What's really galling about this particular patent trolling is that Rob Griffiths, principal of Many Tricks which publishes Moom, is one of the original OS X nerd's nerd.
He's done so much for the OS X and the UNIX communities, having run Mac OS X Hints for more than a decade. [0] When pro users were just figuring out best practices for everything from window management to command line AppleScript (osascript) to postfix configuration, Griffiths' tireless and largely selfless (ads were unobtrusive, implemented with a very light touch) support of Mac OS X hints made it the go-to site for how to do all things command line in OS X.
It's a shame this patent troll has chosen to shake down so selfless a member of the OS X community.
Years ago, when OS X was my preferred platform, I was really impressed from the fast and really good support of "Many Tricks". Always felt like I was supporting one of my colleagues emerging side projects and I felt quite good as he was actual taking customer care serious by trying to solve things in direct communication and not just redirecting to a FAQ or similar.
I just want to say thank you, Rob!
Keep fighting the trolls.
This looks pretty cool. I'm on a phone, so didn't look at source, but I'm curious about install procedure (also see an issue about brew).
As a web dev, I think I'd like to see this work like a css grid. Width then height. So, ^3^2 would be three columns two rows. Maybe that won't work in practice. Maybe I'll play with the code to see.
I've been using Magnet for a while now. It seems much more stable and efficient than Spectacle. Hopefully it will not end up on this chopping block as well. http://magnet.crowdcafe.com/
Does Spectical have a grid UI like that? I've only ever used keyboard shortcuts to position the windows using it. If it doesn't have that grid UI selector thing then I think it's fine.
Software patents don't exist in Europe. So they can probably just add some small-print that says "please don't download this if you are outside of Europe".
I once designed an app to later realize that I was infringing dozens of patents I never knew existed before.
Go and read a dozen patents, then come back and tell me they're not obvious. Most of them are ridiculously obvious, assuming you have some understanding of their given field/domain.
I was always told not to read patents. If it can be proven you're aware of a patent prior to releasing something that infringes it, you get hit with extra penalties. See [1] and [2].
I was about to complain loudly about bullshit patents, but then I took some time to read the actual patent (make sure to look at the images too!), and it turns out that this patent describes a method that is very similar to what Moom does (judging by screenshots). This is not a case of the overly broad patents that we usually complain about, this is a very precise patent.
Being similar doesn't justify it as a patent. A core foundation of patents is that the invention be novel and non-obvious to a practitioner. If countless people independently -- without learning from the claims -- derive exactly the same "invention", it is an invalid patent. Of course then you have to actually get it invalidated, at great time and expense.
It is completely a bullshit patent. The patent office got their fees, and then they'll get their fees again to re-evaluate it.
I disagree. I feel that patents should exist to help companies recoup the cost of expensive R&D. Designing a window manager of this kind doesn't fall under that umbrella. Any reasonably competent software designer could come up with UX like this without a large time investment. Different companies should be able to iterate and refine these kinds of designs. This only has the effect of reducing the size of the software economy and does not provide the intended benefit of helping anyone recoup expensive development costs.
...but somehow I doubt they'll be suing Adobe until they've successfully gone after all the other folks who independently invented something similar to their patent.
Agreed. I read the patent before checking out what Moom was, and I'd say Moom is a pretty good implementation of the invention described in the patent. I think they might be stuck here.
knowing absolutely nothing about patent law, I'm surprised that tiling window managers are not considered prior art or would at least mean this idea is not novel.
The most important single thing to read in a patent is the claims, especially the independent (stand-alone) claims.
Infringement analysis amounts to attempting to map the claim's list of elements onto the accused method or structure; if the map function returns FALSE, then that particular claim very likely isn't infringed by that particular accused method or structure.
(That is: If any claim element isn't present—possibly in the form of an "equivalent"—then the accused method or structure doesn't infringe that particular claim.)
Prior-art analysis works backwards: If a claim returns TRUE when mapped onto a piece of prior art—or onto something that would have been "obvious" at the time the invention was made when taking into account all of the relevant prior art [0]—then that claim is probably unpatentable.
In this patent, claim 1 seems to be representative. I've broken up the paragraphing and added bracketed lettering.
(Usual disclaimer: This shouldn't be relied on as a substitute for legal advice; I'm not acting as anyone's lawyer; etc.)
==QUOTE==
1. A method for positioning a window on a user's display, the method comprising:
[A] providing, in a window-based computing environment, an image [i] representing an entire display area of a user's computer screen and [ii] comprising a plurality of selectable regions,
each selectable region [x] representing a sub-area within the display area and [y] having a shape and orientation similar to the corresponding sub-area,
wherein the selectable regions are arranged in the same way the corresponding sub-areas are arranged in the display area;
[B] enabling a user to simultaneously select more than one selectable region from the plurality of selectable regions; and
[C] automatically moving a window in the window-based computing environment to a sub-area corresponding to the selected more than one selectable region.
==END QUOTE==
[0] Obviousness analysis is really tricky because it necessarily requires hindsight. The test is, in essence: Given everything that was known in the relevant field(s) at the time, would a hypothetical person of "ordinary skill" (in that field or fields) have regarded the claimed subject as obvious?
My personal tl;dr for obviousness analysis is this: Suppose that a team of competent-but-not-necessarily-stellar colleagues were shown or told about the claimed invention. If their collective reaction was to raise their eyebrows and murmur, "hmm; that's interesting," then the claimed invention might well have been non-obvious. On the other hand, if their collective reaction was to shrug their shoulders and say, "um, yeah, and?" then the claimed invention might well have been obvious.
In the real world, obviousness analysis is supported by "objective evidence" of nonobviousness, if available. For example, commercial success that's shown to be due to the technical merits of the claimed invention (as opposed to being due mainly to, e.g., marketing) can weigh heavily in favor of nonobviousness. Admiration of experts, ditto.
(I once heard a story, very likely apocryphal, about a patent examiner who rejected a patent application on grounds of obviousness; the patent attorney overcame the rejection by pointing out that the claimed invention had received the Nobel Prize. Personally I'm skeptical because the timing wouldn't work, but the story illustrates the concept.)
Came here to say this, and I wish more non-lawyers understood how to read a patent. The scope of coverage is not the title. The scope of coverage is not the drawings. It's the claims.
If folks want to explain why this shouldn't have issued, identify a single document from before 2008 that describes every single feature of the claims.
It's worth noting that this issued just before a 2014 Supreme Court case (Alice v. CLS Bank) that probably can be used to kill the patent regardless of whether it's novel and non-obvious.
1. Have a lot of money to hire best layers to sink bastard.
2. Work for a big corp/government.
3. Live in a country where they don't give a damn about patents.
so.. as programmers, we should be getting a patent first on any new idea before we begin programming? So much for an MVP.
We need tools to simplify the process of writing a good patent. The current system is skewed towards business types that would rather game the system than create an actual thing.
[+] [-] mistersquid|9 years ago|reply
He's done so much for the OS X and the UNIX communities, having run Mac OS X Hints for more than a decade. [0] When pro users were just figuring out best practices for everything from window management to command line AppleScript (osascript) to postfix configuration, Griffiths' tireless and largely selfless (ads were unobtrusive, implemented with a very light touch) support of Mac OS X hints made it the go-to site for how to do all things command line in OS X.
It's a shame this patent troll has chosen to shake down so selfless a member of the OS X community.
[0] http://macosxhints.com (redirects to) http://hints.macworld.com
EDIT: Grammar: add missing direct object to last sentence of second paragraph.
[+] [-] berlam|9 years ago|reply
I just want to say thank you, Rob! Keep fighting the trolls.
[+] [-] novaleaf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janten|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codazoda|9 years ago|reply
As a web dev, I think I'd like to see this work like a css grid. Width then height. So, ^3^2 would be three columns two rows. Maybe that won't work in practice. Maybe I'll play with the code to see.
[+] [-] Nemcue|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nowherecat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rapind|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codazoda|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] oneeyedpigeon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] justintoon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idbehold|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|9 years ago|reply
(IANAL)
[+] [-] geocar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miguelrochefort|9 years ago|reply
Go and read a dozen patents, then come back and tell me they're not obvious. Most of them are ridiculously obvious, assuming you have some understanding of their given field/domain.
[+] [-] ferbivore|9 years ago|reply
[1]: http://www.dresan.com/blog/2011/04/05/i-dont-read-patents/ [2]: http://endsoftpatents.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patent...
[+] [-] jakobegger|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endorphone|9 years ago|reply
It is completely a bullshit patent. The patent office got their fees, and then they'll get their fees again to re-evaluate it.
[+] [-] psyc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davesque|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egypturnash|9 years ago|reply
So that should be interesting.
This patent may also cover the window arrangement widget in Adobe's products, which seems to date back to at least 2011 (google for 'adobe application frame'): http://egypt.urnash.com/media/blogs.dir/1/files/2017/05/Scre...
...but somehow I doubt they'll be suing Adobe until they've successfully gone after all the other folks who independently invented something similar to their patent.
[+] [-] empressplay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driverdan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] appleflaxen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwerty_asdf|9 years ago|reply
https://www.google.com/patents/US8434019
https://www.google.com/search?q="Daniel+Paul+Nelson"
[+] [-] mjw1007|9 years ago|reply
So if the patent stands up, I suppose they'd have the option of just removing that feature.
[+] [-] geocar|9 years ago|reply
This is something they should discuss with their attorney.
[+] [-] adolph|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkmcf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Plugawy|9 years ago|reply
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiling_window_manager
[+] [-] Brajeshwar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wink|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] altern8tif|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RayVR|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoelTheSuperior|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dctoedt|9 years ago|reply
Infringement analysis amounts to attempting to map the claim's list of elements onto the accused method or structure; if the map function returns FALSE, then that particular claim very likely isn't infringed by that particular accused method or structure.
(That is: If any claim element isn't present—possibly in the form of an "equivalent"—then the accused method or structure doesn't infringe that particular claim.)
Prior-art analysis works backwards: If a claim returns TRUE when mapped onto a piece of prior art—or onto something that would have been "obvious" at the time the invention was made when taking into account all of the relevant prior art [0]—then that claim is probably unpatentable.
In this patent, claim 1 seems to be representative. I've broken up the paragraphing and added bracketed lettering.
(Usual disclaimer: This shouldn't be relied on as a substitute for legal advice; I'm not acting as anyone's lawyer; etc.)
==QUOTE==
1. A method for positioning a window on a user's display, the method comprising:
[A] providing, in a window-based computing environment, an image [i] representing an entire display area of a user's computer screen and [ii] comprising a plurality of selectable regions,
each selectable region [x] representing a sub-area within the display area and [y] having a shape and orientation similar to the corresponding sub-area,
wherein the selectable regions are arranged in the same way the corresponding sub-areas are arranged in the display area;
[B] enabling a user to simultaneously select more than one selectable region from the plurality of selectable regions; and
[C] automatically moving a window in the window-based computing environment to a sub-area corresponding to the selected more than one selectable region.
==END QUOTE==
[0] Obviousness analysis is really tricky because it necessarily requires hindsight. The test is, in essence: Given everything that was known in the relevant field(s) at the time, would a hypothetical person of "ordinary skill" (in that field or fields) have regarded the claimed subject as obvious?
My personal tl;dr for obviousness analysis is this: Suppose that a team of competent-but-not-necessarily-stellar colleagues were shown or told about the claimed invention. If their collective reaction was to raise their eyebrows and murmur, "hmm; that's interesting," then the claimed invention might well have been non-obvious. On the other hand, if their collective reaction was to shrug their shoulders and say, "um, yeah, and?" then the claimed invention might well have been obvious.
In the real world, obviousness analysis is supported by "objective evidence" of nonobviousness, if available. For example, commercial success that's shown to be due to the technical merits of the claimed invention (as opposed to being due mainly to, e.g., marketing) can weigh heavily in favor of nonobviousness. Admiration of experts, ditto.
(I once heard a story, very likely apocryphal, about a patent examiner who rejected a patent application on grounds of obviousness; the patent attorney overcame the rejection by pointing out that the claimed invention had received the Nobel Prize. Personally I'm skeptical because the timing wouldn't work, but the story illustrates the concept.)
[+] [-] josaka|9 years ago|reply
If folks want to explain why this shouldn't have issued, identify a single document from before 2008 that describes every single feature of the claims.
It's worth noting that this issued just before a 2014 Supreme Court case (Alice v. CLS Bank) that probably can be used to kill the patent regardless of whether it's novel and non-obvious.
[+] [-] eb0la|9 years ago|reply
I remember using software from Barco to position application Windows on a videowall that predates that patent at least five years.
Maybe getting prior art at hand could be good (just a suggestion)
[+] [-] shafiqissani|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brighthero|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dig1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beshrkayali|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codecamper|9 years ago|reply
We need tools to simplify the process of writing a good patent. The current system is skewed towards business types that would rather game the system than create an actual thing.