71–80 of 141 posts
knowing absolutely nothing about patent law, I'm surprised that tiling window managers are not considered prior art or would at least mean this idea is not novel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an obvious feature for just about any user, making it nonpatentable by the criteria of USPTO, as far as I understand it. This is also not novel, though it is very useful (for the other 2 criteria).
The problem with that in the USA is that you are burdened to prove that in court as a defendant, and you also have to pay your legal costs (lawyers etc.) even if you win the case . The costs are huge, so only the big guys have to afford defending themselves!
knowing absolutely nothing about patent law, I'm surprised that tiling window managers are not considered prior art or would at least mean this idea is not novel.
Read the patent. I'm not aware of any TWMs implementing the kind of grid interface Moom is using.
I once designed an app to later realize that I was infringing dozens of patents I never knew existed before. Go and read a dozen patents, then come back and tell me they're not obvious. Most of them are ridiculously obvious, assuming you have some understanding of their given field/domain.
[1]: http://www.dresan.com/blog/2011/04/05/i-dont-read-patents/ [2]: http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patent...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 informatio…
That's all well and good, but if you get sued you still have to pay quite a lot of money to a lawyer to prove you're right, and even if you win you're still stuck with the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 informatio…
That's all well and good, but if you get sued you still have to pay quite a lot of money to a lawyer to prove you're right, and even if you win you're still stuck with the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the patent. I'm not aware of any TWMs implementing the kind of grid interface Moom is using.
I did read the patent but I don't understand exactly what moom does. If a tiling window manager defines a set of inputs for defining grids and moving/resizing windows on that grid, where is the difference?
[1]: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=08434019&IDKey=...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Yes, and they have an incentive to pass as many patents as possible (because more patents is more money).
If anyone is looking for an alternative: I put together a grid based window manager without an UI some months ago. https://github.com/janten/keypad-layout
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being similar doesn't justify it as a patent. A core foundation of patents is that the invention be novel and non-obvious to a practitioner. If countless people independently -- without learning from the claims -- derive exactly the same "invention", it is an invalid patent. Of course then you have to actually get it invalidated, at great time and expense. It is completely a bullshit patent. The patent office got the…
My main beef with patents (from a layperson's perspective) is that due consideration isn't adequately given to the effort taken by the patent owner to provide some sort of value to society in general. What use is a novel invention if the patent owner does nothing with it. I would argue that Moom or other apps have provided more value to society at-large as compared to the patent owner.