3 ms·

> I cannot understand how it was possible to patent a "Start menu" It isn’t, this “article” is just bad-intentioned bullshit.

by kaba0 3y ago

lproven 3y ago
So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. This is ad hom, and it is bad and wrong, it is hurtful, it is mean, and it is against the spirit of HN.
- bkor 3y ago
  > So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. You keep repeating this, but it's not up to others to prove what you claim is wrong. It's up to you to prove it is correct.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Prove yourself right first. Literally the creators behind several of these projects called out that what you are saying is outright false. I’m commenting in multiple places because fighting disinformation is very hard (compared to producing it), I’m just trying to make it right, before people believe the falsehoods you state. Your intentions might be good, but that doesn’t change the outcome.
- vidarh 3y ago
  You could prove your unsubstantiated claim. What is the relevant patent number, and how did Gnome's design infringe on it, and how would removing it require a fundamental re-design of Gnome to avoid infringing? Here's what I've found: They do have a patent for a "taskbar with start menu", number US5920316A. The abstract focuses on the taskbar, and the main claims are all linked to having a taskbar and to the taskbar being tied to a specific location (though changeable) and being permanent or autoiding in that location. Ignoring whether or not Gnome actually infringed - there are a lot of additional details to the claims - replacing the taskbar with iconified windows or using a click or hotkey to pop up a UI element instead would both be enough to avoid infringing on all the main claims of that patent. But there are so many additional details that it's likely you could easily avoid that patent while retaining a full task bar in any case. What is clear is that it'd be ludicrous for Gnome to take as long as they did to remove the taskbar given this patent if they were being actually threatened by this and given how simple it'd be to work around. The claims regarding the start menu are excruciatingly detailed in the general description, but very little actually appears in the actual claims. This is a common tactic to try to give the appearance of a far more comprehensive patent than you actually have, but what is covered regarding anything resembling a start menu in the actual claims of the patent is near nothing. Given you're being directly contradicted by people more closely involved, unless you have something substantially better, these claims looks like total hogwash.

> I cannot understand how it was possible to patent a "Start menu" It isn’t, this “article” is just bad-intentioned bullshit.

by kaba0 3y ago

> I cannot understand how it was possible to patent a "Start menu" It isn’t, this “article” is just bad-intentioned bullshit.

lproven 3y ago

So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. This is ad hom, and it is bad and wrong, it is hurtful, it is mean, and it is against the spirit of HN.

bkor 3y ago
> So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. You keep repeating this, but it's not up to others to prove what you claim is wrong. It's up to you to prove it is correct.
kaba0 3y ago
Prove yourself right first. Literally the creators behind several of these projects called out that what you are saying is outright false. I’m commenting in multiple places because fighting disinformation is very hard (compared to producing it), I’m just trying to make it right, before people believe the falsehoods you state. Your intentions might be good, but that doesn’t change the outcome.
vidarh 3y ago
You could prove your unsubstantiated claim. What is the relevant patent number, and how did Gnome's design infringe on it, and how would removing it require a fundamental re-design of Gnome to avoid infringing? Here's what I've found: They do have a patent for a "taskbar with start menu", number US5920316A. The abstract focuses on the taskbar, and the main claims are all linked to having a taskbar and to the taskbar being tied to a specific location (though changeable) and being permanent or autoiding in that location. Ignoring whether or not Gnome actually infringed - there are a lot of additional details to the claims - replacing the taskbar with iconified windows or using a click or hotkey to pop up a UI element instead would both be enough to avoid infringing on all the main claims of that patent. But there are so many additional details that it's likely you could easily avoid that patent while retaining a full task bar in any case. What is clear is that it'd be ludicrous for Gnome to take as long as they did to remove the taskbar given this patent if they were being actually threatened by this and given how simple it'd be to work around. The claims regarding the start menu are excruciatingly detailed in the general description, but very little actually appears in the actual claims. This is a common tactic to try to give the appearance of a far more comprehensive patent than you actually have, but what is covered regarding anything resembling a start menu in the actual claims of the patent is near nothing. Given you're being directly contradicted by people more closely involved, unless you have something substantially better, these claims looks like total hogwash.