Apple Patent: Translucency

[whooleytoo]

More fundamentally, I think the notion of fundamental aspects of the UI changing over time without user input runs contrary to most good UI principles, and user expectations. Things shouldn't change their functionality unless the user specifies they should.

I think there are certain (limited) exceptions, when time-outs are acceptable - or even desireable. Menus closing if the user doesn't select anything for a long period of time, for instance.

If - as someone previously has speculated - this patent applies to windows such as the volume/brightness translucent windows, then it's better for these controls to "auto fade away", than require user input to dismiss them.

 

[ingenious]

Personally speaking, I think that's nice but nothing that special. To me, it's just a cosmetic thing to make the new OS more attractive. But, well, it's cool anyway.

But, if you want to see a truly innovative GUI, take a look at this:

http://wwws.sun.com/software/looking_glass/details.html

Rodrigo Otavio Paes de Barros Otaviano

I personally think that project looking glass is ugly. Unfortunately, I think that M$ has done a better job with their style of expose' than Sun has, but apple beats them all. I do like the way M$ has the windows at that angle, but its not very intuitive and kinda cumbersome. I liked that piles pic on that .Mac homepage as well.


I am starting to agree that software patents are a bad idea. They do seem to discourage competition at first. So maybe a better idea would to not patent the general idea, but the way that idea works. i.e. the differences between M$'s and Apple's FUS. I personally like Apples much better. I dont have to click *start* to switch users (which i dont do on my PC ne more cuz it didnt work very well.... too much overlapping. Apple is soo much better with this feature.)

 

[gorkonapple]

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.

I am with ya! There's nothing patentable here. This is NOT a innovation worthy of being patented. In fact, I BET that there's probably already prior art on this in the open and closed source community.

 

[qubex]

cookies are files stored on a local machine containing information pertaining to infomation entered into a website. Local machine is the key idea of the patent. A seperate patent would need to be filed to own variables passed through a server.

You and I understand cookies and SIDs. I happen to consider them more alike than you do, but that is an academic argument. What I'm trying to argue is this: through the eyes of nontechnically trained legal professionals - lawyers, and more crucially, judges - it is likely that the fine distinction of cookies existing on a local machine's hard drive and SID's existing in a local machines main memory while it browses the site (because indeed they do reside in local memory) would most likely be lost. Or if it wasn't lost, then certainly some lawyer would gloss it over to his or her client's advantage.

And you main argument -- patents restrict innovation. Why should we have patents for anything then? No one would develop software if they knew anyone could freely copy it. companies would stop developing processors if they knew that the competition could blatently copy it.

I have a patent myself ironically, but not software-related (it deals with mechanical gyroscopes). I most certainly do not oppose patents. However, as I said earlier on, I oppose stupid patents, roughly defined as patents that do not incorporate significant innovation and are most likely to end up being used in an offensive capacity to claim ownership of blatantly obvious concepts already incorporated into a plethora of devices. For a stupid example: If Pratt&Whitney wish to patent a "jet engine", that's fine. However, if Pratt&Whitney attempt to patent "spinning or rotating components within a cylindircal object", that is not ok. Why? Because it incorporates jet engines, sure enough - but it also covers computer-case fans, food mixers, certain kinds of computer media, etc. etc. etc. You get the idea.

Incidentally, software is already covered (and, I may add, in a far more sensible capacity) by copyright law. Giving software a double-prongued protection under both legal mechanisms isn't only redundant, wasteful, cumbersome and potentially harmful, it's also damned unethical. Why does software deserve to be covered by a patent, when I can't patent a novel? And yet, they're both text, aren't they? Aren't they both the inovative outcome of a creative process, and don't they both enshrine a fundamental "functional" element? (Reductio ad absurdum.)

All I am saying is that patents are very powerful indeed, because they basically grant a temporary monopoly to their holder. These things shouldn't be handed out helter-skelter.

But then again, I can't really fault Apple for applying for the patent. What really annoys me is that the Patent Office is stupid enough to grant it to them, and that they applied fully aware in the knowledge that pretty much anything they try to patent will be granted. That's the real problem here.

 

[gorkonapple]

Another thing to remember, and some have made this point indirectly, is that patents merely establish ownership. For example, many poo pooed Amazon's patent on one-click online checkouts. Apple, however, decided that this technology was worth paying for and now pays royalties to Amazon to use the technology.

If people want others to pay for R&D so they can use the results for free, this doesn't bode well for innovation either. Why invest the money to come up with new innovations when someone is just going to rip it off and use it for free?

Let me explain something to you. Let's say we have two websites. Both have the same feature in mind and both are developing it. One uses PHP for the site and another uses say ASP. To the web user, the feature is the same and works the same but they were both developed at the same time. One company decides to write a vague patent that would make the other website a violation. How is this fair? WHat you are saying is that you can establish ownership on IDEAS! Patents work pretty decently on something's. An example on soemthing that it works well on is CPU's. This is like trying to sue for plagarism on someone else who wrote instructions on how to wipe your butt. It just does not work!

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

A patent has two purposes-- to protect innovation and to instruct the public. By disclosing an invention, others can learn the mechanics of it and build upon it. By barring others from making unlicensed use of the invention for a period of time they encourage innovation over waiting and mimicking.

By forcing lateral thinking to avoid existing patents it encourages new ideas into the marketplace. Look at Canon. It was generally deemed impossible to create a photocopier without tripping a Xerox patent, but Canon set out to do it and succeeded. Along with their accomplishments came new techniques that pushed the state of the art forward.

Alternatives exist, of course. IBM issues several volumes each year of innovations they've chosen not to patent so that others can't patent them later and sue IBM. This is yet another example of how the patent laws can encourage the spread of innovation.

Much more practically, we live in a world where patents are important to business. To suggest Apple just unilaterally stop patenting things, and to disparage the company for protecting themselves, is to suggest that Apple simply cease to compete.

Yes, there are cases where the little guy gets hammered by possibly invalid patent threats from a bigger competitor. But there are also times when the little guy survives because a larger player can't just feed off of their innovation. If the little guy is, in fact, trying to produce something that unlawfully incorporates the R&D from another company they still have no right to produce it.

There are certainly improvements that can be made in the US patent system, such as a more comprehensive review of applications by the USPTO or maybe adjusting the enforcement period as the rate of innovation accelerates.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being blinded by devotion to Apple and starting a post with such rubbish tends to signal that meaningless flame baiting is to follow...

 

[jcshas]

My first thought was that this has a striking similarity to Expose. The obvious difference between the two is that the Expose function is invoked by the user where as this does something similar to that, but seemingly on its own. Either way, this sounds way cool!

 

[dizastor]

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

I'm really glad that there is no patent on sliced bread... imagine how expensive it would be if only one company was making it?

 

[Analog Kid]

This actually sounds like what I'd been asking them to do with Clock.app... The clock is nice, but I can't find a place to put it where it won't get in the way of something else I want to click. Making it transparent helps me to see behind it, but it almost always covers a control I want to access or text I want to select.

I can see using a technique where I could drag the clock into position and then once I've settled on a location I could click through it. If I wanted to move it again, I'd hit the Dock icon or something to reactivate it.

Not something you'd want to do with every window, I don't think, but useful in certain circumstances...

Kinda hard to tell from the little bit of text though...

 

[wdlove]

If Apple spent the time & money on R&D then they should get a patent. We need to protect ourselves from Microsoft.

 

[whooleytoo]

By forcing lateral thinking to avoid existing patents it encourages new ideas into the marketplace. Look at Canon. It was generally deemed impossible to create a photocopier without tripping a Xerox patent, but Canon set out to do it and succeeded. Along with their accomplishments came new techniques that pushed the state of the art forward.

Wow.. just imagine if they hadn't wasted months "reinventing the wheel", and had instead spent that time improving the Xerox method?

How can spending months trying to duplicate another company's product's functionality and circumventing a patent, be considered innovation?

 

[Diatribe]

This has been on MacNN.com for about 2 days...

http://www.macnn.com/news/24708

Can't you get news any faster?

MrToast

You just need to look all over this site. Some news take a while to get from the subforums to the news page.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/71938/

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Software patenting is just plain wrong. Of course companies should get protection when innovating, but this should be done with ordinary copyright legislation (or similar protection of interlectual work). This would protect ANYONE who creates an innovating piece of software, and not just those who can pay the stiff fees that a worldwide patent will cost you. Patents should be reserves for inventions, NOT innovating...

 

[cubist]

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. ...

And you don't understand it either. The patent's purpose is to allow people to DISCLOSE and LICENSE the invention, not to use it exclusively themselves - the latter is an abuse of the system.

Software patents are in direct contradiction of the original patent law which said that "mathematical formulae" could not be patented.

Further, there is a huge amount of prior art. I haven't heard of a patent granted in the last ten years that I thought was truly innovative. Why, some bozos have just gotten a patent for putting fake songs on P2P networks under false names! What gross idiocy and stupidity on the PTO's part.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

By the way, take a look at the not quite historical correct, but still pretty close history of Apple and Microsoft in the early days: Pirates of Silicon Valley. This is the film mentioned in the article on wos.org that someone referred to earlier.

 

[chuckiej]

Patents and OT: Cookies

Patents are a necessary part of innovation. IF you have no chance of getting something for your work, why bother??

Can you be "logged in" to a webpage without the use of cookies? No. Absolutely not.

You can pass the person's login info around your site with the querystring. Inefficient, yes. Doable, yes again.



Edit: sorry, didn't realize Sketchy covered this.

 

[baby duck monge]

Why, some bozos have just gotten a patent for putting fake songs on P2P networks under false names! What gross idiocy and stupidity on the PTO's part.

actually, that could be a really good thing. the RIAA has been doing things like that, so this could be a way to stop them from harassing poor, innocent file sharers

if the RIAA wanted to continue, they would have to pay. extorting the company that is extorting you... EXCELLENT

 

[makkystyle]

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...

Just to clear things up a bit, patents are GOOD. They are what promote invention and innovation. Anyone who has taken Econ 101 knows that the free market economy is driven by invention and innovation. These create competitive advantage i.e. a reason to purchase an Apple product over some competitor's. Without Patents it would be nearly impossible to sustain competitive advantage because everyone could just copy the product that someone else created. This would make invention and innovation redundant and cause the collapse of the market i.e. all of you programmers, engineers and developers would have no company that would want to pay you for your work because your work does not create any added value to the organisation. Anyone out there who wants to try a Socialist economy is certainly welcome to do so, but the track record of others does not bode well for your future.

On another note, I have been waiting for click through transluscent windows so that my desktop clock doesn't block the scroll arrows of my windows anymore.

 

[Windowlicker]

this is one of the things i've bee waiting for.. i love translucensy. for example I really like the way I can make the Adium contact list transparent so that I only see the names floating on my desktop.

 

[savar]

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?

No offense or anything, but this is a completely stupid and uneconomical argument. (And I'm not singling you out, a number of people are saying this...)

Ask yourself: if you had a brilliant idea but you know as soon as it was out of your mouth all your hard work implementing it would be stolen and mass produced by a corporate giant, would you bother implementing it at all?

No.

What if you could protect your intellectual property so that when the big corporate giant came along it had to pay you money to use your idea?

Well that's what Apple's doing. Everybody comes here and talks about Xerox PARC, the truth is few people know exactly what happened and throwing that in everybody's face everytime they cheer on Apple versus Microsoft is a dated cliche.

I would love to have just *one* really cool feature of OS X that MicroSoft doesn't steal so that when my non-technical friends ask what makes macs better, I can say.."hey watch this"

 

[Roller]

Sounds like something for 10.4 - maybe 10.5

I can see a tie-in between this feature and the code name of the OS X release that includes it... Cheshire Cat.

 

[elo]

I'm strongly in favor of software patents and hope this trend continues throughout the industry. Patents are a way that a company can make a claim to an invention. They aren't the last word (as some people seem to think), but they do provide helpful legal documentation of a company's claim. They also don't prevent others from innovating, even where the innovations are inspired by a patented aspect of someone else's software.

The intent is to protect ideas, while avoiding litigation. Should litigation be required, however (either offensively in the case of someone stealing a patented idea or defensively if Apple is sued by someone else who alleges the idea is theirs), then the existence of patents is helpful in making a case and reduces costs.

It does occasionally happen that a patent is granted where it shouldn't be (although the patent office does a pretty good amount of research), but these can be challenged where necessary. Companies should try to get them though, if for no other reason to protect themselves from those who would unscrupolously take their ideas for themselves.

elo

 

[qubex]

Ludicrous patents such as this one are not the only way to avoid litigation and thus allow defensive use of one's Intellectual Property.

As was mentioned, IBM issues several volumes of "developed" but unpatented technology every year, to avoid future litigation.

So generally, summing it all up: this patent sounds absurd, encumbered by Prior Art, and gratuitous. Let us all hope it is defeated. For the good of everybody.

 

[savar]

I'm really glad that there is no patent on sliced bread... imagine how expensive it would be if only one company was making it?

Argg...If there was a patent on sliced bread:
1) It would have expired a long, long time ago.
2) Even when it was pertinent, there's no way that only one company would have produced bread...patents are a way of protecting intellectual property, not keeping out of everybody's hands. If I had the patent on sliced bread, I wouldn't even make sliced bread, I'd just collect royalties from all the companies who know how to make bread.

Maybe this sounds like two trivial arguments, but they elucidate two key points of patents that nobody seems to be considering here.

 

[ingenious]

I'm really glad that there is no patent on sliced bread... imagine how expensive it would be if only one company was making it?

it'd be as expensive as milk! or gas for that matter.