5 ms·

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 t

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.
        Retric 9y ago
        I was pointing out you see them both used in the same context somewhere else. JRPG's had both context sensitivity and nested tabable menus. If they have some very narrow definition that's allowed, but a wide scope invites a wider range of prior art.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Legal systems vary, but patents typically require something along the lines of an original and non-obvious invention. Desktop software has been using palette-style UIs with an arranged mix of controls, toolbars along the sides of a main display area, tabbed controls, and context-dependent controls and information for about as long as GUIs have existed, with countless examples of each of these things going back decades before Microsoft introduced the Ribbon branding, all of which seem to constitute prior art. So in what way is a ribbon-style UI either original or non-obvious enough to merit patent protection? What distinct new thing have Microsoft really invented here?
- nailer 9y ago
  I honestly thought this was famous as a patent where there was prior art - surprised the parent is downmodded and anyone else who knows what 'ribbon' means doesn't know about it being done before Microsoft patented it. - HotDog - Macromedia HomeSite - Dreamweaver - Borland Delphi all used ribbon UIs before Microsoft patented it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homesite-2.5.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homesite-2.5.png Then again, I'm getting old so maybe people didn't use a lot of these apps.
  - nailer 9y ago
    Dreamweaver shot: http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/dreamweaver/insert-bar/images/screen-04.jpg http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/dreamweaver/insert-bar...
  - WalterGR 9y ago
    All of those programs have context-sensitive ribbons?
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-...

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.
      - Retric 9y ago
        I was pointing out you see them both used in the same context somewhere else. JRPG's had both context sensitivity and nested tabable menus. If they have some very narrow definition that's allowed, but a wide scope invites a wider range of prior art.
Silhouette 9y ago
Legal systems vary, but patents typically require something along the lines of an original and non-obvious invention. Desktop software has been using palette-style UIs with an arranged mix of controls, toolbars along the sides of a main display area, tabbed controls, and context-dependent controls and information for about as long as GUIs have existed, with countless examples of each of these things going back decades before Microsoft introduced the Ribbon branding, all of which seem to constitute prior art. So in what way is a ribbon-style UI either original or non-obvious enough to merit patent protection? What distinct new thing have Microsoft really invented here?
nailer 9y ago
I honestly thought this was famous as a patent where there was prior art - surprised the parent is downmodded and anyone else who knows what 'ribbon' means doesn't know about it being done before Microsoft patented it. - HotDog - Macromedia HomeSite - Dreamweaver - Borland Delphi all used ribbon UIs before Microsoft patented it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homesite-2.5.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homesite-2.5.png Then again, I'm getting old so maybe people didn't use a lot of these apps.
- nailer 9y ago
  Dreamweaver shot: http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/dreamweaver/insert-bar/images/screen-04.jpg http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/dreamweaver/insert-bar...
- WalterGR 9y ago
  All of those programs have context-sensitive ribbons?

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-...