Log in

View Full Version : MacNN: "Apple files patent on translucent windows"


Kent Pribbernow
05-17-2004, 03:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.macnn.com/news/24708' target='_blank'>http://www.macnn.com/news/24708</a><br /><br /></div>"Apple has recently filed a patent for translucent windows that automatically adjust the opacity as information is updated (or not updated): "overlaid, Information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent. The translucency can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more translucent. In addition to visual translucency, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative translucent quality. Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window."<br /><br />Why do I smell conspiracy? If this patent becomes enforceable, it will not only throw a wrench into Microsoft's development of Longhorn, but it will also potentially shut down several popular Windows customization tools like Windowblinds. I think Apple has gone overboard this time. As I recall, this type of windowing effect has been in existence even before OSX. <br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/exposeTopImage10082003.jpg" />

Mike Temporale
05-17-2004, 03:23 PM
WTF? Apple is loosing it! The only thing that is new here is the fading in when new information is in the window, But PLEASE... Translucent windows have been around for a long time. Does that mean Microsoft can patent windows that "appear" from the edge of a screen when an event happens. (a la MSNM)

The crazy patent world. :roll:

Jason Dunn
05-17-2004, 03:32 PM
That is complete crap. Boo Apple, boo! :evil: What's next - are they going to patent smooth white surfaces? :roll:

Mojo Jojo
05-17-2004, 03:54 PM
I think the idea on the whole is great. These types of changes make User Interfaces a lot more user firendly when confined in a small space.

On the aspect of if you can patent it, or even should? I have mixed feelings. I can't even say if my feelings are unbiased or not because I don't have a grasp on what I feel.

I don't know what goes on in the design rooms of either MS or Apple so I approach this from a 'what came out first' approach and give credit to that creator. This could be very wrong and the other team may have had it on the boards and in prototypes first but for some reason made it to market last.

Knowing that about me, and given a long history of Apple coming out with items for the U.I. that appear later in Windows, I am having feelings that maybe the should. Recently there has been a new feature in Longhorn that preforms very similar to Expose, the side dock, and now this with transparency.

It seems as if Windows absorbs the good things and gets 'free' development end research. So part of me says 'Yeah, go ahead and patent it Apple.' These type of improvements are what I consider the edge over Windows when usabilty is concerned.

The other part of me sees some things as natural evolution in computers and should be open. Much like 'single click' shopping...

With User Interfaces reaching a complexety close to application type status and large programming behind the scenes, when does the UI becomes so associated with the Trademark and name that it is something legit to patent? I don't have the answer but I am thinking we are close with the latests views of the operating systems.

What I strongly don't agree with is if there is 'Prior Art' but that company hasn't filed for a patent and this turns out to be a patent grab by Apple. I highly, highly dislike when small developers get pushed out simply because they can't afford the fees to challenge things in court.

Filip Norrgard
05-17-2004, 04:19 PM
OK, spank you very much Apple. :evil:
Patents in the software industry should be prohibited, just look how bad the world is already with SCO suing Linux users for nothing more than thin air. :roll:

I believe that there is prior art in this case, but this depends on when the patent application reached the patent office. There are nowadays lots of apps that fall under this patent, but stuff like changing the transparency of a window yourself shouldn't apply for this -- I hope. :?

As for who "borrows" ideas from whom, it's crazy. Microsoft has borrowed from Apple, and Apple from Microsoft. Remember "fast user switching" anyone? ;) Well, that relation is a love-hate relation. However, Microsoft and Apple aren't limited to borrowing ideas from eachother all the time -- no, even other businesses have seen that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"... :lol:

sundown
05-17-2004, 04:33 PM
This might be even more far reaching, couldn't it? What about Trillian and MSN Messenger and even Outlook that uses pop-up type translucent windows to say someone has logged on to IM or an email has arrived? That's a great feature!

Anyone have any more ideas for ridiculous patents so we can further stifle software innovation?

James Fee
05-17-2004, 05:03 PM
Let me first say, this is just plain stupid.

I don't fault Apple because all companies have to try and get patents, but with the U.S. patent office. Remember a couple years ago when British Telecom tried to enforce their patent for hyperlinks. :rolleyes:

Until the Patent office gets its act together, this kind of crap will continue to happen. Most of these patents aren't enforced, but I think they like to have them in case they have to sue someone.

Kent Pribbernow
05-17-2004, 05:19 PM
That is complete crap. Boo Apple, boo! :evil: What's next - are they going to patent smooth white surfaces? :roll:

Agreed. Normally I support Apple's struggle to protect its intellectual properties, but in this case they are simply trying to lay claim to something they didn't invent. And I believe they are doing this for one reason: to sabotage Longhorn, which is supposed to feature window transparency. Pretty sad to see Apple resort to such a shameless tactic. Come on, Apple. We expect innovation, not litigation. :roll:

dean_shan
05-17-2004, 06:07 PM
Wow, and people say that Microsoft is evil. It's not like Apple hasn't taken things from Windows. Just with their 10.3 upgrade they took some more things from Windows, Fast-User Switching, the Finder Side-Bar.

Felix Torres
05-17-2004, 06:16 PM
Not to argue with the above statements since I agree this is not a non-obvious development and hence not likely a valid patent, but...

MS and Apple have patent cross-licensing agreements.
So MS probably welcomes this.

Let Apple fight it out with the Linux hordes... :twisted:

Mojo Jojo
05-17-2004, 06:25 PM
Does Linux count as a horde yet? Or is it a mob or gang? :D

James Fee
05-17-2004, 06:45 PM
I'm not sure Apple is going to fight anyone over this. I think they just did it to make sure no one else would. Can you image if there was another Eolas (http://www.eolas.com/). It is in Apple's and Microsoft's best interest to gain as many of these patents as possible.

As I said, don't blame Apple, blame the companies that sue.

Mojo Jojo
05-17-2004, 06:49 PM
So I am reading this thread and I am curious... What is the cut off limit for you guys? Do you even have one or is the issue black and white and there should be none?

Where would you draw the line that says one thing is patentable and what is not in terms of User Interface?

Do patents only apply on physical things and not digital? How about applications skins, where you have a companies digital style / branding, are these things free to everyone? Does the size of the company effect your decisionwhere a small upstart is protecting their living?

I am curious what the response is as operating systems are ventureing further and further into the areas of branding and style with different look and feels. A shoe company could not make a shoe that is exactly like their competitors... but it is alright for software to do so?

Filip Norrgard
05-17-2004, 07:04 PM
I think that the idea and even possibility of patenting a user interface is ridiculous. As a software developer, it's stupid have one's creativity restricted by some patent preventing me from, say, putting buttons in a certain order.
It's my belief that software and user-interface patents shouldn't even be possible! :x

Oh, wait, does this mean the Linux source code can be patented? Well, then I hope the open-source community patents it fast before big bad lazy companies use it without permission! :twisted: (Just kiddin' y'all :D The OSC probably won't do that -- ever.)

Felix Torres
05-17-2004, 07:06 PM
So I am reading this thread and I am curious... What is the cut off limit for you guys?

Its not us.
Its the letter of the law.

Patents are supposed to be for new ideas (not new implementations of old ideas) and the ideas have to be non-obvious.

They are for methods and procedures, not designs per se.

Unfortunately, the Patent office has been getting swamped of late with software patents and they are not doing a very good job of exploring the context of the submissions they are approving.

The Eolas patent for example does within broswer the same in-situ activation that MS was doing with Ole 5 years earlier and Xerox was doing at Parc 20 years earlier.

Similarly, Windows users have been interacting with translucent and/or ghostly windows for years before the Mac did and other systems like SGI were doing it before MS. Of course, MS bought out the full suite of SGI 3d graphics patents, most of which are pretty fundamental so if it gets into the old "my portfolio vs your portfolio" routine its going to get messy.

Taking an idea from one environment to another should not be (and usually isn't) sufficient grounds for it to be considered an invention.

So if its not right for Eolas, it shouldn't be right for Apple either.
Whether its for the pod or the Mac.

Still, this stuff invariably ends up in court and usually the only winners are the $3000 an hour lawyers.

One thing to worry about; as a rule, companies only start resorting to trivial patents and litigation when they're at or near the end of their rope and looking for an exit stategy (witness Intergraph among others..).

If the best follow up to the Pod that Jobs can up with is a legal minefield, that suggests he doesn't have much else up his sleeve, doesn't it?

James Fee
05-17-2004, 07:16 PM
So if its not right for Eolas, it shouldn't be right for Apple either.
Right, so why can't Apple protect itself from Eolas? I see no proof that there is any expectation that Apple will defend the patent. As I've said, it is smart business practice to protect yourself from such suits and what easier way is there than to keep it from the Eolas' from the world. Apple has patents from many things that other OS' use, and they haven't enforced them, why do you assume they will on this? Hell Microsoft has just as many. *shrug*

Mojo Jojo
05-17-2004, 08:14 PM
Its not us.
Its the letter of the law.

I understand that. Mine is just a question for discussion, if you or one of this sites readers was in charge where would they draw the line. It is all just discussion just to gauge readers reaction.

On this topic, it isn't Apple trying to patent transparency but how that transparency behaves with an interaction to people. Which I think is valid. I think the variables envolved might be throwing people off.

Lets say I write an application gateway that stays in contact with multiple databases for a third party program. The code records the amount of traffic to and from the third party app and the databases then adjusts the pool size and 'pipe' size for the most effcient use of memory and transmissions. This dynamic adjustment increases the overall performance versus a hard numbered size where total connection divided by number of databases.

I write this code, people love it, and others start to mimic it. Is it legal for them to copy it and steal my code? Should I get compensated for my work?

Application Gateway = Code for Window Transparency
Multiple databases = Open Windows
Third party program = User
Traffic to and from = How often the window is used
pool size and 'pipe' size = Level of Transparency

See where I am going? Why is this any different from trying to protect a protocol for internet communication, or memory managment? If people were taking out of the equation and this was an interface for two applications how does that suddenly make it different?

James Fee
05-17-2004, 10:20 PM
On this topic, it isn't Apple trying to patent transparency but how that transparency behaves with an interaction to people. Which I think is valid. I think the variables envolved might be throwing people off.
You are quite right, its the topic of the thread that is throwing people off.
Methods and systems for providing graphical user interfaces are described. overlaid, Information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent. The translucency can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more translucent. In addition to visual translucency, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative translucent quality. Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window.
Its not so much the translucent windows, but what happens when users interact with them (or don't interact).