Microsoft patents double-click

[Gaard]

Microsoft gains double-clicking patent

Microsoft has successfully patented using short, long or double clicks to launch different applications on "limited resource computing devices" - presumably PDAs and mobile phones. The US patent was granted on 27 April.

Now any US company using a variety of clicks to launch different software functions from the same button will have to change their product, pay licensing fees to Microsoft or give Microsoft access to its intellectual property in return.

Whew! Before I read the article I thought I'd have to send them a check everytime I sat down to yak on the internet. 😉

 

[Ozoned]

"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

 

[RabidMongoose]

Would this patent really stand a chance? I don't think it would.

 

[Spencer278]

Really stupid patent.

 

[fjord]

The irony is dizzying.

Bill Atkinson invented double clicking as a behavior--it is well documented.

The most religious wars waged at Apple were always about 1 or 2 button mice.

To this very day, Apple continues their stand against multiple button mice.

Atkinson invented the behavior of "double-clicking" a one button mouse--and in-so-doing, effectively gained that second button.

 

[MadRat]

They can try to patent the process. But quite frankly other input devices use too similar of processes to consider this one unique.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

I have a similar beef with other IP like copyright. These rules are a COST SHIFT and have become burdensome to society to enforce. Enlightenment and innovation need not require cashflow. Ideas are free. Lawyers are not.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

Yeah, we got this thing called the INTERNET which allows us to explore boundaries more readily. Far more questions make it through the filters simply because they can. If we had this many people on 1940 technology you can be rest assured there would be no innovation on par with what we see today. Its time to lift a centuries old set of laws, bourne of the era of indentured servitude, off of the masses.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

 

[dbk]

What about right-click, thumb-click, and the underappreciated middle-click?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

So, explain this to me

I want to make a drug. The R&D costs are about 400 million. I pony up the money, and someone takes my drug and makes it for 20 mill. I have to make 20 times what that company did to break even.

Why did I do this?

 

[CanOWorms]

i disagree with all the anarchy government sux people. i think patents are vital for an innovative society

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

So, explain this to me

I want to make a drug. The R&D costs are about 400 million. I pony up the money, and someone takes my drug and makes it for 20 mill. I have to make 20 times what that company did to break even.

Why did I do this?

Once again your rhetoric precludes a few things. First of all drug companies have actually abused patents at everyone else's expense.

Info on that here: Text

Second of all, your idea precludes the idea that YOU have to manufacture the drug and YOU have to distribute it in order to profit. In a patentless world you would sell ideas, not profit from monopoly rights. In your scenario you would develop a drug and sell the drug, including how to make it to the highest bidder.

Those who are able to manufacture the drug competitively would probably pay you more than what you paid to develop it. Then consumers get the best price.

I have already argued all of this on Libertarian forums. Link here: Text

To tell you the truth though free market advocates are divided on the subject. I just happen to side with the camp that denounces patents. Reisman, the author of the tome Capitalism and staunch defender of free markets is actually in favor of patents. Go here and scroll down to page 388 to see his defense of them. Text

 

[conjur]

I'm going to patent breathing.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

So, explain this to me

I want to make a drug. The R&D costs are about 400 million. I pony up the money, and someone takes my drug and makes it for 20 mill. I have to make 20 times what that company did to break even.

Why did I do this?

Once again your rhetoric precludes a few things. First of all drug companies have actually abused patents at everyone else's expense.

Info on that here: Text

Second of all, your idea precludes the idea that YOU have to manufacture the drug and YOU have to distribute it in order to profit. In a patentless world you would sell ideas, not profit from monopoly rights. In your scenario you would develop a drug and sell the drug, including how to make it to the highest bidder.

Those who are able to manufacture the drug competitively would probably pay you more than what you paid to develop it. Then consumers get the best price.

I have already argued all of this on Libertarian forums. Link here: Text

To tell you the truth though free market advocates are divided on the subject. I just happen to side with the camp that denounces patents. Reisman, the author of the tome Capitalism and staunch defender of free markets is actually in favor of patents. Go here and scroll down to page 388 to see his defense of them. Text

Why would the manufacturers pay the company who developed the drug? They could just wait for another competitor to pay for the drug, take the pill and manufacture it for themselves without paying the company who invented the drug.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

Yeah, we got this thing called the INTERNET which allows us to explore boundaries more readily. Far more questions make it through the filters simply because they can. If we had this many people on 1940 technology you can be rest assured there would be no innovation on par with what we see today. Its time to lift a centuries old set of laws, bourne of the era of indentured servitude, off of the masses.

Why would anyone involved with a corporation discuss anything on the Internet if it can destroy him or the company? Wouldn't the majority of corporations be far more private about their R&D? At least right now with patents, you must disclose your invention in enough detail so that one skilled in the arts can replicate it. The details are freely available to everyone and can be further expanded upon.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

I do. If you think people are going to want to spend millions of dollars as well as man hours just so someone else can easily take that work instantly, then you are sorely mistaken.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

So, explain this to me

I want to make a drug. The R&D costs are about 400 million. I pony up the money, and someone takes my drug and makes it for 20 mill. I have to make 20 times what that company did to break even.

Why did I do this?

Once again your rhetoric precludes a few things. First of all drug companies have actually abused patents at everyone else's expense.

Info on that here: Text

Second of all, your idea precludes the idea that YOU have to manufacture the drug and YOU have to distribute it in order to profit. In a patentless world you would sell ideas, not profit from monopoly rights. In your scenario you would develop a drug and sell the drug, including how to make it to the highest bidder.

Those who are able to manufacture the drug competitively would probably pay you more than what you paid to develop it. Then consumers get the best price.

I have already argued all of this on Libertarian forums. Link here: Text

To tell you the truth though free market advocates are divided on the subject. I just happen to side with the camp that denounces patents. Reisman, the author of the tome Capitalism and staunch defender of free markets is actually in favor of patents. Go here and scroll down to page 388 to see his defense of them. Text

Why would the manufacturers pay the company who developed the drug? They could just wait for another competitor to pay for the drug, take the pill and manufacture it for themselves without paying the company who invented the drug.

A manufacturer would not pay for the drug if they were not able to manufacture it at the cheapest price possible. Hence, the other manufacturers would already be up against fierce competition. Futhermore, you have the brand name factor coming into play. Some manufacturers would eventually become brand name and hence, higher quality. The other manufacturers could sell generics, but not for as much as the high quality brand name ones.

Additionally, the other manufacturers would not start manufacturing the drug until they knew it was profitable. The only way they would know it was profitable is after the initial manufacturer made good profits off of it.

By the way, this is in absence of the FDA and all the regulatory B.S. that goes with that.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

So, explain this to me

I want to make a drug. The R&D costs are about 400 million. I pony up the money, and someone takes my drug and makes it for 20 mill. I have to make 20 times what that company did to break even.

Why did I do this?

Once again your rhetoric precludes a few things. First of all drug companies have actually abused patents at everyone else's expense.

Info on that here: Text

Second of all, your idea precludes the idea that YOU have to manufacture the drug and YOU have to distribute it in order to profit. In a patentless world you would sell ideas, not profit from monopoly rights. In your scenario you would develop a drug and sell the drug, including how to make it to the highest bidder.

Those who are able to manufacture the drug competitively would probably pay you more than what you paid to develop it. Then consumers get the best price.

I have already argued all of this on Libertarian forums. Link here: Text

To tell you the truth though free market advocates are divided on the subject. I just happen to side with the camp that denounces patents. Reisman, the author of the tome Capitalism and staunch defender of free markets is actually in favor of patents. Go here and scroll down to page 388 to see his defense of them. Text

Why would the manufacturers pay the company who developed the drug? They could just wait for another competitor to pay for the drug, take the pill and manufacture it for themselves without paying the company who invented the drug.

A manufacturer would not pay for the drug if they were not able to manufacture it at the cheapest price possible. Hence, the other manufacturers would already be up against fierce competition. Futhermore, you have the brand name factor coming into play. Some manufacturers would eventually become brand name and hence, higher quality. The other manufacturers could sell generics, but not for as much as the high quality brand name ones.

Additionally, the other manufacturers would not start manufacturing the drug until they knew it was profitable. The only way they would know it was profitable is after the initial manufacturer made good profits off of it.

By the way, this is in absence of the FDA and all the regulatory B.S. that goes with that.

Again, why would the competitors even bother to pay the inventor for the idea? If they know that another company will release the pill, they'll just buy the pill, re-manufacture it and start selling it a week later.

In this hypothetical situation, let's assume that the company that bought the drug from the inventor is a brand-name company and that the company (another brand name company) that just took the and put it in a machine that automatically recreated it (exactly so that there is no difference between the brands besides the names) and automatically teleported somehow to all store shelves. Let's also assume that there that there were surveys out and large public demand for this pill that all reflect a high demand and thus high profits. Also remember, all the copycat company has to do is take the pill and drop it into a machine which automatically recreates it and teleports it. So, there is a near perfect chance of making a profit in these conditions.

And since you brought up brand name, how would a small company ever survive? They would buy the pill and sell it, then a big brand name company will just take it and remanufacture it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Personally, I believe that the whole system is a constant struggle between the inventor and society. A middleground needs to be found, but a setting at any of the two extremes like your vision is bad.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Microsoft gains double-clicking patent"



I Love capitalism.😉

This is not capitalism, this is statism. Patents are a crock, especially this one.

OK I think this is bogus too, but why should anyone put money into ANY project guaranteed not to make money?

Why should a drug company for instance spend hundreds of millions if they are going to lose every time?

There would still be innovation in a patentless world, trust me. More on this here: Text

But would there be as much innovation as we experience today? I doubt it.

I don't. If you think that innovation is fueled by bureaucrats who control men with guns you are sorely mistaken.

In any event, if you want more innovation patents are not the best way to go about it. The best way to enhance innovation is for the government to get the hell out of the way. Stop the statism, stop the taxation, stop the collectivism.

So, explain this to me

I want to make a drug. The R&D costs are about 400 million. I pony up the money, and someone takes my drug and makes it for 20 mill. I have to make 20 times what that company did to break even.

Why did I do this?

Once again your rhetoric precludes a few things. First of all drug companies have actually abused patents at everyone else's expense.

Info on that here: Text

Second of all, your idea precludes the idea that YOU have to manufacture the drug and YOU have to distribute it in order to profit. In a patentless world you would sell ideas, not profit from monopoly rights. In your scenario you would develop a drug and sell the drug, including how to make it to the highest bidder.

Those who are able to manufacture the drug competitively would probably pay you more than what you paid to develop it. Then consumers get the best price.

I have already argued all of this on Libertarian forums. Link here: Text

To tell you the truth though free market advocates are divided on the subject. I just happen to side with the camp that denounces patents. Reisman, the author of the tome Capitalism and staunch defender of free markets is actually in favor of patents. Go here and scroll down to page 388 to see his defense of them. Text

Why would the manufacturers pay the company who developed the drug? They could just wait for another competitor to pay for the drug, take the pill and manufacture it for themselves without paying the company who invented the drug.

A manufacturer would not pay for the drug if they were not able to manufacture it at the cheapest price possible. Hence, the other manufacturers would already be up against fierce competition. Futhermore, you have the brand name factor coming into play. Some manufacturers would eventually become brand name and hence, higher quality. The other manufacturers could sell generics, but not for as much as the high quality brand name ones.

Additionally, the other manufacturers would not start manufacturing the drug until they knew it was profitable. The only way they would know it was profitable is after the initial manufacturer made good profits off of it.

By the way, this is in absence of the FDA and all the regulatory B.S. that goes with that.

Again, why would the competitors even bother to pay the inventor for the idea? If they know that another company will release the pill, they'll just buy the pill, re-manufacture it and start selling it a week later.

They would buy it because if they didn't they wouldn't have anything to manufacture in the first place.

In this hypothetical situation, let's assume that the company that bought the drug from the inventor is a brand-name company and that the company (another brand name company) that just took the and put it in a machine that automatically recreated it (exactly so that there is no difference between the brands besides the names) and automatically teleported somehow to all store shelves.

Both manufacturers might profit from the drug, but the initial purchaser would profit a bit more by the fact that they got it out faster, making up for the cost of the initial purchase. However, let's even assume that the day the drug is launched another manufacturer can start competing right then and there. In this case the problem of no one wanting to buy a drug to manufacture would hurt the industry because it would simply have nothing to manufacture. In other words if they all waited for the next guy to buy it, then they would all suffer. Therfore, the manufacturers would merely make agreements amongst themselves which would be enforced by private arbiters.

And since you brought up brand name, how would a small company ever survive? They would buy the pill and sell it, then a big brand name company will just take it and remanufacture it.

You are assuming that a small company must survive in every industry. This is just not true. Look at the CPU industry, it only has big companies and no one is complaining. Some industries are only competitive at the big level, such as manufacturing. If you try to manufacture say paperclips in your garage you are not going to be able to sell them profitably compared to a giant manufacturer. This is just the nature of free markets.