"An interesting patent application recently filed by Microsoft may offer a glimpse at the future of the Windows interface. The patent describes a 'method for managing windows in a display' that seems to describe a method of task switching that is neither Taskbar nor Expose, but something in between." It reminds me of a feature called 'iconify', where you can minimise windows into an icon on the desktop (as CDE has, for instance), a feature I miss in most modern desktop environments.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-12
"Listen. If they have the patent, it's a HUGE argument point in a court battle. That's the reality of the broken system. Prior art almost becomes irrelevant unless it's Microsoft suing someone else."
I understand there is no justice. I understand that even the very idea of patents is flawed, and there implementation is too.
But the thing I don't understand is why any capitalist country would want to legitimize a monopoly. I was merely pointing out how even an unsuccessful patent claim by Microsoft, would still benefit Microsoft.
If we want to talk about patents *if* the idea was a *legitimate* one, and your arguing simply by patenting it, it is. We see a possible good feature essentially a smaller version of the *actual* application showing only the critical parts. It limits several things, extensions on these patents; how you interact with these views, but then I'm unclear as to how an extension of an idea can be patented or how this affects applications that take advantage of these ideas.
More importantly in a world where we see interoperability and cross-platform becoming the norm, not the exception. This feature which is tied to a platform through patents, even though the application is what is actually implementing it, but then I'm unclear how a patent built on another patent works. Although I imagine people in dark suits will be visiting people who do just this, and we will hear nothing of it.
But then I'm confused how a Monopoly that *sets* standards of how applications interact with the Desktop, can actually patent any of it, or how any of it can be original.
Edited 2007-07-17 15:26
Member since:2005-07-06
But the thing I don't understand is why any capitalist country would want to legitimize a monopoly.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. What the hell does that have to do with this? Nothing.
I'm talking about realities of the court system and patent system, and that Microsoft is protecting themselves and if they get the patent, it will be hard for them to be sued. Nothing more.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Listen. If they have the patent, it's a HUGE argument point in a court battle. That's the reality of the broken system. Prior art almost becomes irrelevant unless it's Microsoft suing someone else.
It doesn't matter if it's original. It's not.