Comment buried. Show
1. dslund

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2007

   +2
   12/26, 02:26pm | report spam | close reply

   Good Grief and

   Good Grief.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +5
   12/26, 03:08pm | report spam | close reply

   Wow

   And to think people have used thumbnails for decades without realizing they were infringing on patents.
   
   And notice that the original patent was filed in 1998, expanded upon in 2001, and finally granted in 2008. What took so long on the granting? Waiting for the right clerk to go "Well, this seems different!"

Comment buried. Show
1. Guest

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 1999

   +9
   12/26, 03:10pm | report spam | close reply

   Does anyone...

   at the patent office ever say no to these kind of patent applications? This is getting ridiculous. Some things are too fundamental to be allowed. If it were possible, someone would try to patent the concept of a DOOR and want everybody who walked through one to pay them a royalty. Hey, I have this great idea. It's a device that lets you hang an article of clothing on it and then you put it in on a rod in a closet. I want money for every clothes hanger ever made!! Absurdity, of course, to illustrate how some things should not be allowed to be patented.

Comment buried. Show
1. designr

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2002

   +5
   12/26, 03:14pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Well....

   Well. I guess we're going back to using the command line.

Comment buried. Show
1. Guest

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 1999

   +7
   12/26, 03:14pm | report spam | close reply

   prior art

   I am quite sure someone somewhere in the video production industry had thumbnails of clips prior to 1998.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +6
   12/26, 03:20pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: prior art

   Well, imovie was released in 1999... and Apple bought that from some other company.
   
   But you're right. You would think Avid had this capability back in the mid 90s...

Comment buried. Show
1. scotte75ky

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2008

   +7
   12/26, 04:10pm | report spam | close reply

   Thumbs

   Yeah, there is a program called Thumbs Plus that has been around since the early 90's on the PC. This lawsuit is about as dumb as it gets!

Comment buried. Show
1. ClevelandAdv

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jul 2004

   +8
   12/26, 04:21pm | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Joke

   These patents are ludicrous. Remember when people used to patent real innovations for real products.
   
   Remember when trolls were only fantastical creatures not lawyers for companies with no products.

Comment buried. Show
1. tobor68

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 2007

   +3
   12/27, 01:05am | report spam | close reply

   prior art, hello...

   i used animation station, on the Amiga, in 1991 to make a short film.
   
   case closed.
   
   get a job, trolls, or get back under the bridge.

Comment buried. Show
1. Guest

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 1999

   +2
   12/27, 10:23am | report spam | close reply

   Xerox Parc

   Didn't they steal the icon from Xerox Parc ... along with a windowed operating system with icons .... you're right
   
   GOOD GRIEF
   
   Corporations starting frivolous law suits should face some financial consequence as a result of their actions. Companies who must defend themselves against them should be compensated for the time and trouble of dealing with them. Lastly .... firms and lawyers who perpetrate such actions should face some consequences. Something like points off your license to practice. I bet the lawyers would be a LOT more careful if they had some real skin in the game.
   
   Just rambling thoughts.

Comment buried. Show
1. Guest

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 1999

   -2
   12/27, 10:23am | report spam | close reply

   Xerox Parc

   Didn't they steal the icon from Xerox Parc ... along with a windowed operating system with icons .... you're right
   
   GOOD GRIEF
   
   Corporations starting frivolous law suits should face some financial consequence as a result of their actions. Companies who must defend themselves against them should be compensated for the time and trouble of dealing with them. Lastly .... firms and lawyers who perpetrate such actions should face some consequences. Something like points off your license to practice. I bet the lawyers would be a LOT more careful if they had some real skin in the game.
   
   Just rambling thoughts.

Comment buried. Show
1. cwsmith

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2007

   +4
   12/27, 10:48am | report spam | close reply

   re: Xerox PARC

   Actually, Steve Jubs purchased said technology from Xerox, fair and square. It was Bill Gates who stole it from Steve.

Comment buried. Show
1. cwsmith

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2007

   -1
   12/27, 10:49am | report spam | close reply

   re: Xerox PARC

   Actually, Steve Jubs purchased said technology from Xerox, fair and square. It was Bill Gates who stole it from Steve.

Comment buried. Show
1. outdo13

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Dec 2007

   +1
   12/27, 11:46am | report spam | close reply

   re: WOW Does Anyone

   When the USPTO allowed patenting (versus copyrights)of inventions in software , everyone went crazy filing such. (Amazon got one-click patented, for example, as a process patent it has used to hinder its competitors.) This increase in applications continues and is overwhelming the PTO. Right now, the wait time for the initial review of a software-based patent application is about 60 months, and the initial review will usually be a "No", most often based on technicalities in the submission format. The cost of eventually getting a software patent is rapidly rising into the six-figures.
   
   While I don't condone the action that is the subject of this article, other readers should be looking at the proposal of the large software companies (including Apple) for changing the patent process. It is massively biased in favor of existing large corporations at the expense of small innovators and individuals. This includes an ability of individual 3rd parties, with no direct standing, to force a review/revocation of a granted patent, well after the fact, which adds an even greater cost to the patent holder.
   
   So, be careful what you wish for.

Comment buried. Show
1. Paul Huang

   Dedicated MacNNer

   Joined: Sep 1999

   +1
   12/27, 12:19pm | report spam | close reply

   dumb nail

   someone misspelled the word.

Comment buried. Show
1. MacnnChester

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jun 2007

   +1
   12/27, 05:00pm | report spam | close reply

   re Patent Office

   It sounds dumb, but it isn't up to the patent office to make real distinctions between many new technologies. They are the gatekeepers for ideas and inventions of course, but in new tech they sometimes let some applications go thru knowing that they may be decided in court later. It is the courts, for good and bad, that decides conflicts, NOT the patent office.
   
   This divided process employs a lot of lawyers and wastes money, but it is better than the alternatives!!!!
   
   This is the free-market and the justice system working, so suppress your indignation for things that are more important!!!
   

Comment buried. Show
1. MacnnChester

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jun 2007

   -2
   12/27, 05:05pm | report spam | close reply

   outdo13 is right

   Sorry, computer geeks, but just like taxes, lawyers and patent offices are the price for a complex civilization. Maybe taking time away from WarCraft and simplistic MBA textbooks is something to think about.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -4
   12/28, 11:13am | report spam | (1 reply) close | reply

   Re: xerox parc

   Actually, Steve Jubs purchased said technology from Xerox, fair and square. It was Bill Gates who stole it from Steve.
   
   Technically they didn't "purchase" the technology. They paid to look at it. There's a huge difference. "Paying for it" assumes it is a tangible asset that can be bought and sold, and one holds property rights.
   
   "Paying to see it" assumes it is of value, but not something that can be held, nor something that could be 'patented' or marked as "This is mine, no copying". The fact that Xerox didn't patent it, and charged apple to look at it, pre-supposes their belief that it was something that could and would be copied once it was seen, and nothing could be done to stop it.
   
   Now I'm off to patent my concept for "objective posting on Mac-centric web sites".

Comment buried. Show
1. itguy05

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Apr 2005

   +1
   12/28, 02:13pm | report spam | close reply

   Luserudo

   Actually, Apple did ask Xerox if they could use the ideas and they said yes.
   
   Again, they asked for permission to use the works.
   
   MS didn't ask Xerox or Apple for any such permission.
   
   MS also got in trouble for early versions of WMV that were basically Quicktime in a different wrapper. This one was proven in court and MS had to pay Apple some $$.
   
   Then again, I wouldn't expect the truth or anything even somewhat resembling that from you Testudio.

Comment buried. Show
1. Zanziboy

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2008

   +1
   12/28, 03:48pm | report spam | close reply

   Thumbnails in System 7

   Thumbnails existed in System 7 in 1991. The thumbnail capability was demonstrated at the WWDC in 1991. The product was widely available on the Mac in 1992 and provided thumbnails for many document formats including MOV, PICT, and JPEG files. Therefore, this patent is not even applicable in the scope for which they are seeking damages. They are probably hoping that people will have bad record-keeping and poor memories.
   

Comment buried. Show
1. Deal

   Mac Enthusiast

   Joined: Apr 2001

   +1
   12/29, 11:25am | report spam | close reply

   Not just thumbnails

   I think this is not just about thumbnails, but over the coverflow type application of thumbnails. I still think this won't stick, as apple uses the actual file data to make cover flow look as nice as it does. If the thumbnails were that high in resolution, coverflow would be taking up way too much HD space.
   
   In an interview in the documentary, Triumph of the Nerds, Xerox did allow Jobs and Woz to use the idea (both the GUI and the Mouse). Xerox didn't want to farther the technology because they thought it could be the end of their paper business. I'm not sure why they gave the verbal go-ahead to Apple, but they did. I'm sure the people that developed it were peeved, having gone through all the trouble with a great idea and having their own company not let them continue it—might of had something to do with letting it fly with Apple.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -1
   12/29, 11:44am | report spam | close reply

   Re: Luserudo

   Wow, someone sure is defensive (and apparently 12 years old).
   
   
   Actually, Apple did ask Xerox if they could use the ideas and they said yes.
   
   And they paid for it. What exactly was Apple going to do, pay to see what Xerox was doing, then NOT use the ideas? Why else were they going to look if not to see what was up and what they could use.
   
   Again, they asked for permission to use the works.
   
   MS didn't ask Xerox or Apple for any such permission.
   
   Where did MS get involved in this discussion? Or is this where the fanboys always try to find a reason to bring up MS as it supports any argument?
   
   MS also got in trouble for early versions of WMV that were basically Quicktime in a different wrapper. This one was proven in court and MS had to pay Apple some $$.
   
   OK, but again, where did this come from? Oh, well, if you bring that up, lets bring up the fact that Apple got caught using Creative's interface for the iPod, and paid them after the fact. Oh, right, that has no bearing on the discussion either.
   
   Then again, I wouldn't expect the truth or anything even somewhat resembling that from you Testudio.
   
   I'm sorry. I didn't realize that every post that is made had to include completely off-topic remarks.
   
   Note, by the way, I NEVER said Apple stole the technology, or did anything that was below board. All I was pointing out was that, at the time, Xerox (and probably Apple) did not see software ideas as patentable items (otherwise they would have patented them), nor as items that could not be copied.
   
   But, hey, if it makes you feel better and more 'masculine' to rail on some nonsense that is completely irrelevant to the discussion, feel free.
   

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +1
   12/29, 11:47am | report spam | close reply

   thumbnails

   Please note this isn't specifically about thumbnails. If you read the article, it mentions a thumbnail preview of the 'active document' within the application.
   
   This is more of the tabs view IE 7 and OmniWeb. Or the OS view that VMWare shows in its status window. Which is interesting since VPC used that long ago too...

Comment buried. Show
1. moofpup

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Dec 2007

   +1
   12/30, 12:38pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: Xerox parc

   Wrong Testudo! Apple paid Xerox with Apple stock that ended up netting Xerox Millions of Dollars!