Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 15th May 2004 08:23 UTC
It is when I read articles like this that I have "my blood all going up to my head" (that's a Greek saying for people that get angry). So apparently, Apple is trying to patent "transparent windows that do a certain action after fading away". While I don't personally find this "innovation/invention" patentable, it's fine with me: Apple is doing the best it can to secure its business (maybe I would do the same if I had shareholders on my back).
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Granting the patent on mp3 was also a case of ignoring prior art. The mp3 conversion relise on a number of mathematical constructs, such a psycho-acoustics, which are genuine innovations, but the underlying compression relies on formuals based on Fourier transforms or Discrete cosines, which were developed by mathemeticians and implemented in Oil and Gas exploration.
I am all for levels of copyright on software or data formats, but patents have no place in the software industry.
Apples patent application applies to transparency on a window that increases as the duration of non use in that window increases. If you don't use the window, it slowly fades away. Not a bad idea, and I congradulate the developer who thought of it.
Is it patentable - I personally say no.
Is it copyrightable - that may be debatable. This is an obvious implementation where single screen desktops with multiple windows displayed are concerned.
Specific implementations of ideas are copyrightable, the idea itself should not be, as that stifles innovation, and makes progress dificult, if not impossible.