Originally posted by: bsobel
Just a clarification, MS is not trying to patent virtual desktops, but rather a graphical technique for previewing them. I believe the graphical preview also has plenty of prior art (for what its' worth)
After all. I think I am going to patent Dictonaries.
Drag you don't understand the issue. You can't patent an item that was previously released to the public (unless you released it, which in the US gives you 1 year from the release to file). It's not a matter of being the first to patent an idea, it's a matter of being the first to invent. So your example (while kindy funny) is pointless.
Bill
Ya your right. I didn't understand it correctly.
The issues with software patents is that every program incorporates thousands and thousands of unique inventions, new ideas and concepts created by the programmer to solve various problems.
Under current patent law each and every one of these solutions and concepts are eligable for a patent.
However the problems happens because each of these new inventions and concepts can be just as easily created by another programmer for a entirely different program with absolutely no prior knowledge of the other even the existance of the other programmer's patents or even knowledge of the program's even existance.
What can happen in every program is that you can unintentionally violate hundreds of other patents, and be subject to various lawsuites, each and every one has the ablity to create a cease and desist order for your entire program or ruin you finacially unless your a gigantic company that can absorb the costs.
The coporate solution is patent liscencing. If you inadvertently step on other people's toes (as in this case you create a pager and virtual desktop that incorporates a feature that can be made to have a description that sounds similar to part of the language in this patent attempt, which I now realise is a variation of the current standard practice. The actual variation is what is being attempted to being patented) you can simply liscence the patent from MS and not risk litigation.
Unfortunately for the vast majority of companies and programmers (probably around 90%) they can't afford the horrific expenses of looking up each and every function or line of code they create to make sure that they are safe from litigation.
Not even large corporations can't afford to do it as the current patent proccess makes it impossible to find patented software concepts in a reasonable manner.
The side effect is that it makes it close to impossible to create a competing software product, because if any part of your program even comes close to a established patent they can create a lawsuit that will result in your finacial ruin if you attempt to defend yourself.
For instance a patent part of the FAT filing system can be used to stop some one to publish a music program. Because although the programs may be completely dissimilar something in that music program can incorporate a algorithm or function that may be identical to a already established patent.
There is a long (relatively for computer industry vs othe industries) of patent abuse to stifle innovation or at least a attempt to make money.
While this patent may or may not be a overt attempt to stiffle innovation by MS. Very likely it is that they are simply trying to protect themselves. the result is that if this patent becomes active that every person that makes a program similar to virtual desktops or pagers with a preview feature they would have to hire a lawyer to make sure that they won't be liable. This makes the cost of creating a program increase roughly by 5000% percent.
Also the average patent takes between 2-5 years to complete even with legal help. It's impractacle for the average person to use a patent to defend themselves unless they want to only publish programs that are hopelessly out of date.
Facebook
Twitter