MS just patented a type of APPLE Tree discovered.

Who is patent happy?

The examples given in the patent refer to the Speech Recognition window, and the inventors are both members of the Apple speech team.

Looks like Longhorn will be pushed back another 6 months as they "adjust" the "OS X like" features.

"MS just patented a type of APPLE Tree discovered."

Acutally, it was revealed that it was awarded to MS in error...

But still, the fact that a type of tree, from nature, can be patented shows just how screwed up the US patent system is.

That's what it all boils down to. For the good of humanity? No, it's all about the all might dollar and how much of it I can shove in my pocket. And let's not forget, freedom equals money, the more you have the more freedom you're allowed. If you're smart, you'll patent every single original idea you ever have, when in rome.

"But still, the fact that a type of tree, from nature, can be patented shows just how screwed up the US patent system is."

Not really. A plant can be patented only if it can be asexually reproduced (hint: plants in nature typically reproduce sexually). And, even then, the patent only covers one particular method of asexual reproduction. Someone else can grow the tree using sexual reproduction or another form of asexual reproduction without violating the patent.

It's also the case that you can only patent something you invented. Finding a plant and saying "look what I found" doesn't grant you patent rights.

So how about learning about the patent system before you criticize it?

"So how about learning about the patent system before you criticize it?"

Noone needs to know that much about it to criticize it or know how screwed up it is; but since you're too lazy to lookup info for yourself, here's a few links for you:

http://www.eff.org/Patent/
http://www.fightthepatent.com/
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
http://www.frommeyer.com/news-00.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.james/patentabuse.html
http://www.youmaybenext.com/
http://burnallgifs.org/
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
http://www.noepatents.org/

I would call it self defense

LOL
you read about some stuff on the internet so that makes you an expert, huh? I am of the opinion that you generally DO need to know quite a bit about something before you criticize it. Otherwise you just come across sounding like a fool.

It can be useful to listen to opinions from people who ARE experts. But often what passes for an expert on the internet is decidedly less than expert level. And in many other cases there is a significant amount of agenda involved.

There is no substitute for personal knowledge.

Apple should get a patent on whatever they want, given that every Windows "development" has been a direct rip-off of their innovations.

They should patent keyboard commands! ;)

Actually, patents are kinda counter to capitalism since it is placing restraint on a businesses.
For more info -> http://www.capitalism.org/

But I agree with you, these patents are a mess. Reminds me of MAD during the cold war. None of the big players are going to enforce any of these patents cause some else could just fire right back.

"you read about some stuff on the internet so that makes you an expert, huh?"

*I* never said I was an expert, but obviously you feel like you are.

Did you even bother to read the links I provided, or is copying and pasting them in your browser window too difficult for you?

They all clearly demonstrate what happens when patent abuse happens. But I guess you won't bother to read them since they'll destroy your flawed arguments.

I have transparent windows in my house....they allow me to see through walls.

And for more fine arguments (for both sides), there's the comments on slashdot: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/15/1332215&mode=thread&tid=107&tid=155&tid=187&tid=99

You have to protect yourself, this is the best way to do it. Might as well apply for the patent, just because you apply doesn't mean you are going to get it.

Remember, Thomas Edison had 1,368 distinct patents before he died.

"Apple and MS have a cross-patent agreement that allows the other to license patented technology."

I thought that agreement ended last summer? I think it did.

"I thought that agreement ended last summer? I think it did."

I'm not sure; I think it was about the agreement of MS continuing to write SW for the Mac. Don't think it had to do with patent cross-licensing

"Remember, Thomas Edison had 1,368 distinct patents before he died."

I don't think people are against patents in general, just patent abuse, especially that of sw or business method patents, or anything that you naturally do every day that gets a patent just because the words "by using a computer" gets tacked on to the description.

Basically what we have now is instead of 'building a better mouse trap' we have 'contraption to capture/detain rodents'. Of course that means your foot could violate that, and you couldn't improve on an actual mouse trap (or any other type of trap, really) without getting sued as a reward because the description is so broad.

I have read some of those links before. And I am well aware of the abuses and weaknesses of the system.

If you want to see my opinions on software patents they can be read here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107700&cid=9162655

In some ways I think people are expecting too much perfection out of the patent system. Some of this is due to an obvious deficiency in the number of examiners. That should be rectified with new legislation working its way through Congress. But some of it is just the nature of the game. The USPTO will not be perfect. Historically a large percentage of patents (regular old non-computer, non-business process) are invalidated or restricted via a trial.

I am sure the system can be improved but people are getting all worked up as if it's the end of civilization as we know it. It's one thing to be against patent abuse but usually people just come across as being against patents. Or they make suggestions without really understanding anything about patents at all. That's not constructive.

And, no, I would not characterize myself as an expert. However, I am studying to be an IP lawyer and will be taking the patent bar exam this summer. So I do know a little bit.

Then what about opening up the patent approval process to the public (as I and many others have suggested - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102196&cid=8711170 if you're curious) for application reviews? I mean, we're bitching, they (USPTO) are bitching about not enough resources, and noone is happy. If they let the public in on things (which they should, since the USPTO obviously can't/isn't doing the job it's paid for by the public), they'd have more than enough 'resources' to deal with the bogus patents.

I'd wonder if the Apple description translucent windows works in a similar way to an API call that enables windows opacity on Windows-see below:
Visual basic example

Private Sub menudtst_Click()
Dim ret As Long
'Set the window style to 'Layered'
ret = GetWindowLong(Me.hWnd, GWL_EXSTYLE)
ret = ret Or WS_EX_LAYERED
SetWindowLong Me.hWnd, GWL_EXSTYLE, ret
'Set the opacity of the layered window to 128
SetLayeredWindowAttributes Me.hWnd, 0, 128, LWA_ALPHA
End Sub
Yes, it shouldn't be granted-eg. window opacity has been part of say Windows 2000/XP and many other operating systems

They already do. An application is published after 18 months (although a request can be made to forego this).

The was precisely the reason we heard about this Apple application (not a patent, an application). The public is now afforded with an opportunity to submit prior art for consideration (there are forms and everything :)

"(which they should, since the USPTO obviously can't/isn't doing the job it's paid for by the public)"

They are doing the job. But the work is harder than private practice and the pay is less. Examiners have 50% more applications to review now than they did 20 years ago and the task is tougher because of new technology and the proliferation of published works. But, as I mentioned before, that *should* change if they pass this new law (with funding for the intention to hire 75% or so more examiners).

are y'all ragging on the patent system? To me, this "news" means that we get a hint at what the next 1309 dollar X license this fall is going to be all about.

You'll undoubtedly rag on me, but I'm seeing a pattern here... every fall, we "have" to cough up 130 bucks to apple... for one-three new "features" that just ain't all THAT valuable (i.e. expose is col, but I've had a button for "hide all" since 10.2 and that does just about the same thing) AND to be able to continue using current technologies (i.e. they cut Java off at 141 for 10.2.x, a lot of normally cross platform stuff is moving to 142 and we ain't getting 142 for 10.2.x).

Frankly, THAT kind of stuff I find way, way more "annoying that the US Patent system.

Yep, Apple's becoming more and more like MS for product cycles.

I especially like how they don't fix blatant bugs in the older OS and expect everyone to 'buy' the bug fixes available in the newest versions only (the 10.2 USB bug being a prime example) instead. Or the lack of support for some programs (*cough* Safari *cough*) in older OS. Funny how Mozilla, Opera, etc. are able to write a browser that doesn't depend on any specific version of the OS to run, but Apple is incapable of doing this.....

Yeah, but it's also funny what a bunch of spoiled whiners *some* Apple customers are. The outrage about Apple charging for iLife was just plain hilarious.

And I assume you used the word "incapable" sarcastically. They obviously are capable of doing a great many things. But they also need to make money. Even with all these supposedly evil things Apple is doing their net margins are so tiny. So many people want free stuff though.

... golfking. It's a company. iLife's an amazing package of software. it deserves to be paid for.

Do you realize the c*** Windows has for Photo organizing? Movie Making? DVD creation? It's awful. Same for music before iTunes.

Add on Garage Band and you have a legit reason to spend 50$.

There's no reason why Safari SHOUDLN'T be an enticement to upgrade. Opera and Mozilla are programs that need a giant net. Use them on anything. Safari though, it's a reason to upgrade in and of itself. And I don't know what 10.2 USB bug you mean - I've had no problems.

An optional 99 or 150 a year for software is pretty reasonable, given that Apple develops the single best OS. I LIKE using OS 10.3. So what's the real problem? If I don't think 10.4 is worth it, I'll vote that with my dollar. If 10.5 then becomes worth it, again, I'll vote with my dollar.

MS Jerks it's customers - making them wait for crappy software. Apple delivers quality software, with reasonable updates.

Beside, a full WIndows XP install is 300 some-odd dollars. The entire OS X is 150. Seems like a Bargin, over the 4 or 5 year life of a computer. Two OS updates, once every two years.

I think these patents are a step in the right direction for Apple. Translucency has been used in the past by other companies and groups for their interfaces but nothing system wide and sold to the public.
People wouldn't complain if the "start menu" was patented by Microsoft, why should this be any different.

Hopefully, Apple is careful with this. Unless it is immediately intuitive, it will be a confusing flop. I like the idea of it being used for preference panes. Maybe something to do with the dock. It is in desperate need of a revamp. Maybe they will blend this in with the dock - instead of it "hiding" it will just fade and provide minimal info. Then when you mouse over it, it expands to provide more information and functions (instead of having to click on and icon). I wish I could program...

"Yeah, but it's also funny what a bunch of spoiled whiners *some* Apple customers are"

Right, call people 'whiners' just because they expect to get what they paid for. Smooth, real smooth.

Besides, I never said anything about iLife; learn to read.

Apple has invented "clear".

This may seem cynical, but I find it unlikely apple will put an intellegent use to this "invention". The most likely target for it's use is another gee-wizz effect similar to expose, designed to sell 10.4. Though I love expose, I still think it's a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place: discovering and acting on windows. The fact that the finder is cluttered is part of the reason why expose is so helpful.

That asside, I think translucency can make things even MORE confusing, because you can't tell what object you're affecting by clicking on a spot on the screen ("will it be the translucent object or the one below it?") Though I disagree with the spacial finder concept, one thing it mentions IS very important for improving the finder: that is, objects should be predictable. An object is an object, and tranlucency tends to blur which objects are actionable and which aren't.

I'll leave final judgement for whatever apple comes up with, but let's hope they don't just tack on a wizz-bang effect without some thinking about how that effect improves the desktop experience.

It's reasonable to expect Apple to fix bugs whenever they can. But if something is crippled or broken so badly that the only possible fix is a rewrite then I see no problem with making people upgrade.

And I know you didn't say anything about iLife; learn not to be an a**