9 ms·

Can I Legally Use the “Fluent UI” or Ribbon Design?

72 points by luu 9y ago

KozmoNau7 9y ago
LibreOffice 6 has an optional ribbon-like UI, and I assume they checked that it wouldn't infringe on anything, when they decided to add it.
- lostgame 9y ago
  Isn’t it also FOSS, which indicates that the legal issue of profit from Microsoft’s design is null and void?
Wofiel 9y ago
The followup on the page: https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/02/Ribbon-2 https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/02/Ribbon-2 (TL;DR: Yes, using one of this set of frameworks)
- klez 9y ago
  Actually the TL;DR should be "Yes, using one of this set of frameworks, and we won't tell you if any other framework can use it" since Microsoft declined to comment.
lolikoisuru 9y ago
It's almost as if there is complete disregard for "prior art" when it comes to software patents. It's a bit ridiculous really. Microsoft shouldn't have gotten the patent and they shouldn't have won this case.
- WalterGR 9y ago
  Microsoft shouldn't have gotten the patent and they shouldn't have won this case. Why not? What prior art are you thinking of, specifically?
  - roblabla 9y ago
    We've had tabbed UIs for a while now. Ribbon is literally just a tab UI displaying options...
    - WalterGR 9y ago
      Ribbon is literally just a tab UI That's incorrect. TFA has links to information about why that's incorrect. In brief, however, the Ribbon is context-sensitive. Whether that deserves a patent, and whether any software should be patentable, IANAL.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Context sensitive UI's are for example very common in games. Some also included tabs. So, context sensitivity is not in it's self novel.
        gnode 9y ago
        Often patents cover the combination of multiple non-patent-able things. E.g. the fan, heating element, and the concept of blowing hot air were not novel in 1931, but that didn't stop the hair dryer being patented.
        Retric 9y ago
        I meant that for example JRPG's have both context sensitivity and tab based menu systems. EX: Only showing spells after the character learns them, or disabling Magic menu for non magic characters. Now if they want a narrow patent that covers say hair dryers but not floor heaters that's not as hard to defend. But narrow patents are also less useful.
        fooker 9y ago
        Not-so-novel things in combination can be rather novel.
- patentatt 9y ago
  So keep in mind that what is patented is in the claims. Here's the first claim from one of the MS patents on the Ribbon UI: ---------------- 1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising: organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs; upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation; grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab; dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping; upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab; after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task; applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab. ---------------- Does this exactly exist in the prior art? You can be sure that Corel looked. That is a, frankly, very narrow claim. It protects a rather well defined implementation, not a general idea of tab-based navigation. This is probably why they were only awarded ~$270k in damages. In patent litigation terms, that's a pittance. It doesn't even come close to paying for their attorneys to work on the case, i.e., MS lost money here. So the courts are definitely recognizing the very narrow nature of what is protected by their patents. Source: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 Edit: also keep in mind that wilfulness was found, which means treble damages. I'm a little unclear if the reported $278k number is factoring that in or not, but if it is, that means the actual damages found were 1/3 of that. Which is well into mere nuisance territory for just about any corporation. Heck, that's into efficient infringement territory for Corel, if they think that redesigning would cost more than that (aside from the wilfulness aspect). I guess what I'm getting at here is that this is not something to be up in arms about. Also, check out what Corel actually did here.[1] That's a pretty obvious clone of MS Word if I ever saw it. Say what you will about patents, but this is egregious copying and I don't think it's wrong of MS to defend themselves here. 1: https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/review-the-new-corel-office/ https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/review-...
OnlyRepliesToBS 9y ago
Don't tickle that dragon. Furthermore, do not do yourself the disservice of looking toward Microsoft for UI design decisions.
cpburns2009 9y ago
The real question one should ask is: should you use a ribbon design?
- swiley 9y ago
  As much as I'm against software patents, I do love the idea of companies like Microsoft using them on GUIs. Bad GUI design will eventually literally be against the law.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > wants "bad UI" outlawed > implies Ribbon is "good UI" o_O I'm not saying traditional menus are the end-all-be-all of GUIs, but from there to assuming the ribbon is "good" there is quite a jump. I personally find it very difficult to locate anything on Ribbon bars. Edit: hey, HN banning emojis?
    - scientician 9y ago
      ^_^ If something is patented, it will become illegal to use. Hopefully /all/ proprietary patterns become patented, and then perhaps only good patterns will be left :P
    - gjm11 9y ago
      Nope, not banning emojis. You got the parent post backward and made fun of the completely-wrong thing you thought it was saying. I'm pretty sure that's what got you the downvotes. What they actually meant: Ribbons are bad UI, so if Microsoft hold a patent covering them and enforce it aggressively then (one variety of) bad UI will be unavailable or at least expensive. (Incidentally, I did not downvote your comment; I am guessing at the reasons others likely had.)
    - jmkni 9y ago
      Each to their own I guess. I find the Ribbon UI intuitive.
    - reificator 9y ago
meuk 9y ago
So Microsoft is a patent troll, just like Apple (who decided to sue Samsung for the 'slide to unlock'). On the bright side, I think most people don't like the 'ribbon' (I don't understand the difference with a normal tabbed UI anyway) pattern anyway.
- oaiey 9y ago
  Not a fan of patents at all, but is not a troll someone who does not invent and sell products? Both Microsoft does. They are playing the hard game with patents, but IMHO not troll style.
  - meuk 9y ago
    You're right, 'patent troll' is not accurate here, but I couldn't find a better word.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - mfoy_ 9y ago
      So you're just denigrating the entire concept of patents? O.K.
      - meuk 9y ago
        Of patenting obvious things and aggresively defending them. Although I think you could make a strong case against the whole concept of a patent as well.
        ovao 9y ago
        You admit that you don’t understand the difference between the ribbon UI and tabbed layouts, yet assert that the ribbon design is “obvious”?
        9y ago
chris_wot 9y ago
Are there links to the actual patents in question? And how does this affect the LibreOffice notetabbar?
- patentatt 9y ago
  Here's some of the utility patents: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_7703036_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_7703036_B2 Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/13/93710/id=93710/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/13/93710/id=93710/
WorldMaker 9y ago
A number of quibbles about things semi-confused in this article here: 1) Fluent UI is not Ribbon UI; I'm not sure why Fluent is mentioned in the article headline, other than an implication there might be unspoken patents in the Fluent Design System, and that's an indirect spook from the topic at hand. 2) Corel's violations of the Office Ribbon UI licensing terms clearly happened during the time in which the Office Ribbon UI licensing was enforced (that is, prior to the most general release/retiring from those terms in 2016). 3) The article author seems to have a hard time finding resources regarding the historic Office Ribbon licensing terms, but even just using Jensen's blog heavily linked in the article you can find a relatively detailed FAQ: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jensenh/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jensenh/2006/11/21/licensin... 4) The key violation of Corel for the licensing terms should be very obvious from Jensen's FAQ: > There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license.
- 1wd 9y ago
  Fluent UI is probably mentioned because "Microsoft Office Fluent user interface (UI)" (short: Fluent UI) used to mean Ribbon UI, long before the Fluent Design System existed. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff461922(v=office.14).aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff461922(v=offic...
  - contextfree 9y ago
    Ribbon was the name of just one element of the Office 2007 UI system. Fluent was supposed to be the name of the whole system.
- contextfree 9y ago
  "Fluent" was the official name for the new Office UI system introduced with Office 2007 (which included not only the ribbon, but other stuff like the new context menus/floating toolbar, new keyboard shortcut system, etc.) The name didn't really catch on and I think Microsoft stopped using it after a short time, but I guess they eventually reused it for the new design concept introduced with Windows Redstone.
oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
If a user interface element can’t be reused, it defeats any usability you might gain from using it. It simply won’t be familiar - at least, not as familiar as it could/should be.

72 points by luu 9y ago

LibreOffice 6 has an optional ribbon-like UI, and I assume they checked that it wouldn't infringe on anything, when they decided to add it.

lostgame 9y ago
Isn’t it also FOSS, which indicates that the legal issue of profit from Microsoft’s design is null and void?

Wofiel 9y ago

The followup on the page: https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/02/Ribbon-2 https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/02/Ribbon-2 (TL;DR: Yes, using one of this set of frameworks)

klez 9y ago
Actually the TL;DR should be "Yes, using one of this set of frameworks, and we won't tell you if any other framework can use it" since Microsoft declined to comment.

lolikoisuru 9y ago

It's almost as if there is complete disregard for "prior art" when it comes to software patents. It's a bit ridiculous really. Microsoft shouldn't have gotten the patent and they shouldn't have won this case.

WalterGR 9y ago
Microsoft shouldn't have gotten the patent and they shouldn't have won this case. Why not? What prior art are you thinking of, specifically?
- roblabla 9y ago
  We've had tabbed UIs for a while now. Ribbon is literally just a tab UI displaying options...
  - WalterGR 9y ago
    Ribbon is literally just a tab UI That's incorrect. TFA has links to information about why that's incorrect. In brief, however, the Ribbon is context-sensitive. Whether that deserves a patent, and whether any software should be patentable, IANAL.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Context sensitive UI's are for example very common in games. Some also included tabs. So, context sensitivity is not in it's self novel.
      - gnode 9y ago
        Often patents cover the combination of multiple non-patent-able things. E.g. the fan, heating element, and the concept of blowing hot air were not novel in 1931, but that didn't stop the hair dryer being patented.
        Retric 9y ago
        I meant that for example JRPG's have both context sensitivity and tab based menu systems. EX: Only showing spells after the character learns them, or disabling Magic menu for non magic characters. Now if they want a narrow patent that covers say hair dryers but not floor heaters that's not as hard to defend. But narrow patents are also less useful.
      - fooker 9y ago
        Not-so-novel things in combination can be rather novel.
patentatt 9y ago
So keep in mind that what is patented is in the claims. Here's the first claim from one of the MS patents on the Ribbon UI: ---------------- 1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising: organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs; upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation; grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab; dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping; upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab; after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task; applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab. ---------------- Does this exactly exist in the prior art? You can be sure that Corel looked. That is a, frankly, very narrow claim. It protects a rather well defined implementation, not a general idea of tab-based navigation. This is probably why they were only awarded ~$270k in damages. In patent litigation terms, that's a pittance. It doesn't even come close to paying for their attorneys to work on the case, i.e., MS lost money here. So the courts are definitely recognizing the very narrow nature of what is protected by their patents. Source: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 Edit: also keep in mind that wilfulness was found, which means treble damages. I'm a little unclear if the reported $278k number is factoring that in or not, but if it is, that means the actual damages found were 1/3 of that. Which is well into mere nuisance territory for just about any corporation. Heck, that's into efficient infringement territory for Corel, if they think that redesigning would cost more than that (aside from the wilfulness aspect). I guess what I'm getting at here is that this is not something to be up in arms about. Also, check out what Corel actually did here.[1] That's a pretty obvious clone of MS Word if I ever saw it. Say what you will about patents, but this is egregious copying and I don't think it's wrong of MS to defend themselves here. 1: https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/review-the-new-corel-office/ https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/review-...

OnlyRepliesToBS 9y ago

Don't tickle that dragon. Furthermore, do not do yourself the disservice of looking toward Microsoft for UI design decisions.

cpburns2009 9y ago

The real question one should ask is: should you use a ribbon design?

swiley 9y ago
As much as I'm against software patents, I do love the idea of companies like Microsoft using them on GUIs. Bad GUI design will eventually literally be against the law.
- toyg 9y ago
  > wants "bad UI" outlawed > implies Ribbon is "good UI" o_O I'm not saying traditional menus are the end-all-be-all of GUIs, but from there to assuming the ribbon is "good" there is quite a jump. I personally find it very difficult to locate anything on Ribbon bars. Edit: hey, HN banning emojis?
  - scientician 9y ago
    ^_^ If something is patented, it will become illegal to use. Hopefully /all/ proprietary patterns become patented, and then perhaps only good patterns will be left :P
  - gjm11 9y ago
    Nope, not banning emojis. You got the parent post backward and made fun of the completely-wrong thing you thought it was saying. I'm pretty sure that's what got you the downvotes. What they actually meant: Ribbons are bad UI, so if Microsoft hold a patent covering them and enforce it aggressively then (one variety of) bad UI will be unavailable or at least expensive. (Incidentally, I did not downvote your comment; I am guessing at the reasons others likely had.)
  - jmkni 9y ago
    Each to their own I guess. I find the Ribbon UI intuitive.
  - reificator 9y ago

meuk 9y ago

So Microsoft is a patent troll, just like Apple (who decided to sue Samsung for the 'slide to unlock'). On the bright side, I think most people don't like the 'ribbon' (I don't understand the difference with a normal tabbed UI anyway) pattern anyway.

oaiey 9y ago
Not a fan of patents at all, but is not a troll someone who does not invent and sell products? Both Microsoft does. They are playing the hard game with patents, but IMHO not troll style.
- meuk 9y ago
  You're right, 'patent troll' is not accurate here, but I couldn't find a better word.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mfoy_ 9y ago
    So you're just denigrating the entire concept of patents? O.K.
    - meuk 9y ago
      Of patenting obvious things and aggresively defending them. Although I think you could make a strong case against the whole concept of a patent as well.
      - ovao 9y ago
        You admit that you don’t understand the difference between the ribbon UI and tabbed layouts, yet assert that the ribbon design is “obvious”?
        9y ago

chris_wot 9y ago

Are there links to the actual patents in question? And how does this affect the LibreOffice notetabbar?

patentatt 9y ago
Here's some of the utility patents: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_7703036_B2 https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_7703036_B2 Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/13/93710/id=93710/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/13/93710/id=93710/

WorldMaker 9y ago

A number of quibbles about things semi-confused in this article here: 1) Fluent UI is not Ribbon UI; I'm not sure why Fluent is mentioned in the article headline, other than an implication there might be unspoken patents in the Fluent Design System, and that's an indirect spook from the topic at hand. 2) Corel's violations of the Office Ribbon UI licensing terms clearly happened during the time in which the Office Ribbon UI licensing was enforced (that is, prior to the most general release/retiring from those terms in 2016). 3) The article author seems to have a hard time finding resources regarding the historic Office Ribbon licensing terms, but even just using Jensen's blog heavily linked in the article you can find a relatively detailed FAQ: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jensenh/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jensenh/2006/11/21/licensin... 4) The key violation of Corel for the licensing terms should be very obvious from Jensen's FAQ: > There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license.

1wd 9y ago
Fluent UI is probably mentioned because "Microsoft Office Fluent user interface (UI)" (short: Fluent UI) used to mean Ribbon UI, long before the Fluent Design System existed. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff461922(v=office.14).aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff461922(v=offic...
- contextfree 9y ago
  Ribbon was the name of just one element of the Office 2007 UI system. Fluent was supposed to be the name of the whole system.
contextfree 9y ago
"Fluent" was the official name for the new Office UI system introduced with Office 2007 (which included not only the ribbon, but other stuff like the new context menus/floating toolbar, new keyboard shortcut system, etc.) The name didn't really catch on and I think Microsoft stopped using it after a short time, but I guess they eventually reused it for the new design concept introduced with Windows Redstone.

oneeyedpigeon 9y ago

If a user interface element can’t be reused, it defeats any usability you might gain from using it. It simply won’t be familiar - at least, not as familiar as it could/should be.