billingsley@sketch.DEC (Pat MLO11-3/L12 223-5652) (10/15/85)
I've recently read about Apple's successful attempt to prohibit DRI from selling the GEM product because the GEM user interface incorporates certain patented features of the Macintosh user interface. However, none of the articles I've seen have included much detail about exactly which features Apple has patented. Does anyone know more specifics? --Pat Billingsley
mark@tove.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (10/17/85)
In article <851@decwrl.UUCP> billingsley@sketch.DEC (Pat MLO11-3/L12 223-5652) writes: >I've recently read about Apple's successful attempt to prohibit DRI >from selling the GEM product because the GEM user interface incorporates >certain patented features of the Macintosh user interface. However, >none of the articles I've seen have included much detail about exactly >which features Apple has patented. Does anyone know more specifics? > >--Pat Billingsley The articles I've seen I'm sure mentioned copyright, not patent. -mark -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland Phone: +1-301-454-7817 CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
mazlack@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Lawrence J. &) (10/17/85)
>>which features Apple has patented. Does anyone know more specifics? >> >>--Pat Billingsley > >The articles I've seen I'm sure mentioned copyright, not patent. > -mark Even if someone had mentioned patents, I rather doubt that this could be the case. I believe that only one or two programs have ever been successfully patented. The reason being that patents only apply to physical devices. Whereas a program is an algorithm or an idea and as such is not patentable. The counter-argument to this (an it is a legal looser) is that a program constructs a new, virtual machine and it is this virtual machine which is then patentable. You cannot patent an idea. If you could, discovers of new laws of nature could then patent the law and prevent others from using it. ...Larry Mazlack
perlman@wanginst.UUCP (Gary Perlman) (10/19/85)
An announcement on the Computer Chronicles (a PBS weekly video magazine), said that the Gem makers had agreed to chnage their user interface to avoid COPYRIGHT infringments on Apple's icons and pull-down menus. Copyright law is very different from patent law, at least in the area of ideas. I had heard rumors about Apple PATENTS, but never in any publications. I have heard many stories about increased patenting of software, but I have not seen the patents. -- Gary Perlman Wang Institute Tyngsboro, MA 01879 (617) 649-9731 UUCP: decvax!wanginst!perlman CSNET: perlman@wanginst
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/20/85)
Baloney! I hope no one took seriously the assertion that you can only
patent physical devices. In fact, one of the things mentioned in patent law
as patentable is "an art". You can patent manufacturing processes that
could run on a variety of unoriginal hardware, and other such "ethereal"
inventions. There is no reason why you could not patent a new approach to
the programming problem of interfacing with the user, just as you could
patent a new approach to factory control.
I wish people who have never studied an issue would refrain from spreading
misinformation on it.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/20/85)
> >>which features Apple has patented. Does anyone know more specifics?
There are only two software patents I know of. Apple has one: they have a
patent on their menu bar system, which is why GEM menus seem so klunky.
They don't use the same method of selecting them.
The other one I know of is AT&T's patent on the set-uid bit.jpm@calmasd.UUCP (John McNally) (10/21/85)
> Even if someone had mentioned patents, I rather doubt that this could be the > case. I believe that only one or two programs have ever been successfully > patented. The reason being that patents only apply to physical devices. > Whereas a program is an algorithm or an idea and as such is not patentable. > The counter-argument to this (an it is a legal looser) is that a program > constructs a new, virtual machine and it is this virtual machine which is > then patentable. > > You cannot patent an idea. If you could, discovers of new laws of nature could > then patent the law and prevent others from using it. > ...Larry Mazlack I too, had the same opinion on patents until I checked into it a little further. The situation is just not as simple as " its got to be a physical device" or "you cannot patent an idea." As I understand it, Apple has a patent on the pull-down menu concept. For intersting discussions, cross-reference to net.graphics and net.crypt: 1. In net.graphics there has been a recent discussion of a patent (with its number and description) on the use of exclusive-or for drawing cursors and rubber-band lines! The holder of the patent gets money by making it more attractive to "infringers" to pay a license than to go to court. 2. In net.crypt there has been a recent discussion of a patent for the RSA public-key cryptosystem. This patent is based upon the use of the intractability of prime factoring in a novel way - to produce an encryption/decryption key! MIT holds the patent and has licensed it to RSA Cryptosystems. In neither case is software itself involved (apparently). In each case it is an idea that has been patented. I am not a patent lawyer (and as far as I can tell, neither is anyone on the net that has responded to these various discussions). The field of patent law has become very complex since the days when a physical model was required with a patent application. Laymen are not qualified to decide what is patentable and what is not, anymore than laymen are qualified to determine the legalities of other civil suits. The viability of a patent is dependent upon all kinds of non-technical factors like precedents, how much money you have to go to court, and how good your patent law staff is. I think this is unfortunate, but not suprising in a country where litigation is a way of life. I offer the following posting (by Sandy Ressler, NBS, from net.graphics) as a good summary: ____________________________________________________________________ As I understand the patent process, partly from a patent attorney friend of mine: The real trick in getting a patent is to have your claims extend the prior art but not duplicate some previous patent. The novelty or usefullness of the idea is pretty subjective. A good patent lawyer will write the patent in a way which claims something which is not quite present in the previous patents. Also getting a patent is the start of a process whereby you the inventor would have a basis for a court case against some infringer. It is the court case which would determine the real value of the patent. Many patents are issued and then defeated in court. It is up to the patent holder to pursue alleded infringers, otherwise the patent is simply a piece of paper which says that some patent examiner thinks this idea/process/thing should get a patent. __________________________________________________________________ -- John McNally GE/Calma 11080 Roselle St. San Diego CA 92121 ...{ucbvax | decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jpm (619)-458-3230
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (10/22/85)
> I've recently read about Apple's successful attempt to prohibit DRI > from selling the GEM product because the GEM user interface incorporates > certain patented features of the Macintosh user interface. However, > none of the articles I've seen have included much detail about exactly > which features Apple has patented. Does anyone know more specifics? Apple holds a patent (#4,464,652) awarded Aug. 7, 1984, entitled "Cursor Control Device for use with Display Systems". In other words, they hold a patent on the famous Lisa single-button mouse. Hard to believe. My guess is they hold patents of equally-dubious strength on other Mac features which, taken as a whole, are probably sufficient to intimidate a competitor. I'm begining to wonder if perhaps there is an abuse of patent here.