6 ms·

Please go read the patent, it describes an "apparatus and method" that is much more advanced than traditional tiling window managers. The patent doesn't even co

Please go read the patent, it describes an "apparatus and method" that is much more advanced than traditional tiling window managers. The patent doesn't even compare to simple terminal based tiling of sub-shells. It also describes a GUI to control the positions, and describes in detail how it's supposed to work. There is a section "Description of the Related Art" in the patent which makes references to existing (at that time, year 2008) approaches and why they are not good enough. Example: "[...] Windows provides [...] commands which are accessible from the Windows taskbar. However, these commands are not as intuitive as they could be and they do not provide a desired level of control when positioning windows".

forgotpwtomain 9y ago
> Please go read the patent, it describes an "apparatus and method" that is much more advanced than traditional tiling window managers. I read/skimmed the patent, I cannot find anything described which is obviously novel. Care to provide a quote of these particular features?
- geocar 9y ago
  A judge is not going to skim the patent. They will patiently read each and every independent claim, and evaluate whether Moom implements any of them. In evaluating claims 1 and 2 (¶9) I imagine that a judge will get to this screenshot[1] and compare it to this diagram[2] and ask the authors of Moom for their justification. This justification can indeed be that it isn't novel, but I do not think the judge is likely to accept it because the patent examiner did indeed grant the patent. In evaluating claim 3 (¶17) it may be that Moom is not infringing, but it is difficult to tell from screenshots and a video. [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20110309004337/https://manytricks.com/moom/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110309004337/https://manytricks... [2]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130219331A1/US20130219331A1-20130822-D00000.png https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130219331A1/...
  - asdfgadsfgasfdg 9y ago
    > because the patent examiner did indeed grant the patent. I am not a patent lawyer but I don't think that how it works. The patent examiner is not qualified to do and does not do an exhaustive check for novelness. They mainly do a procedural check.
    - geocar 9y ago
      I've been through the process both in the US and in Europe. "Exhaustive" has a specific legal definition. The examiner indeed identifies existing work[1] and asks for an explanation. They usually focus on existing grants, but they also look at other applications (that are published). They do not have to pay as much attention to un-filed prior art because the US uses a "first-to-file"[2] system. [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#backward-citations https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#backward-citati... [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/aia-effective-dates.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation...
      - icebraining 9y ago
        No, unfiled prior art counts as always, as long as it's published somewhere. It's only secret prior art that stopped counting. Also, the FITF system only became effective for patents filed on or after March 16, 2013, whereas this patent was filed back in 2008.
      - learc83 9y ago
        From your comments in this thread, your understanding of first to file is incorrect. First to file doesn't invalidate un-filed prior art or give it lower presedence. First to file only really matters when there are overlapping patent applications. Basically a situation where one person files first but the other applicant claims they actually invented first but didn't publish the invention. Had the person who claims they invented first published their invention, they'd have a year to file. If that year was up, their prior art could still prevent the other applicant from being granted a patent the same as it would be under first to invent.
tyingq 9y ago
>There is a section "Description of the Related Art" in the patent which makes references to existing (at that time, year 2008) approaches and why they are not good enough In that section, it mostly compares itself to Microsoft Windows' stacking (not tiling) window manager. There's no comparison to ANY of the already existing tiling window managers. It was filed on June 2nd, 2008. There were a ton of tiling oriented windows managers in place for many, many, years prior. Many of them supported automatic layout, and many supported a variety of grid layouts as depicted in the patent. Here's a video from 1987, 21 years prior to the filing of this patent, showing the Siemens RTL tiling window manager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFd0FDv3fQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFd0FDv3fQc You can see the selected layout in the upper left hand corner of the screen. The video itself shows the user choosing where new windows will land, and the automated tiling/fit. As mentioned earlier, a ton of other tiling window managers existed well before the filing of this patent. Many of them with automatic tiling, and several grid layout options. I don't see anything in the patent that sounds novel to me.
- geocar 9y ago
  The patent doesn't appear to describe tiling window management, but the composition of a window layout using a number of menu options that integrate neatly with the existing environment's window controls, and that visually demonstrate their effect. Indeed the patent describes a user interface to accomplish this that looks very similar to screenshots of Moom. My experience with the USPTO is that statements like "I don't see anything in the patent that sounds novel to me" doesn't amuse them and they take this sort of thing seriously. Whether you agree with software patents or not, I think it's important to not be too dismissive of that fact. [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#forward-citations https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#forward-citatio...
  - tyingq 9y ago
    >The patent doesn't appear to describe tiling window management It does though. The screenshots show grid options, and describe how the end user can place windows in the grid. It specifically complains about how MS Windows has overlapping windows. Grid + no overlap == tiling. >Indeed the patent describes a user interface to accomplish this that looks very similar to screenshots of Moom. Sure. The argument about "novel" is that the patent holder wasn't the first to do something "similar to Moom". The idea that 2008 was the first time someone had the notion of grid layouts and allowing an end user to place a window in them is just silly.
phire 9y ago
And look at the images too, they help you visualize what the patent is about. And the patent pretty much describes the mouse based interface which Moom implements, and I can't think of any prior art of that. You should be able to find prior art and invalidate many clauses of the patent, like the general idea of grid based layouts, especially driven by keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures, but the general concept of a graphical drop-down menu for arranging windows will probably stay.
ar-jan 9y ago
I used to use GridMove [0], which looks quite similar. This was certainly prior to 2008, though I can't find a version history right now. 0: http://jgpaiva.dcmembers.com/gridmove.html http://jgpaiva.dcmembers.com/gridmove.html Edit: first alpha version May 30 2006 (http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=3824.msg26879#msg26879 http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=3824.msg2...).
coredog64 9y ago
I don't even believe that the author knew about the WinKey/arrow key shortcuts. They let you size a window to half a single viewport without the rigmarole described in the application.

forgotpwtomain 9y ago

> Please go read the patent, it describes an "apparatus and method" that is much more advanced than traditional tiling window managers. I read/skimmed the patent, I cannot find anything described which is obviously novel. Care to provide a quote of these particular features?

geocar 9y ago
A judge is not going to skim the patent. They will patiently read each and every independent claim, and evaluate whether Moom implements any of them. In evaluating claims 1 and 2 (¶9) I imagine that a judge will get to this screenshot[1] and compare it to this diagram[2] and ask the authors of Moom for their justification. This justification can indeed be that it isn't novel, but I do not think the judge is likely to accept it because the patent examiner did indeed grant the patent. In evaluating claim 3 (¶17) it may be that Moom is not infringing, but it is difficult to tell from screenshots and a video. [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20110309004337/https://manytricks.com/moom/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110309004337/https://manytricks... [2]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130219331A1/US20130219331A1-20130822-D00000.png https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130219331A1/...
- asdfgadsfgasfdg 9y ago
  > because the patent examiner did indeed grant the patent. I am not a patent lawyer but I don't think that how it works. The patent examiner is not qualified to do and does not do an exhaustive check for novelness. They mainly do a procedural check.
  - geocar 9y ago
    I've been through the process both in the US and in Europe. "Exhaustive" has a specific legal definition. The examiner indeed identifies existing work[1] and asks for an explanation. They usually focus on existing grants, but they also look at other applications (that are published). They do not have to pay as much attention to un-filed prior art because the US uses a "first-to-file"[2] system. [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#backward-citations https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#backward-citati... [2]: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/aia-effective-dates.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation...
    - icebraining 9y ago
      No, unfiled prior art counts as always, as long as it's published somewhere. It's only secret prior art that stopped counting. Also, the FITF system only became effective for patents filed on or after March 16, 2013, whereas this patent was filed back in 2008.
    - learc83 9y ago
      From your comments in this thread, your understanding of first to file is incorrect. First to file doesn't invalidate un-filed prior art or give it lower presedence. First to file only really matters when there are overlapping patent applications. Basically a situation where one person files first but the other applicant claims they actually invented first but didn't publish the invention. Had the person who claims they invented first published their invention, they'd have a year to file. If that year was up, their prior art could still prevent the other applicant from being granted a patent the same as it would be under first to invent.

tyingq 9y ago

>There is a section "Description of the Related Art" in the patent which makes references to existing (at that time, year 2008) approaches and why they are not good enough In that section, it mostly compares itself to Microsoft Windows' stacking (not tiling) window manager. There's no comparison to ANY of the already existing tiling window managers. It was filed on June 2nd, 2008. There were a ton of tiling oriented windows managers in place for many, many, years prior. Many of them supported automatic layout, and many supported a variety of grid layouts as depicted in the patent. Here's a video from 1987, 21 years prior to the filing of this patent, showing the Siemens RTL tiling window manager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFd0FDv3fQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFd0FDv3fQc You can see the selected layout in the upper left hand corner of the screen. The video itself shows the user choosing where new windows will land, and the automated tiling/fit. As mentioned earlier, a ton of other tiling window managers existed well before the filing of this patent. Many of them with automatic tiling, and several grid layout options. I don't see anything in the patent that sounds novel to me.

geocar 9y ago
The patent doesn't appear to describe tiling window management, but the composition of a window layout using a number of menu options that integrate neatly with the existing environment's window controls, and that visually demonstrate their effect. Indeed the patent describes a user interface to accomplish this that looks very similar to screenshots of Moom. My experience with the USPTO is that statements like "I don't see anything in the patent that sounds novel to me" doesn't amuse them and they take this sort of thing seriously. Whether you agree with software patents or not, I think it's important to not be too dismissive of that fact. [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#forward-citations https://www.google.com/patents/US20090300541#forward-citatio...
- tyingq 9y ago
  >The patent doesn't appear to describe tiling window management It does though. The screenshots show grid options, and describe how the end user can place windows in the grid. It specifically complains about how MS Windows has overlapping windows. Grid + no overlap == tiling. >Indeed the patent describes a user interface to accomplish this that looks very similar to screenshots of Moom. Sure. The argument about "novel" is that the patent holder wasn't the first to do something "similar to Moom". The idea that 2008 was the first time someone had the notion of grid layouts and allowing an end user to place a window in them is just silly.

phire 9y ago

And look at the images too, they help you visualize what the patent is about. And the patent pretty much describes the mouse based interface which Moom implements, and I can't think of any prior art of that. You should be able to find prior art and invalidate many clauses of the patent, like the general idea of grid based layouts, especially driven by keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures, but the general concept of a graphical drop-down menu for arranging windows will probably stay.

ar-jan 9y ago

I used to use GridMove [0], which looks quite similar. This was certainly prior to 2008, though I can't find a version history right now. 0: http://jgpaiva.dcmembers.com/gridmove.html http://jgpaiva.dcmembers.com/gridmove.html Edit: first alpha version May 30 2006 (http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=3824.msg26879#msg26879 http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=3824.msg2...).

coredog64 9y ago

I don't even believe that the author knew about the WinKey/arrow key shortcuts. They let you size a window to half a single viewport without the rigmarole described in the application.