IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

From what I remember, there were two "Enter/Return" keys on IBM 3270 terminals. One was the regular "Return" key we have today, which just advanced to the next field, and didn't submit the form. There was also another "Enter" key where the Right Ctrl key is today, and that submitted the form. So, I presume, instead of being against Tab key, IBM might be against "Return" to be the form submit key as people who use 3270 would expect it to advance to the next field.

And that was true for many DOS programs. Pressing Return would just go to the next field, not submit the form. That was one of the things that needed some getting used to on Windows.

Shift Ctrl F6

> I would guess that using the tab key in this way was part of a patent they were pursuing and Microsoft's use would show this to be 'obvious' and thus not patentable.

Something that's bothered me about user-facing patents:

Let's assume that the idea of using a keyboard key to move between input fields in a software form is not obvious, and in fact is a brilliant stroke of genius the likes of which the world is not likely to see again. If that one guy hadn't been born, we would have gone thousands of years with no method, keyboard-based, mouse-based, or otherwise, of moving from one input field to another input field. Every piece of software would use nonconfigurable timers, and you'd just have to hope you could type fast enough.

I don't see what the hypothetical benefit of extending patent protection to this brilliant idea is supposed to be.

Say you're the company who comes up with the idea. You can benefit by including it in your product, where all your users can see it. In other words, the benefit you get from coming up with this idea is that you can publish it for the world to see, and that's the only way you can benefit from it. A usability feature that your users cannot use or know about doesn't increase usability.

Even though the idea isn't obvious, the implementation is. If you disclose your brilliant idea, everyone will copy it and your advantage in the marketplace will be transitory.

So... what is the purpose of giving you a patent? That cripples the marketplace, but it fails to realize the benefit of patents, publication. Publication necessarily had to happen anyway.

I have such a long history of thinking of Microsoft as the Big Bad in tech, that it's funny to think of them as the young upstart that's just coming into their own and standing up to the big guys for the first time. If it was early enough for folks to be arguing about what keys to use for functions, it must have been 1985, which means Microsoft was just coming to the end of their time needing to satisfy IBM in order to survive/thrive.

They still depended on IBM to some degree. If IBM stopped shipping Microsoft products on their PCs, it would hurt Microsoft quite a lot. But, clones had just begun to break out. Compaq and a few dozen other clone makers were exploding in popularity. I imagine Gates must have seen their orders from clone makers growing exponentially, and much faster than sales to IBM, and realized they didn't really have to kowtow to IBM, anymore.

A real shame about OS/2, though.

To me that sounds like the way MacOS avoids Home/End with alternative solutions that kinda work but are not great

(And yes I do miss those - with an external keyboard these get less painful but still don't work 100% like on a PC)