Microsoft Patents Double HW Button Clicks on PDAs

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16363' target='_blank'>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16363</a><br /><br /></div>Following on from the tale of <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=252164">'Patent Trolls'</a>, comes this story from the Inquirer:<br /><br /><i>"The US Patent and Trademark Office has granted patent number 6,727,830 for a "time based hardware button for application launch" to Microsoft. It is a process which is familiar to anyone who uses the Redmond giant's Windows or set the time on a wrist based sun dial...the move has sparked a bit of a ruckus in the US technology industry where the Patent and Trademark Office has been accused of giving patents for things that are too obvious or been on the market for a long time."</i><br /><br />No, really? :) The background to this patent application <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,727,830.WKU.&OS=PN/6,727,830&RS=PN/6,727,830">here</a>, reads as follows:<br /><br /><i>"There is thus an increased demand for substantially smaller palm-type computers that are able to run business applications of less complexity than those designed to run on a desktop computer and enable a user to quickly access all types of personal and business related data, such as addresses, telephone numbers, scheduled appointment times, etc. One such palm-type computer is Microsoft's Palm-size PC."</i><br /><br />You heard it here first. We need to rename the site to "Palm-size PC Thoughts" – fast! :wink: So – thoughts on this patent?

[Felix Torres]

I would be more concerned over invalid patents if it weren't for the fact that most of the whiners are folks who spend their time and effort "innovating" by reverse-engineering someone else's product. And whose prescription for fixing the "massive" problem of frivolous patents is to abolish patents altogether.

Yeah, right...

Notice that Intel doesn't complain about frivolous patent lawsuits?
Neither does IBM or Microsoft or Sony or Xerox.

After all, *they* do original work and own thousands of patents and if they infrige on somebody's patent they know they'll pay. The cost of litigation is part of doing business these days.

MS got hit with a $500 million verdict; they're fighting it.
In court, not in the media.
Do *they* complain about the system?
No, they just go and patent all the stuff they created and make sure their stockholders get some kind of return on their investment.

This is a case where the hype is bigger than the problem and the prescription worse than the disease.
As always, it pays to ask: "whose ox is getting gored?"

[Kati Compton]

Notice that Intel doesn't complain about frivolous patent lawsuits?
Neither does IBM or Microsoft or Sony or Xerox.

After all, *they* do original work and own thousands of patents and if they infrige on somebody's patent they know they'll pay. The cost of litigation is part of doing business these days.
Part of that, also, is that a lot of times big patent holders don't have to pay other big patent holders. "If you let me use your patents, I'll let you use mine."

It's more annoying for, say, small PPC developers that maybe wrote a utility that has different functions happen on a tap vs. tap-n-hold vs. double tap, etc. It seemed like a natural thing for them to include, because the OS and dev tools supported doing that. So Microsoft provided, in their compilation tools, the ability to do it, and didn't say "but don't use this or we'll sue you". So now what? Do these little developers have to pay Microsoft license fees? For cheap or even free software?

[Gen-M]

One such palm-type computer is Microsoft's Palm-size PC."

You heard it here first. We need to rename the site to "Palm-size PC Thoughts" – fast! :wink: So – thoughts on this patent?

I would guess that the term "Palm-size PC" comes from the original application: "This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/226,031, filed Jan. 5, 1999"

When was Microsoft forced to change the name to "Pocket PC"?
:devilboy: :devilboy: :devilboy:

[ghostppc]

One such palm-type computer is Microsoft's Palm-size PC."

You heard it here first. We need to rename the site to "Palm-size PC Thoughts" – fast! :wink: So – thoughts on this patent?

I would guess that the term "Palm-size PC" comes from the original application: "This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/226,031, filed Jan. 5, 1999"

When was Microsoft forced to change the name to "Pocket PC"?
:devilboy: :devilboy: :devilboy:


Good point. But MS being the sneaky devils they are had to do something to draw the distinction away from Palm. :devilboy: If MS was going to drag their feet and let Palm have full market share, they wouldn't mind riding their coat tells, and using the same name. It's all about the marketing. And now they're called windows mobile devices. with the possibility of OQO devices emerging that are true "pocket pc's" (if they ever leap from vaporware :lol: ).

[ctmagnus]

From the original email:

The patent only applies to handheld computers that run Microsoft's PocketPC software and is specific to the technique of opening different features depending on how many times a button is pressed.

This makes it sound not nearly as far-reaching.

[RobertS]

The implications are very interesting for long-term hardware changes....but this is old news.

It was originally reported by Slashdot and SmartMobileAssets more than a month ago.

Check out http://smartmobileassets.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=news,m=1083244893.

Regards,
RobertS
IT Pros Moderator
SmartMobileAssets

[Jonathon Watkins]

Thank you for your kind words RobertS. Funnily enough, we can't post on news we don't know about. :wink: The Inquirer put up a story about this last night, I spotted it this morning and posted on it as PPC news.

(The link you provided gives a fatal error btw: "Cannot open the message data file: 1083244893..txt")

I assume you mean their Microsoft Patent Watch (http://smartmobileassets.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=news,m=1083244893) thread?

We can only post on what we see, or what our reader send us in.... (hint, hint) :wink:

[sponge]

I would be more concerned over invalid patents if it weren't for the fact that most of the whiners are folks who spend their time and effort "innovating" by reverse-engineering someone else's product. And whose prescription for fixing the "massive" problem of frivolous patents is to abolish patents altogether.

Talk about trolling. Care to provide any backup for that? No, Slashdot doesn't count, since thats the only place where I've heard a significant population want to abolish the patent system.

[rzanology]

apple: part faded windows
microsoft: tapping the screen two times
linix: the word free...you can have it...but pay me for my "free" word

[Mark Johnson]

I'm a bit surprised at how many of the comments lean towards the "we don't really have a problem" camp. Consider how Apple is trying to patent the interface to the iPod. There is nothing truly innovative about how the ipod navigates - it is a good design, but hardly such a radical departure of other device navigation approaches that it deserves a patent. Fundamentally, it uses the "scroll wheel" method to scroll through large numbers of folders. No more innovative than my desktop wheel-mouse. What is remarkable is not that Apple implemented it, but that everyone else hasn't. (Same with the way Microsoft has failed to put a true scrolling Clie-style "jog-dial" on the PPC.)

Companies like Sony and Apple can get a patent (or just have one pending) and scare the little guys away from adding such obvious features to their products. There is definately something wrong in the system...

[hotweiss]

LOL If we live in a democracy and everyone thinks these patent laws are absurd and detremental, why are they not changed?

Or is our society really ruled by money and those who control it? Communism lasted for a short while, but I don't know for how much longer capitalism will last...

[Gremmie]

LOL If we live in a democracy and everyone thinks these patent laws are absurd and detremental, why are they not changed?

Or is our society really ruled by money and those who control it? Communism lasted for a short while, but I don't know for how much longer capitalism will last...

Wow...from left field and missed the point, if you want an expose on the life of capitalism, read Capital by Marx.

Nevertheless, I think the arguement is over whether or not these patents are warrented. Many people could argue that Palm and other devices already incorporated this technology. Some think patents are given for vague descriptions. Even more people think patents are being used by small companies as a stock pile. For instance, patenting online payments or PDA's before they are created and sueing after 10 years of popular usage so they can maximize the settlement.

[NeilE]

When was Microsoft forced to change the name to "Pocket PC"?

We actually changed the name three times. Version 1.0 were launched as "Palm PC". A competing company took issue and the name was changed to "Palm-size PC" for version 2.0. For version 3.0 the name became "Pocket PC".

Now it's simply called "Windows Mobile 2003 for Pocket PC". 8O

[RobertS]

Thank you for your kind words RobertS. Funnily enough, we can't post on news we don't know about. :wink: The Inquirer put up a story about this last night, I spotted it this morning and posted on it as PPC news.

We can only post on what we see, or what our reader send us in.... (hint, hint) :wink:

A point very well taken, Jonathan...I will make a point of sending you anything of PPC interest that comes our way at SmartMobileAssets...

And of course you and all PocketPC Thoughts staff/members are cordially invited to come join us if you have an interest in PDAs/wireless in the workplace. Just drop by ww.smartmobileassets.com to see what we are doing.

Thanks again.

RobertS

[Kacey Green]

That goes for any computing related news not covered by TM sites.

Submit at www.grlt.com or
news at grlt dot com
(I already am on the prowl to send info to PPCT while doing my digital rounds I just need to remember the other two :wink: )

[BanjoFrog]

microsoft: tapping the screen two times


It's not a patent on double-clicking the screen. It's a patent for Pocket PC's only on double-tapping the hardware buttons. So all the Palm folks out there can keep scratching up their screens without worry.

I gotta say though... it pains me when the anti-Microsoft crowd jumps on the bashing wagon before even understanding the basic premise of what they're arguing about.

Personally, I think this is a great feature, and I'm glad to see that MS is coming up with innovations like this.

[MikeUnwired]

Tapping the screen twice, tapping buttons twice, holding buttons for periods of time -- it has all been in use in Palm OS and Windows Mobile whatever, along with other limited computing tools for years. I don't fault Microsoft though, I fault the US Patent Office for doing their daily work the way they do it.

For instance, I "tap" the grind button on my blender (full of margarita ingrediants) and it begins that noble work of creating that frozen mix that "helps me hang on". Then, I "tap" the puree button to further the mixing. Then, for good measure, I press and hold the liquify button a few times to make sure the ice chunks have circulated down to teh blades and the margarita is smooth and icy all through. A chip inside the blender regulates the motor, thus, making it a limited computing device and possibly subject to license fees under the patent.

[Mark Johnson]

I think the arguement is over whether or not these patents are warrented.


Quite so Gremmie! Thanks for adding a "moderated" perspective to the discussion. No one here is arguing that patents or copyrights are inherently bad or should be abolished. (Despite some comments that caricature those of us in the "reform-minded" camp as leftist, anti-personal-property, commies.) I'm a graduate of the University of Chicago, where I majored in Economics. There is probably no school anywhere more known for promotion of free-market capitalism, a system I love.

At the same time, the entire issue of "intellectual property" is a bit of a sticky wicket. Clearly it is not in society's best interest to issue an in-perpetuity exclusive right to any invention or creative work. Just consider that patents last 10 years and copyrights last 70 years. If it were a simple axiom that "patents are always good" then why not make them 70 years as well? Why not extend both patents and copyrights to lifetime, or even perpetual-inheritance structures? (Imagine that Edison's great-grandson might still be getting a nickel-per-lightbulb royalty.) Obviously that's not the right answer either.

There is a balance in this equation that society needs to weigh and regularly re-examine. We recognize that a well-thought-out patent structure will drive innovation, and a poor one will simply be a land-grab lottery.

It seems to me that we’ve got a problem when Apple and Sony seem to have a corner on the “right-to-scroll” market, or if competitors need to license a “right-to-double-click” from Microsoft. People can disagree and that’s fine, but it is no more “irrational” or “radical” for someone here to suggest that patents are too easy to get and last too long than it would for the other side to suggest that they are too hard to get and don’t last long enough.

[Kati Compton]

Tapping the screen twice, tapping buttons twice, holding buttons for periods of time -- it has all been in use in Palm OS and Windows Mobile whatever, along with other limited computing tools for years. I don't fault Microsoft though, I fault the US Patent Office for doing their daily work the way they do it.

For instance, I "tap" the grind button on my blender (full of margarita ingrediants) and it begins that noble work of creating that frozen mix that "helps me hang on". Then, I "tap" the puree button to further the mixing. Then, for good measure, I press and hold the liquify button a few times to make sure the ice chunks have circulated down to teh blades and the margarita is smooth and icy all through. A chip inside the blender regulates the motor, thus, making it a limited computing device and possibly subject to license fees under the patent.
Right. This patent is actually quite a bit far-reaching. For example, they say it's for "application buttons" on a "limited computing device". They don't constrain it to Pocket PC's, btw. It seems constrained to physical buttons. But, they also specifically talk about the use of the "record" button, which seems a bit... "already used"? They include in that patent (took me a while to find a free TIFF plugin for my browser... but that's another rant) the use of the record button where holding it down beyond a threshold time actually records (duh), and if you let go right away, it doesn't (assuming you hit the button on accident or forgot what you were going to say). So there's quite a few things they're claiming to have rights to here... But as you say, a lot of them aren't exactly "new". Hopefully the particularly far-reaching and ridiculous parts will get thrown out.

I'm all for patenting stuff... if it's *new*.

[Kati Compton]

Just consider that patents last 10 years and copyrights last 70 years.

Copyrights didn't *always* last 70 years.

From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html :

Original length of copyright was 14 years, renewable for another 14. In 1831 was extended to 28 plus a 14 year renewal. In 1909, the renewal period was increased to 28 years. In 1976, the term was changed to lifetime of author plus 50 years.

October 27, 1998
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended the term of copyright protection for most works to the life of the author plus 70 years after the author's death.

As much as I wanted to blame Disney for the copyright term increases, they never did come "close" to having to make Mickey Mouse public domain. I'm sure they were in favor of the more recent term increases, though. ;) It'll be interesting to see what happens when 2036 rolls around (Walt Disney died in 1966) and the Mickey Mouse copyright expires.

Unless the copyright term gets extended again, of course.

[Scott R]

The entire patent system is in need of repair, as far as I'm concerned. FWIW, I wrote up something about this issue a few days ago: Monopolists Gone Wild: Spring Break 2004 (http://tapland.com/news_arc/?id=323)
Not only have Palm OS devices and/or 3rd party Palm OS software done what's described by this patent prior to this patent application date, but numerous other devices have done similar things. One thing not mentioned is that one article I've read recently indicated that it would costs several thousand dollars just to submit prior art and try to challenge this patent. That hardly seems right.

Here's another article from the Register that I found interesting recently:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25/stallman_lecture/

Lastly, someone in my forums came across this recent story at CNET (http://news.com.com/Sony+pays+millions+to+inventor+in+Walkman+dispute/2100-1041_3-5226735.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news). This guy invented the "belt radio" and sued Sony for royalties from their walkman. He'll now probably sue Apple for royalties from their iPod. Two things:
1) Why was he granted a patent on a "belt radio" which sounds to me is nothing more than the miniaturization of existing technology at the time (granted, I haven't read his patent, so maybe there was really something innovative about it).
2) Assuming his original patent made sense, how does it make any sense that 20 years later he should he be able to use that "belt radio" patent to continue to make money from manufacturers of portable MP3 players?

Scott

[Lorenzo]

They should just patent our breathing and while there at it
patent our hearts pumping.

Geesh..

Lorenzo

[ghostppc]

Bill Gates is already working on it! :lol: