Comments on: Google, Microsoft, Apple sued over preview icons
Arizona-based networking company sues the tech giants for allegedly infringing on a patent related to document thumbnails used in operating systems.
Arizona-based networking company sues the tech giants for allegedly infringing on a patent related to document thumbnails used in operating systems.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Your destination for the latest news on enterprise-level information technology, from chip research and server design to software issues including programming, open source and patents.
Add this feed to your online news reader
I don't know where the patent office was when they were giving out this patent, but they must have been drunk, high, and dying of a brain hemorrhage at the same time in order to give this patent out.
But we love to laugh at obvious patent trolls.
A lot of them have been ridiculous, and they seem to increase with the continually failing American economy (and parts of its infrastructure).
Greed is simply it.
People are filing patents to things that the hope big and small companies will make profits off of without actually having prior knowledge of it. That just doesn't seem right to me.
Litigants: I've been writing software since 1981. if you'd like me to be a witness against this ridiculous claim, I'd be happy to do it.
"Cygnus Systems targets Google's Chrome, Microsoft's Vista and Internet Explorer 8, and Apple's iPhone, Safari, and Mac OS X as patent infringers."
This is not against OSs only since Chrome, IE8 and Safari are included.
Plus, this whole patent deal is laughable at best.
Finder in the Mac OS is an application.
SJ: I believe applications using thumbnails will be strong enough to be considered prior art. If a court is stupid enough not to accept that, then the defendants can whip out the dinosaur book (any CS graduate who took a systems course will know what that is) and provide the "Pure" definition of OS, which means that 90% of Windows, Mac OS X, and GNU on Linux are multiple applications, and not an OS proper. NT Kernel, Darwin/XNU, and Linux (kernel) are the operating systems, and they do not provide thumbnail previews. Although MS has been known to put some peculiar things into kernel space (GDI, bad idea), I don't believe they have put the higher level thumbnail abstractions there.
Their suit against google also provides strong evidence that they don't even know what the hell their patent is. If CNet's paraphrase is accurate, as mentioned, chrome can not be considered an OS component in any way, not even in the loosest definition. Furthermore it does not provide thumbnail previews of files, but rather websites, and considering that a large amount of web content is dynamic, this means that 1 webpage != 1 file. (php, aspx, etc are never downloaded to the client, the http output is a dynamic stream of data).
Of course, if MS decides to settle, but no one else does, then I smell a rat. They are often the target of trolls due to their deep pockets, but they have been known to use them for their own gain against competitors.
ROFLMAO! - Truth be told, the USPTO would probably grant a patent on the word "patent" if you fill out the application properly, and with enough techno-babble to confuse them!
By the way, I patented the idea of ending questions with a question mark. The world will be better without questions, just answers.
Would you let a strange man touch your daughter? In the same vein, companies should touch your patent.
Nobody on the internets like patents.
Not that obviousness, prior art, or uselessness ever stopped the USPTO from issuing a patent.
In this case, I give them credit for taking such a long time to issue the patent that it actually indicates that some thought was put into the process. Or something.
Hiring competent patent reviewers at the USPTO and limiting the amount of time a patent can be extended would be a great first step.
Or kill non-tangible patents, at the least. (i'd still prefer the former)
Down with patents, down with copyright, down with trademark!
Long-live freedom.
If only the world went that way...
Out of curiousity, who did President Bush appoint to the Patent Office to do these approvals anyways? His favorite horse from the Enron ranch?
I just busted a gut!!
suing based on a patent that was given march 2008, and this 'technology' has been in existence for years and years now!
Mac OS X, Vista, (AND XP) all are earlier than that!
But even by 1998 there were lots of samples of "previous art", and besides I thought the bone heads at the U.S. patent office were supposed to stop granting patents for things that are obvious?
- by sensi2 December 26, 2008 9:33 PM PST
- US Software patents are retarded, call me captain obvious.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (103 Comments)