Microsoft patents 'Page Up' and 'Page Down'

C

The software giant applied for the patent in 2005, and was granted it on August 19, 2008. US patent number 7,415,666 describes "a method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page, regardless of whether the zoom is such that some, all or one page is currently being viewed".
The patent's listed 'inventors' are Timothy Sellers, Heather Grantham and Joshua Dersch. However, Page Up and Page Down keyboard buttons have been in existence for at least quarter of a century, as evidenced by this image of a 1981 IBM PC keyboard.

More

Yuck! Thank God software patents are not explicitly allowed in Indian law. Never knew US patents office can grant patents on such things without even straining a few brain cells to think about its nature. :shock:

Now I know what kind of 235 patents FOSS is alleged to be violating by the great ****** dancer.

Microsoft has a long history of applying for, and being granted patents for, inventions that many argue--and can sometimes demonstrate--were based on earlier work carried out by others, or based on a common, self-evident idea.

One example is the company's patent on a mouse wheel that can scroll up and down; another is its patent on double-clicking buttons. The company received its 5,000th patent from the US Patent and Trademark Office in March 2006, and is currently approaching the 10,000 mark.

++++++++++++++++++

This is STUPIDITY

LMAO .. US PATENTS :lol:

Wth !

This is interesting!

yay! GO MS GO!!!

H

lulz , Where else but only in America.

<quote> Mr.Bush: if you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything. <unquote>

So guyz who fu**ed 1st
I wanna meet him lol

C

Ecko said:
So guyz who fu**ed 1st

To shout on stage that he violated N (N > 235) patents of yours?

If you read carefully, you will realize that that have not patented the working of the 'page up' and 'page up' that exists on our keyboards, but a similar function.

As of now, it works to scroll a specified length in up/down direction, irrespective of zoom. So, you will reach different positions for a certain no. of hits on the pu or pd key depending upon your zoom. What Microsoft has done is it has eliminated the zoom factor's effect.

I wish the sources would spend enough time reading the fine print before ridiculing Microsoft every time.

C

@rohan

The source's interpretation was slightly ambiguous. I went through few parts of the official patent page and understood what you told before posting the news item here.

But come on do you think this is something worth patenting?? Any decent programmer would figure out a logic to implement such a small change in behavior within a day (if he was really slow at thinking).

Now don't challenge me on giving the logic here. I can definitely accommodate this if MS Office (or any other of that so called "document viewer") was coded by me.

yeah.. now we'll get sued for using pageup and page down on Mac and Linux. watch your back

C

Especially if some open-source programmer who has brain cells to think figures out a simple logic and assumes that something this simple to do cannot be patented.

@Chandru,
I don't what effort has gone into making this function possible. So I cannot tell you if its worth it or not!

Though I feel that some simple logic(which I have though of) is being used it, I am not sure if it really is that straight forward!

C

If you read the actual patent page they have given few sample methods in which this can be implemented (in unnecessarily complicated wordings to satisfy law). However, they have also added this statement at the end which makes it really risky for anyone to handle Page Up and Page Down in a similar fashion.

It should be understood, however, that there is no intention to limit the invention to the specific forms disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, alternative constructions, and equivalents falling within the spirit and scope of the invention.

The whole scope covered by the invention (a spark of idea rather), irrespective of the actual implementations provided is covered by the patent thus creating a nasty trap for several programmers who may not have a lawyer to consult for each module they code.

^I think you are too excited about the patent

AFAIK, patents are not not awarded for 'an idea/concept which I shall click me tomorrow'.

C

rohan_shenoy said:
^I think you are too excited about the patent
AFAIK, patents are not not awarded for 'an idea/concept which I shall click me tomorrow'.

I'm rather wondering what will happen if I code a piece of software and distribute it in US. Who knows what more nonsense patents they will have.

Patents are awarded only for idea/concept not for the exact implementations. Exact implementations are actually covered by copyright.

^lol!

C

Actually Rohan is right.

Now Microsoft can scream that Apple violated more patents than Microsoft did with the Apple. All is Fair in OS war.

C

codyhulk said:
Actually Rohan is right.

You mean patents are not awarded for idea/concept? Oh come on!