Microsoft patents Page Up/Down functionality

Lest IBM be accused of being the only big software vendor to apply for and receive silly patents, Microsoft is proving its silliness mettle with the award of a patent on Page Up/Page Down functionality. And to think that I've been using that functionality for years without knowing that Microsoft had yet to invent it!

I used to believe that patents had to be non-obvious to make the cut, but Microsoft here demonstrates that the only obvious thing about patents is that the more they encumber the industry with both silly and even useful "inventions," innovation will be stifled. Indeed, it already has been.

We're veering toward a tragedy of the anti-commons, indeed.

[Vegaman_Dan]

What's sadder- that Microsoft applied for that patent (who knows how many years/decades ago- it's not a quick process by any means), or that a review board actually approved it.

Kudos for them being able to get it. Rasberries for the review board to approve it.

I wonder if I can patent the concept of writing on paper. Sure it has lots of prior work, but has anyone actually applied for the patent?

[The_Decider]

Since all software patents are invalid, this isn't anything special. It is especially idiotic.

MS tried to patent an array of pointers(which is what FAT basically is) and other such nonsense.

The funny thing is that there is a strong move in political and judicial circles to invalidate and ban software patents, then watch MS start crying that it isn't fair that they have to play on a level playing field.

[Vegaman_Dan]

It isn't a software patent. It's a process. And it applies in far more things that you may think it does.

You state that all software patents are invalid... and also say there is a movement in political and judicial circles to invalidate / ban software patents. Which is it? Are they valid and a group is trying to invalidate / ban them or are they all invalid as you claim and these groups are just spinning their wheels tryign to ban something you have already said is invalid?

A clarification of your comments would help out.

Thanks.

[The_Decider]

Why should I clarify to you since you lack simple reasoning skills?

Patents in the software world are invalid because they are all significantly based on prior art, most of obvious and none are novel.

The supreme court already stated they are looking for a case that will allow them to invalidate software patents.

There is strong movement in governments around the world, including the US to move to bad them.

Too bad you didn't patent the idea of posting idiocy, you would be rich instead of having to shill for MS for minimum wage. I guess that beats flipping burgers.

[dude7895]

Your just mad because apple didn't think of it sooner.

[somone_else]

"Patents in the software world are invalid because they are all significantly based on prior art, most of obvious and none are novel."

This would invalidate ALL patents, not just software. All new inventions are based on the previous work of others.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that most innovation coming today is not invention, but refinement, but this is one of the basic concepts behind a patent.

If you come up with an idea that is unworkable, then someone else comes along, uses your idea and changes it to make it workable, who should get the money from this idea? In my opinion, it should go to the person who changed the idea to make it work.

Which is why we have patents.

[jrepenning]

Unfortunately, it's not "silly" if you're willing to use your bogus patents for FUD and turmoil-generation.

[jrepenning]

Geez: the application was filed in 2005? Surely, even the screen where the patent clerks read the patent had "page up/down" controls already, in 2005!

[lcohen12409]

I am not so sure this is not a legitimate patent.
If covers use of the Page Up or Page Down keys to move exactly one page up or down, regardless of the screen size, zoom level or monitor resolution.
If you are in Word (2003 for me) for example, using the Page Up or Page Down keys does not move the cursor exactly one page.
So that patent may result in a useful improvement.

[odubtaig]

You missed the requirement that it be non-obvious didn't you. Non-obvious, in this context, means that not any idiot with two brain cells to rub together could think of it.

regardless of the screen size, zoom level or monitor resolution

Word processing and DTP software has been able to put you at the top middle or bottom of a page completely independent of resolution for years, it's not exactly a great leap to use a particular key to do this from page to page, it's positively mundane. Anyone who thinks this is somehow novel or new needs to have used a computer within the last 20 years.

[halfNakedPappy]

Please lcohen12409 , enough of your silliness. I'd appreciate it if you didn't promote abuse of the patent system.

[Maccess]

In many programs , you can change the number of lines the page up page down command will move the document. That's been there since the days of terminals. It's also been there from the first version of Acrobat Reader, where you could look at a .pdf one page at a time instead of smooth scrolling through the pages.