[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: xdrudis@tinet.org (Xavi Drudis Ferran)
- Subject: [Patents] GUI patent war Adobe ./ Macromedia
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:45:01 +0200
Maybe I am not getting it, but it sounds to me like they are
describing any "tab sheet" interface where you can add or
remove tabs. For instance a text editor that allows you
to open several files and change from one file to another
by clicking on a tab. Maybe It would require that the
selection of file to open (the open file dialog box)
would stay in screen instead of appearing and disappering
after choosing File|Open, but it is not so strange.
Some file browser with a tree pane to the left and multiple
tab sheets to the right for open files would fall into
those claims, wouldn't it?.
There are also some GUI in which you can select windows
or floating controls and dock them in other areas. For instance
in the Borland Delphi IDE GUI you can attach debug windows to
any side of a source code window, thus creating a lateral pane
or "subpane", and when you drag them to the center of a pane
they just get on top of it and tabs appear. That is, you can
collapse windows in tab sheets or turn tab sheet back to windows,
or dispose them as panes one alongside the other.
In the following claim, if you instantiate:
set of information = file
area of computer display in which the group of multiple sets
of information is to be displayed... = file edit window
selection indicators = tabs inside the file edit window, one
for each open file.
additional set of information = file, represented by its filename
(or maybe a thumbnail) in another window
(for instance the project window, a directory listing,
a compilation errors listing, etc.)
different area of the screen = the "another window" I just refered to
(the project window, directory listing
window, compilation errors pane...)
You get the typical IDE or multifile editor.
El Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:07:40PM +0200, PILCH Hartmut deia:
> you can find the main claim of their patent:
>
> A method for combining on a computer display an additional set
> of information into a group of multiple sets of information
> needed on a recurring basis, comprising the steps of:
>
> establishing an area on the computer display in which the
> group of multiple sets of information is to be displayed, the
> area having a size which is less than the entire area of the
> computer display;
>
> providing within the area a plurality of selection
> indicators, one associated with a corresponding one of the
> multiple sets of information; and
>
> selecting a second of the multiple sets of information from
> the group for display within the area by activating a
> selection indicator associated with a corresponding one of
> the multiple sets of information, whereby the second of the
> multiple sets of information is substituted within the area
> of the display for the first set of information; and
>
> combining the additional set of information, displayed in a
> different area of the display from the established area, into
> the group of multiple sets of information so that the
> additional sets of information may be selected in the same
> manner as the other sets of information in the group.
>
> The "invention" apparently consists in adding a depth dimension to
> menus: you can replace the forefront information set of the menu
> (palette) with any one from a set of hidden sets, and you can add more
> such sets into the menu. This is especially useful for creating
> images in Adobe Photoshop, but it seems to be a basic principle that
> is useful for all kinds of GUI.
>
> Do GTK and Qt offer something like this?
>
> What about GIMP?
>
In fact just open your old GNU Emacs under X, display the sidebar,
type C-x C-b to show the buffer list, and I can match the
resulting GUI with these claims. Mmm... maybe the
buffer list should be updated automatically when opening new files
and it doesn't, but it comes very close.
> A few years ago interface copyright lawsuits were unsuccessful because
> the courts found that imitation of GUIs was desirable. Now a patent
> system is in place which is inflexible enough to leave no room for
> such public interest considerations.
>
Yes. That is the point. It is not whether there is prior art
or not, it is the fact that even if there wasn't, appropiation of GUIs, like
appropiation of language, is not desirable.
--
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)