Apple Patent: Translucency

[MacRumors]

On November 5, 2003, Apple filed a patent for an interesting user interface technique entitled "Graduated visual and manipulative translucency for windows".

The interface is described as follows:

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.

Such a method would give active windows more visual importance on the user's screen, while unused windows would slowly fade into the background.

[AirUncleP]

I like. Would help students understand the active window concept.

[yoman]

I do hope they get this patent. I'm sick of Microsoft stealing every idea Apple has.

[qubex]

I hope they don't succeed in patenting it.

Prior art exists. For example, if you set Trillian to use transparency, and set the "always on top" option, you can manipulate objects beneath with ease.

The only innovation is the "fading" part, but on a moral basis that doesn't really qualify. Unfortunately, considering the generalised lack of common sense exhibited by the US Patents & Trademarks office, they'll probably approve it.

Incidentally, speaking of Microsoft "stealing every patent Apple has" conveniently ignores the fact that Apple's GUI (which they then proceeded to sue lots of companies over, including Microsoft) was, at the very least, "inspired" by research at Xerox PARC. If suing somebody for copying something you yourself have copied isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.

Not that I'm against patents. Far from it. But I'm fed up of stupid patents being used as weapons by and between companies, and against third-parties (that in some cases have already implemented the idea).

People here are inclined to always forgive Apple because they percieve Apple to be a "Good Company". Lets face it: Apple Inc. is a profit-orientated organisation and as such, deep down, their behaviour can be just as bad as anybody else's.

[Grimace]

Sounds like something for 10.4 - maybe 10.5

[mgargan1]

yea, i remember a version of AIM for windows that had that same feature...

[cspace]

i think the real question is should this sort of thing be patentable?

[qubex]

Originally Posted by cspace

i think the real question is should this sort of thing be patentable?

My answer is: "Most definitely not!" I say this as a computer programmer and a company manager - I do both.

Thank God Germany has decided not to sign the new convention on Intellectual Property and Patent Law the EU drafted. Hopefully we Europeans won't fall victim to Software/Biotech Patents and DMCA-type monstrosities after all.

[Squire]

This sounds cool. Now, would this work in conjunction with Expose or replace it altogether?

Originally Posted by qubex

...Apple's GUI...was, at the very least, "inspired" by research at Xerox PARC. If suing somebody for copying something you yourself have copied isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.

I thought Steve and his buddies got permission to use the stuff from PARC. (Please fill me in on the facts...really.) If not, why didn't Xerox sue? Or did they? Any Silicon Valley historians out there?

Squire

[jocknerd]

Don't be blinded by your love and devotion to Apple. Software patents are just flat out wrong. They stifle innovation. Just think if companies had been patenting software since the 1980's with the regularity they are doing now. We wouldn't be anywhere near the level of software development we are now. Microsoft and Apple are just taking advantage of the horribly outdated patent system and inadequate Patent Office we have in the United States. Meanwhile, the little developer, whether they are an open source developer, a shareware developer, or trying to sell a product themself, gets screwed. How can you fight Microsoft or Apple in court? They probably spend as much on lawyers as they do on R&D.

[leftbanke7]

Originally Posted by qubex

My answer is: "Most definitely not!" I say this as a computer programmer and a company manager - I do both.

Thank God Germany has decided not to sign the new convention on Intellectual Property and Patent Law the EU drafted. Hopefully we Europeans won't fall victim to Software/Biotech Patents and DMCA-type monstrosities after all.

If not, then we are going to run into computer programs that are identical. Innovation will cease and computing as we know it will become bland. It's because of patents that Apple has become the trailblazer in modern operating systems and Windows is following behind. If Apple patented nothing they did (or they were unable to do so due to legislation), Windows would just be a x86 version of OSX, assuming, of course, Apple even tried anymore to be innovative. More likely, due to budget issues, Apple would have crapped out a long time ago b/c they couldn't compete with Microsoft's deep pockets. It's innovation that keeps Apple from dying and if Apple can't protect its innovation, then why even try.

As for the small developer, they have as much right to patent their products as do the big boys. As costly as it may be, if I had a legitimate claim to my patent and Microsoft or Apple tried to throw lawyer after lawyer after me, I would still fight. In the end, I know I would win and then the big boys could pick up the tab on my court fees. People give up too easily anymore.

[Schroedinger]

Some of you folks don't seem to understand the purpose of a Patent. Patents aren't granted for world changing inventions only, they provide protection of intellectual property, even if that property is as simple as a refinement to an already existing product. If apple spent time and money developing this interface, and it is sufficiently different to be granted a Patent, then it deserves one.

The way some of you talk, the only patents that should exist should be the printing press and sliced bread.

[Kyle?]

Sounds interesting. And this is a relatively unique concept for its purpose. They're not patenting translucent windows. They're patenting an implementation. I think its a valid patent in that it describes a unique way of determining a window's hierarchy.

[qubex]

Originally Posted by Squire

This sounds cool. Now, would this work in conjunction with Expose or replace it altogether?

I think we're looking at Piles-in-the-making. (For those of you who aren't aware, "Piles" was the name of a rumoured 10.3 feature that would have reportedly allowed you to "stack documents".)

Originally Posted by Squire

I thought Steve and his buddies got permission to use the stuff from PARC. (Please fill me in on the facts...really.) If not, why didn't Xerox sue? Or did they? Any Silicon Valley historians out there?

Numerous renditions exist, depending on whom you ask. It is generally accepted that the interfaces for the Macintosh and Lisa were under development before initial contact between Apple and Xerox. Nonetheless, it is true that many PARC employees left Xerox and joined the Macintosh team - and apparently significantly affected its evolution. So while not outright copying, the situation was less than clear-cut and pleasant.

Of course, if you go searching on Google, you'll find opinions from all spectra, ranging from outright theft to alien computers recovered at Roswell. Make what you want of it.

[Veldek]

I didn’t read the patent, but doesn’t MS Office 2004 have this effect of palettes getting transparent when they’re not used? Is this something completely different?

[niall2]

But isn't this going to be first seen in Office 2004 for the Mac? How is this an Apple inovation if Microsoft is first to press with it?

[Wash!!]

Originally Posted by qubex

I hope they don't succeed in patenting it.

Prior art exists. For example, if you set Trillian to use transparency, and set the "always on top" option, you can manipulate objects beneath with ease.

The only innovation is the "fading" part, but on a moral basis that doesn't really qualify. Unfortunately, considering the generalised lack of common sense exhibited by the US Patents & Trademarks office, they'll probably approve it.

Incidentally, speaking of Microsoft "stealing every patent Apple has" conveniently ignores the fact that Apple's GUI (which they then proceeded to sue lots of companies over, including Microsoft) was, at the very least, "inspired" by research at Xerox PARC. If suing somebody for copying something you yourself have copied isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.

Not that I'm against patents. Far from it. But I'm fed up of stupid patents being used as weapons by and between companies, and against third-parties (that in some cases have already implemented the idea).

People here are inclined to always forgive Apple because they percieve Apple to be a "Good Company". Lets face it: Apple Inc. is a profit-orientated organisation and as such, deep down, their behaviour can be just as bad as anybody else's.

Xerox saw the concepts, prototypes they did not wanted any of then "We sell copiers we don't want a paperless office or people been able to print on their desk forget it" it was Xerox loss they wanted nothing to do with..

They had a "garage sale" on the concepts and prototypes Apple (Steve) happened to be there at the right time and saw the future of computers. they took the OS and make it what it is today.

[jocknerd]

"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 invisible. The invisibility can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more invisible. In addition to visual invisibility, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative invisible quality. Upon reaching a certain level of visual invisibility, 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."

I think my chances of getting this patented are pretty good. After all, the U.S. Patent Office pretty much green stamps everything. They leave it up to the courts to decide if a patent is valid or not.

[leftbanke7]

Originally Posted by niall2

But isn't this going to be first seen in Office 2004 for the Mac? How is this an Apple inovation if Microsoft is first to press with it?

Another part of filing for a patent is to see if one currently exists (ie: PATENT PENDING). If Microsoft (or some small developer) already has this, the patent office will tell Apple this and Apple will either buy rights to use it or just buy out the patent. It's not like as soon as the application is entered, the company gets the rights to it.

[davegoody]

Yep - this does look very similar (in concept at least) to one of the fundamental specifications of Prject Looking Glass (By Sun Microsystems) - this is ostensibly a 3D OS, but the translucency is a very big part of it - NOTHING is new under the sun (no pun intended) - M$ can copy Apple as much as it likes - when M$ produces an OS that is as stable, as good looking (and not just superficially) and can load from scratch from Power-up in 31 seconds as it does on my RevA 17" iMac then we need to start worrying - until then, relax and enjoy your Macintosh experience

[Kyle?]

Originally Posted by jocknerd

Don't be blinded by your love and devotion to Apple. Software patents are just flat out wrong. They stifle innovation. Just think if companies had been patenting software since the 1980's with the regularity they are doing now. We wouldn't be anywhere near the level of software development we are now. Microsoft and Apple are just taking advantage of the horribly outdated patent system and inadequate Patent Office we have in the United States. Meanwhile, the little developer, whether they are an open source developer, a shareware developer, or trying to sell a product themself, gets screwed. How can you fight Microsoft or Apple in court? They probably spend as much on lawyers as they do on R&D.

You know, it's fine to have a balanced view of things even though this is a mac-related board. However, this continual barrage accusing people on these boards of blinding bias is really worthless and quite often terribly misguided. People can have well thought out opinions of apple that are favorable of apple without being biased toward apple. Most here at times will disagree with apples decisions and being favorable toward them is not blindness. Its simply agreement. If you feel it necessary to start off on the wrong foot with the members of mr, then you might find a better use for your spare time than posting here.

[qubex]

Originally Posted by jocknerd

Don't be blinded by your love and devotion to Apple. Software patents are just flat out wrong. They stifle innovation. Just think if companies had been patenting software since the 1980's with the regularity they are doing now. We wouldn't be anywhere near the level of software development we are now. Microsoft and Apple are just taking advantage of the horribly outdated patent system and inadequate Patent Office we have in the United States. Meanwhile, the little developer, whether they are an open source developer, a shareware developer, or trying to sell a product themself, gets screwed. How can you fight Microsoft or Apple in court? They probably spend as much on lawyers as they do on R&D.

I'm waiting for someone to patent the Operating System. It's not funny.

[szark]

Upon reaching a certain level of visual invisibility, 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.

I wonder how you would select the window again? Just using the title bar?

[reaper]

The thing with patents is that if the invention is novel and non-obvious it will most likely get approved. Even if there is prior art that deals with a portion of the patent, only that piece will be stricken and the rest will go through.

I personally think this is a good thing for Apple. The GUI is one of the most defining characteristics of their OS and if they don't patent inventions like this bad things happen.

- reaper

[TranceMin]

I am also against software patenting. Although I would like it if apple had the edge for gain in the market share. Patenting software code stops innovation.

Remember when amazon tried to patent the cookie?