---Micro$oft Wins 'Tabbed Browsing' Patent---

  • Thread starter Thread starter skfghfjh
  • Start date Start date
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:55:38 +1000, in Newsgroup--> alt.comp.freeware, the
personage of Sylvia Else <[email protected]>, courtesy of Message-id
Finally, Microsoft can substantiate its claim to being an innovator!

Probably only a defence patent anyway - to stop anyone else patenting it
and trying to sue M$.

Sylvia.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this will mean an end of the U.S. Patent Office being taken
seriously, overseas. If this has not already happened.
What a bunch of DOLTS!
 
I'm trying to think back that far.... but I'm fairly certain that Mosaic and
Netscape both tabbed through links before IE was even invented. I'm about
99% sure that Linx has always done it. I don't think it will hold up.

--
-Mike
The Shareware Junction Network

***********************************************************
The Shareware Author's Vault: Big corporate treatment for shareware authors.
SharewareAuthor.com allows independent software authors and producers to
band together to negotiate discounts and deals on products, services,
software submission and advertising that we wouldn't normally get
individually.
Membership is free - sign up at http://www.sharewareauthor.com/thevault
***********************************************************
 
Sylvia said:
skfghfjh wrote:
Click to expand...
Finally, Microsoft can substantiate its claim to being an innovator!
Click to expand...

If patenting shit that's been around for years is innovation, then their
*other* very recent patent for the *doubleclick* showed "innovation".
 
That is rediculous. How can they patent something as simple as that.

I don't think patents should be allowed after the invention has started
being used by others. You should patent it and then release it to the
world.

I'm going to patent puting one foot in front of the other and call it
"walking".
Just as a defence of course in case they try to sue me for it later ;-)
 
Andrew said:
That is rediculous. How can they patent something as simple as that.

I don't think patents should be allowed after the invention has started
being used by others. You should patent it and then release it to the
world.
Click to expand...

It isn't, but this patent was filed in 1997.

Still, the real problem is that the Patent Office persists it granting
patents on things that are blindingly obvious, simply because the
language used tends to make them seem less so.

Somewhere in there, there's supposedly a patent on an ordinary garden
swing, obtained by a Pattent Attorney (rich, presumably) as an
instructional exercise for his son.

Sylvia.
 
It isn't, but this patent was filed in 1997.

Still, the real problem is that the Patent Office persists it granting
patents on things that are blindingly obvious, simply because the
language used tends to make them seem less so.
Click to expand...

I really doubt this would hold up in court, as I believe Mosiac did
tabbing, and I'm positive that Lynx did tabbing before 1997 also.
 
There are many software based patents that would not stand up to any
objective test.
 
Howard said:
There are many software based patents that would not stand up to any
objective test.
Click to expand...

It is to wonder why they bother doing it. I guess it's to make others
avoid using a feature out of fear that they'll get sued in the future.
This would make competing software that backs down operate at a
disadvantage. The trick probably works too, especially after the
trashy Caldera-Linux lawsuit putting everybody on edge.

And we move one step closer to total anarchy.
 
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3406551

Ridiculous!
Click to expand...
Is that like the situation in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
where the HHGG was sued for copying the back of a breakfast cereal
box, they went back in time, copyrighted it, and then sued the
breakfast cereal company for violating their copyright?

(By the way, BBCR4 is going to bring out a new HHGG series next week
and it will be available in RealAudio, both at broadcast time and on
demand. I believe KCRW.ORG near Los Angeles still has all the old
series on demand.)
 
John Corliss said:
It is to wonder why they bother doing it. I guess it's to make others
avoid using a feature out of fear that they'll get sued in the future.
This would make competing software that backs down operate at a
disadvantage. The trick probably works too, especially after the trashy
Caldera-Linux lawsuit putting everybody on edge.

And we move one step closer to total anarchy.
Click to expand...
more likely to prevent a small company that holds the patent to use them. I
don't think you've heard of the EOLAS patent case, basically they sued
microsoft for half a billion dollars for something simple as downloading and
executing a control from a webpage (yes that was the patent). And they won.
Microsoft is appealing right now but ever since that time they've been on a
patent shopping spree patenting every little thing they can find.

The patent problem isn't a microsoft problem, it is the patent office
granting stupid patents and causing all sorts of trouble
 
Snipped some

more likely to prevent a small company that holds the patent to use
them. I don't think you've heard of the EOLAS patent case, basically
they sued microsoft for half a billion dollars for something simple as
downloading and executing a control from a webpage (yes that was the
patent). And they won. Microsoft is appealing right now but ever since
that time they've been on a patent shopping spree patenting every
little thing they can find.
Click to expand...

There's an article about the EOLAS-case here:

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+ordered+to+pay+$521+million/2100-1012_3-
5062409.html?tag=st.rn

The same link made tiny:

http://tinyurl.com/4a8ff
 
That is rediculous. How can they patent something as simple as that.

I don't think patents should be allowed after the invention has started
being used by others. You should patent it and then release it to the
world.

I'm going to patent puting one foot in front of the other and call it
"walking".
Just as a defence of course in case they try to sue me for it later ;-)
Click to expand...

Too late. I just patented putting one foot on the ground (I called it
"standing on one leg") [grin]

Yours is obviously a derivative work.

--
Ed Guy P.Eng,CDP,MIEE
Information Technology Consultant
http://www.guysoftware.com
"Check out HELLLP!, WinHelp author tool for WinWord 2.0 through 8.0,
PlanBee Project Management Planning System
and ParseRat, the File Parser, Converter and Reorganizer"
 
Even if a patent is unenforcable, that wouldn't keep them from using it. By
targeting small- to medium-sized companies with enough money to settle, but
not enough money to fight, MS could reap the rewards by collecting royalties
without having their patent challenged in a court of law. That's how these
things usually play out. :-\

--
-Mike
The Shareware Junction Network

***********************************************************
The Shareware Author's Vault: Big corporate treatment for shareware authors.
SharewareAuthor.com allows independent software authors and producers to
band together to negotiate discounts and deals on products, services,
software submission and advertising that we wouldn't normally get
individually.
Membership is free - sign up at http://www.sharewareauthor.com/thevault
***********************************************************
 
Ed Guy said:
That is rediculous. How can they patent something as simple as that.

I don't think patents should be allowed after the invention has started
being used by others. You should patent it and then release it to the
world.

I'm going to patent puting one foot in front of the other and call it
"walking".
Just as a defence of course in case they try to sue me for it later ;-)
Click to expand...

Too late. I just patented putting one foot on the ground (I called it
"standing on one leg") [grin]

Yours is obviously a derivative work.
Click to expand...

Ouch, then I am about to violate your patent.
In less than two hours I am scheduled to have oral surgery.
I expect hat a side-effect will be to remove my foot from my mouth, so I'll
then be able to say "I have a leg to stand on".
Would that not violate your patent?
 
Jim Berwick said:
I really doubt this would hold up in court, as I believe Mosiac did
tabbing, and I'm positive that Lynx did tabbing before 1997 also.
Click to expand...

Only if you omit the fact that Microsoft bought the Mosaic technology
and based IE v1 on it. So maybe they are basing their patent on that?

Anyway who the f**k cares?

---
Boris Yankov
http://www.virtuoza.com
ICQ: 43217569
Blog: http://www.borisyankov.blogspot.com

Smart ToDo - a new breed of organizer.
InControl - a startup manager for the masses.
The Time Master - the ultimate time management.
 
It isn't, but this patent was filed in 1997.
Click to expand...

And APL+/PC's help system allowed you to tab through links and hit
enter to follow one back in the 1980's.
Still, the real problem is that the Patent Office persists it granting
patents on things that are blindingly obvious, simply because the
language used tends to make them seem less so.
Click to expand...

Not only blindingly obvious, but with a decade or more of prior art.

Seth
 
I'm going to patent puting one foot in front of the other and call it
"walking".
Just as a defence of course in case they try to sue me for it later ;-)
Click to expand...

Your example is spot on. This ridiculous patent escalation must stop, along
with all the frivolous lawsuits.

-- Bob
 
Only if you omit the fact that Microsoft bought the Mosaic technology
and based IE v1 on it. So maybe they are basing their patent on that?

Anyway who the f**k cares?
Click to expand...

Anybody with sense.

This means that producers of other internet browsers now have to find
the money to either pay M$ licensing fees, or to fight them in court.

Either of which means they aren't spending as much on development and
support as they could be, which costs everybody using browsers other
than IE, in the long run.
 
Back
Top