Slashdot Log In
Red Hat Enlists Community Help To Fight Patent Trolls
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Feb 14, 2009 08:19 AM
from the strength-in-numbers dept.
from the strength-in-numbers dept.
Stickster writes "Back in 2007, IP Innovation filed a lawsuit against Red Hat and Novell. IP Innovation is a subsidiary of Acacia Technologies. You may have heard of them — they're reported to be the most litigious patent troll in the USA, meaning they produce nothing of value other than money from those whom they sue (or threaten to sue) over patent issues. They're alleging infringement of patents on a user interface that has multiple workspaces. Hard to say just what they mean (which is often a problem in software patents), but it sounds a lot like functionality that pretty much all programmers and consumers use. That patent was filed back on March 25, 1987 by some folks at Xerox/PARC, which means that prior art dated before then is helpful — and art dated before March 25, 1986 is the most useful. (That means art found in a Linux distribution may not help, seeing as how Linus Torvalds first began the Linux kernel in 1991.) Red Hat has invited the community to join in the fight against the patent trolls by identifying prior art. They are coordinating efforts through the Post Issue Peer to Patent site, which is administered by the Center for Patent Innovations at the New York Law School, in conjunction with the US Patent and Trademark Office."
Related Stories
[+]
Linux Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat/Novell 473 comments
walterbyrd writes "Just months after the last nail in SCO's case, and on the same day as Red Hat's brave words about patent intimidation, a company filed the first patent suit against the Linux operating system. IP Innovation LLC filed the claim against Red Hat and Novell over U.S. Patent No. 5,072,412. PJ points out there is prior art here: 'You might recall the patent was used in litigation against Apple in April 2007, and Beta News reported at the time that it's a 1991 Xerox PARC patent. But Ars Technica provided the detail that it references earlier patents going back to 1984.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Amiga 1000... (Score:5, Informative)
...in 1985. Next question!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Old and new patent rules... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically, patents filed before June 8th, 1995 are granted a life of 20 years from earliest U.S. filing to which priority is claimed (excluding provisionals) or 17 years from issue, which ever is longer. After June 8th 1995, patents have a life of 20 years from earliest U.S. filing to which priority is claimed (excluding provisionals).
See also here [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Amiga 1000... (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. And you could grab the titlebar of a screen and drag it down, and it would reveal the workspace behind it, upscaled to the resolution of the forward screen.
One of my favourite "blow friends away" demos was to pull a screen halfway down with F18 Interceptor running behind it, and then type in a word processor (or whatever) in the forward screen with no slowdown in either the game or the application.
That computer had its quirks, but it was powerful way beyond its time.
DG
Parent
Re:Amiga 1000... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More about Pick at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/pick-system [answers.com]
Also, Jonathan Sisk wrote extensively about PickOS. He's at http://www.jes.com/ [jes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Eh? At least be original in your trolling instead of just copying the same crap each time. With a little effort, research and imagination you could put together a 'mini-series' of Linux trolls that we'd all have fun rebutting. I suggest you start with something simple, such as driver support, then move on to something more advanced...
Apple's Switcher (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Depending on how you define workspace, Windows1.0 also qualifies as prior art.
Or you can look to the history of the physical facsimile of software "multiple workplaces," the KVM, invented sometime in the early 80s and ubiquitous by the late 80s.
MS-DOS (Score:5, Informative)
There's a subtle, but possibly important, distinction between Apple's Switcher, DESQview and the AmigaOS mentioned by an earlier poster. The patent is said to apply to "multiple workspaces." Switcher and DESQview switched between workspaces. Although the underlying OS only supported a single application in a workspace, a workspace could also contain things like Macintosh Desk Accessories. AmigaOS supported multiple applications running in a single workspace.
Parent
You beat me to it (Score:4, Informative)
Was just searching for the date:
"DESQview was released in July 1985, four months before Microsoft introduced the first version of Windows. It was widely thought to be the first program to bring multitasking and windowing capabilities to DOS, but in fact there was a predecessor, IBM's failed TopView, released in 1984, from which DESQview inherited the popup menu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview [wikipedia.org]
From the the entry for TopView:
"TopView ran in real mode on any x86 processor and could run well-behaved MS-DOS programs in windows. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopView [wikipedia.org]
So I guess there's plenty of prior art.
Of course, there's MVS also which came out in 1974 IIRC...not sure if that counts, tho.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
AmigaOS supported multiple applications running in a single workspace.
AmigaDOS supported both multiple applications running in a single workspace, and applications which had their own workspace. In essence the system was much like MDI, except that all your applications that were MDI had their own screen, which could be pulled up and down, stacked, layered, etc but not resized - and all your other applications were on a single screen. You could specify that they could not be pulled up and down as well, although the operating system would pull them down anyway to display fatal
No... (Score:2)
GEOS too... (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa [wikipedia.org]
Of course, I suspect this is why he didn't include Apple in the suit...
Actually, they were quite nice, if expensive machines. And everyone wanted one when they came out, because there was nothing like it in the consumer market. Note - nobody could *afford* one, but god, we all wanted and lusted after these things..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best of these was Desqview, essentially a sophisticated task-switcher that loaded on top of DOS. With the advent of the 386, it was a terrific "multi-tasking" solution for that time. There weren't really multiple desktops involved, though; you'd simply switch among the various active programs. I could easily run 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and SPSS on a 386 with 2 MB of memory, and still have room to spare for a DOS box. This was in 1988, though, and Desqview386 wasn't very old at that time. Hell, the 386
Re: (Score:2)
This could turn into a pretty good argument over the legitimacy of proprietary software as outfits like Microsoft may have quite a bit of prior art hidden within their OSs. That would put them in the position of actively aiding a fraud which is a crime in itself.
Links to the Corporate Web Sites (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/ [acaciatechnologies.com]
They may want to patent the slashdot effect next, so an example of the prior art may be necessary.
Contact Groklaw... (Score:5, Insightful)
For this kind of issues, make sure folks at Groklaw [groklaw.net] get to know fast. They are the only folks I know that will dig up facts fast. In the Novell/SCO case, One guy provided evidence dating back to 1971! By the way, SCO appears to have lost that case. Amazing.
Stick a Fork in Groklaw... (Score:2)
... they're done, for all intents and purposes. Whether the reason is fatigue, health issues, or a new full-time job, it appears that PJ is no longer championing legal issues (on-line, at least). A shame, really, since the last few years has seen some of the finest collaborative work on the web, in an area where education and research is sorely needed.
Sorry for the melancholy off-topic guys. Would that the parent post was correct.
Earlier examples? (Score:2)
I'd think both the BeOS interface and Desqview/X might've qualified as well. Finding the "Microsoft link" is sort of a joke. They're a big technology company that's been around for decades. How many ex-Microsoft people are floating around? It's not like they're sending stealth agents out to infiltrate the industry. That's a little too "CoS-like", isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but is there a more definitive date than Wikipedia's "early 1980s"? I don't remember coming across any SunOS 4 kit until much later (around '90 I think). The Wikipedia picture's from 2005.
Haven't we had this since VTs? (Score:5, Informative)
Surely virtual terminals (TTYs 0—7 and onwards, switchable using control and Fx) count as workspaces, and have been around since Xenix (the forerunner to SCO UNIX) in 1980-85ish?
If it's a truly graphical thing they're after, the Amiga is an example of prior art IIRC. However, it's such an obvious idea that it shouldn't be patentable, and the fact America's patent system is so broken is truly depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the best patent system money can buy.
Sort of like our politicians. We have the best politicians that money can buy, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Unix virtual terminals do allow switching from one to the other (and obviously "what's on the other screen" is still held somewhere) but reading the (very obtuse) patent suggested that there's more to it than that - there's no link back to the previous workspace from the current one.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not [much of] a programmer and anyway have no experience writing virtual desktop managers. But it sounds like the patent would apply pretty well to the typical way of doing things up to this point: "The user can invoke a switch between workspaces by selecting a display object called a door, and a back door to the previous workspace is created automatically so that the user is not trapped in a workspace." This sounds like they are patenting not just the actual software method of going about this (which
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a truly graphical thing they're after, the Amiga is an example of prior art IIRC.
From reading the patents, it seems to be a graphical thing (which I can't define) and a virtual workspace thing which seems pretty clearly defined.
Wikipedia has an article on Virtual Desktops here [wikipedia.org]. It specifically mentions the patents in this article, as well as
One thing that the virtual desktop article does not mention is switching between users which also appears to violate the patents. UNIX, OS X and Windows have b
Hard to say just what they mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where the claims come in. The claims represent the boundaries of the "property" to which the patent lays claim. Forget about the abstract, forget about the detailed description - read the claims, and then use the specification to help you understand what the claims are talking about. Interpret the claims as broadly as is reasonable, given what the specification says.
The claims are shown here [google.com], and yes, there are a lot of them and they will make your head explode. Stick to the independent claims at first (the ones that don't say, for example, "The system of claim 1, wherein...").
The trouble with prior art on this one is that the patent is so old. It was issued at the end of 1991, and it just expired in the past couple of months. Some Slashdotters weren't even born yet when this patent was issued, much less filed. Plus, you're not arguing invalidity of a patent issued to some fly-by-night company that develops crap and files applications on it - this was Xerox, and they typically have/had their shit together.
In any case, good luck to the defendants on this one.
The Apple ][+ computer (Score:2)
With a simple poke statement in basic, you can change the graphical workspace to the other screen. Finding a computer that didn't have different workspace pages may be a tougher find.
IANAL of course (Score:2)
But isn't there some provision in patent law excluding things that are so obvious that if an "average person" can come up with it without specialized knowledge, it's not covered? Specifically Sect 103: "if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art"
Why isn't that clause being used more to get rid of all these frivolous
Plenty of Prior Art (Score:3, Insightful)
X-Window (MIT, 1984)
Apple Lisa (1983)
Windows 1.0 (1985)
Across the board defense against software patents. (Score:2)
If you understand the human rights and expectation of using Abstraction Physics [abstractionphysics.net] you'll know patents on software are acts of fraud against the human race. And its not like copyrights are not strong enough and even provide longer protection.....
Graphical Environment Manager (Score:3, Informative)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager [wikipedia.org])
This product was used in Ventura Publisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventura_publisher [wikipedia.org])
It didn't do multiple workspace (Score:3, Informative)
I used to have an Atari with GEM, didn't do multiple workspace. That's what this patent is about.
DESQview 1985 (Score:2)
This was a god send to me back when I ran my bbs. Task switching at it's finest, err.. at least for us dos types.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview [wikipedia.org]
TRS-80 Model-1 game (Score:2)
The title of the game has escaped me, but I used to load a "USA vs. USSR" game from audio cassette on my
TRS-80 Model-1 back in 1984 or so. The game allowed you to switch back and forth between the USA and the
USSR map, which essentially gives you two independent work area's.
As remote as it may be from today's systems, I think this would be prior art.
It's Xerox Rooms, surely? (Score:5, Insightful)
From reading the patent, it isn't a patent for a "GUI", multiple screens or even multiple windows - all of those predate 1985. What it appears to be is a patent for is what became "Xerox Rooms" - which was eventually offered as a Windows add-on around the early '90s.
From the linked patent:
"The user can invoke a switch between workspaces by selecting a display object called a door, and a back door to the previous workspace is created automatically so that the user is not trapped in a workspace".
It seems an odd patent to try and hit Redhat with, because I can't think of any current GUI that uses anything close to the "Rooms" model. Something close to the "standard" GUI was available on Xerox commercial workstations in around 1985-1986, before this patent was issued (I remember them from college).
The nearest that might qualify as "prior art" that I can think of is the display handling on some minicomputer workstations in the early 1980s (specifically Wang VS, but possibly others). You could just about make a claim for "multiple windows held in memory" and there being a "display object" which took you back the previous workspace. You'd struggle at calling it an "object-based user interface" though.
Umm... (Score:2)
Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but I believe y'all should be going to TFA and posting your comments there.
Echoing earlier posts, I used an Amiga, DESQview, GEM, MUC-DOS, etc. in the 80's.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
By "TFA" I mean this: http://www.post-issue.org/user-interface-with-multiple-workspaces-for-sharing-display-system-objects-3 [post-issue.org]
Oberon and Smalltalk? (Score:3, Informative)
The Oberon Project started in 1985 and I think it had independent screenspaces from the start. Smalltalk was developed in the early 70's at PARC, and and I'm not sure what the relationship is with the disputed patent, but independent screen space management was a feature.
While UNIX didn't have X-Windows in the early very early 80's, it did have multiple screens, virtual TTY's, and multiple screenspaces. The extensive documentation that came with SystemV rel3.x told how to create applications in C that used independent screen space. All Xenix, Cromix, Esix and Kodak versions included this documetation, and so did the official Bell documentation.
Expiring MDI / tabbed view patent claim? (Score:2)
It looks like they are trying to argue that they invented the tabbed multiple document selection within an application. With that in mind, what we would be looking for is evidence of an application that supports the editing of multiple documents that predates this patent. Could the venerable emacs claim to have supported multiple files prior to then?
The patent should be expiring soon anyway? (Score:2)
The issue date is 1991, and what's the current year? I thought patents lasted 18 years, meaning that the patent expires this year. Why the worry?
CP/M (Score:2)
Digital Research created two products in the 80's, Concurrent CP/M and Concurrent DOS, which had a multi-view aspect to the user interface. You could run 4 text-based applications simultaneously and switch between them using a hotkey. (Alternatively, you could also custom code an XIOS to connect each process to an individual terminal and timeshare, which is something we did at the first place I worked) I'm fairly certain Concurrent CP/M was available prior to this patent being filed.
Re:Sorry, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)