Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

manytricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#21

Post by empressplay »

jakobegger wrote: post #19

I was about to complain loudly about bullshit patents, but then I took some time to read the actual patent (make sure to look at the images too!), and it turns out that this patent describes a method that is very similar to what Moom does (judging by screenshots). This is not a case of the overly broad patents that we usually complain about, this is a very precise patent.

Agreed. I read the patent before checking out what Moom was, and I'd say Moom is a pretty good implementation of the invention described in the patent. I think they might be stuck here.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#22

Post by geocar »

tyingq wrote: post #17
wereHamster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please go read the patent, it describes an "apparatus and method" that is much more advanced than traditional tiling window managers. The patent doesn't even compare to simple terminal based tiling of sub-shells. It also describes a GUI to control the positions, and describes in detail how it's supposed to work. There is a section "Description of the Related Art" in the patent which makes references to existing (at t…

>There is a section "Description of the Related Art" in the patent which makes references to existing (at that time, year 2008) approaches and why they are not good enough In that section, it mostly compares itself to Microsoft Windows' stacking (not tiling) window manager. There's no comparison to ANY of the already existing tiling window managers. It was filed on June 2nd, 2008. There were a ton of tiling oriented…

The patent doesn't appear to describe tiling window management, but the composition of a window layout using a number of menu options that integrate neatly with the existing environment's window controls, and that visually demonstrate their effect.

Indeed the patent describes a user interface to accomplish this that looks very similar to screenshots of Moom.

My experience with the USPTO is that statements like "I don't see anything in the patent that sounds novel to me" doesn't amuse them and they take this sort of thing seriously. Whether you agree with software patents or not, I think it's important to not be too dismissive of that fact.

[1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#forward-citatio...

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#23

Post by geocar »

mjw1007 wrote: post #13

The patent describes something very like Moom's "Grid" feature (I think the «select more than one selectable region» bit is the key restriction). So if the patent stands up, I suppose they'd have the option of just removing that feature.

Indeed they might: The first versions of Moom were released after the patent priority, but before it was published.

This is something they should discuss with their attorney.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#24

Post by phire »

wereHamster wrote: post #7
Plugawy wrote: post #3

Interesting, I guess there's so much prior work around* it should be easy to dismiss the patent. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiling_window_manager

Please go read the patent, it describes an "apparatus and method" that is much more advanced than traditional tiling window managers. The patent doesn't even compare to simple terminal based tiling of sub-shells. It also describes a GUI to control the positions, and describes in detail how it's supposed to work. There is a section "Description of the Related Art" in the patent which makes references to existing (at t…

And look at the images too, they help you visualize what the patent is about.

And the patent pretty much describes the mouse based interface which Moom implements, and I can't think of any prior art of that.

You should be able to find prior art and invalidate many clauses of the patent, like the general idea of grid based layouts, especially driven by keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures, but the general concept of a graphical drop-down menu for arranging windows will probably stay.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#25

Post by geocar »

amelius wrote: post #20

Software patents don't exist in Europe. So they can probably just add some small-print that says "please don't download this if you are outside of Europe". (IANAL)

They do exist in Europe, and indeed many companies patent things in Europe to take advantage of legislation like Patentbox.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#26

Post by asdfgadsfgasfdg »

geocar wrote: post #15
jeroenhd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! The first thing I thought of when I read the title of the patent was the tmux session I had opened in my terminal. Given how GNU/Unix Screen has been available for thirty years I doubt this patent will hold up in court.

> The first thing I thought of when I read the title of the patent was the tmux session I had opened Looking at these screenshots[1] and these diagrams[2] I can't possibly agree that this is what you're doing with tmux. [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20110309004337/https://manytricks... [2]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130219331A1/... > I doubt this patent will hold up in court. I don't think a j…

I agree this set up of window positioning is much less useful than actual tiling window managers.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#27

Post by amelius »

geocar wrote: post #25
amelius wrote: post #20

Software patents don't exist in Europe. So they can probably just add some small-print that says "please don't download this if you are outside of Europe". (IANAL)

They do exist in Europe, and indeed many companies patent things in Europe to take advantage of legislation like Patentbox.

Okay, I looked it up, and strictly speaking you are right, [1].

But, quoting:

"The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, in particular

1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

2. aesthetic creations;

3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

4. presentations of information."

I believe the patent in question falls under 4, 3 and perhaps 2.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#28

Post by psyc »

jakobegger wrote: post #19

I was about to complain loudly about bullshit patents, but then I took some time to read the actual patent (make sure to look at the images too!), and it turns out that this patent describes a method that is very similar to what Moom does (judging by screenshots). This is not a case of the overly broad patents that we usually complain about, this is a very precise patent.

Precise, and still obvious. So, still a bullshit patent.

Re: Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

#29

Post by asdfgadsfgasfdg »

geocar wrote: post #18
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please go read the patent, it describes an "apparatus and method" that is much more advanced than traditional tiling window managers. I read/skimmed the patent, I cannot find anything described which is obviously novel. Care to provide a quote of these particular features?

A judge is not going to skim the patent. They will patiently read each and every independent claim, and evaluate whether Moom implements any of them. In evaluating claims 1 and 2 (¶9) I imagine that a judge will get to this screenshot[1] and compare it to this diagram[2] and ask the authors of Moom for their justification. This justification can indeed be that it isn't novel, but I do not think the judge is likely to…

> because the patent examiner did indeed grant the patent.

I am not a patent lawyer but I don't think that how it works. The patent examiner is not qualified to do and does not do an exhaustive check for novelness. They mainly do a procedural check.

Post reply on HN