Before we get to riled up let's look at it from M$'s perspective. Maybe they're concerned about someone else patenting it first then going after them for tons of money. Maybe (let's hope for it) they aren't going to do anything with the patent and just figured it would be cheaper than getting sued down the road.

Just my read on it.

[cybertron]

Originally posted by mengle
Before we get to riled up let's look at it from M$'s perspective. Maybe they're concerned about someone else patenting it first then going after them for tons of money. Maybe (let's hope for it) they aren't going to do anything with the patent and just figured it would be cheaper than getting sued down the road.

Just my read on it.

That's the optimist's view. I tend more toward being cynical though, so I prefer the conspiracy theory:)

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by mengle
Before we get to riled up let's look at it from M$'s perspective. Maybe they're concerned about someone else patenting it first then going after them for tons of money. But if that was their motivation, then it would be better to just document the fact that they were using this feature, and when they were doing it. That way, they could fight off whoever patented it first with prior art -- because they do have the money to do that.

It makes very little sense to spend a bunch of money getting a patent if all you're going to do with it is something that you could do without it almost as easily...

[GigaShadow]

For all of you who are worried about this patent:

Double Click Crack: Just Single Click...twice. :D


G

[serz]

Pathetic.

:(