Microsoft Sued Over User Editable Toolbar Patent
from the don't-bother-creating-software,-you'll-just-get-sued dept
If you follow the patent world, you know of Gary Odom, who is known as The Patent Hawk. To say he's a big supporter of the patent system would be something of an understatement. He's been known to comment here on occasion, employing the style seen all-too-often among patent system apologists commenting on Techdirt posts: insult repeatedly and broadly, offer no actual points, refuse to actually counter anything we say, provide absolutely no evidence and (for good measure) insult again. However, as reader Jon has pointed out to us, Odom recently received a new patent (he's got a bunch) on tool group manipulations and he's now suing Microsoft for the way its toolbars work in Office 2007.I won't comment on the patent itself and whether or not its obvious -- read the claims and judge for yourself. However, I will question just what sort of patent system we've created when simply putting a toolbar in your software that can be changed and manipulated by the end user can get you sued for patent infringement. With patents and lawsuits like this flying by every day, it almost seems as if software companies are better off not doing any actual innovation, because it's only likely to get them sued. Have an idea on how to make a toolbar function better? Don't bother unless you're willing to pay a tax. At some point you have just sit back and look at the system as a whole and wonder how we got from the vision of Thomas Jefferson to here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: editable toolbar, gary odom, microsoft office, patent hawk, patents, toolbar
Companies: microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odom has the expertize Mike needs !!!
Mike whines some more, saying "He's been known to comment here on occasion, employing the style seen all-too-often among patent system apologists commenting on TechDIRT posts: insult repeatedly and broadly, offer no actual points, refuse to actually counter anything we say, provide absolutely no evidence and (for good measure) insult again". To which I say that Mr. Odom is by no means the person taking Mike to task for spewing endless drivel about two topics, patents and economics while leaving absolutely no doubt about his total lack of competency in those areas.
Mike says " I won't comment on the patent itself and whether or not its obvious". Well I guess that Mike is finally learning to avoid commenting on at least some of the things he is ignorant about. Of course he goes on to spew nonsense about the patent, demonstrating that he simply does not understand either the patent's coverage or the prior art.
Mike even invokes the father of the patent system with "At some point you have just sit back and look at the system as a whole and wonder how we got from the vision of Thomas Jefferson to here." I have absolutely no doubt that Jefferson would box Mike's ears for using his name in this manner. Mike constantly commits stupid and misleading stunts like this and then wonders why people disrespect him.
I have some more advice of you Mike. Your assignment is to study all of Odom's writings because he actually has the expertise you need to be able to comment about patent issues intelligently. Now the only question is are you intelligent enough to take a deep breath and learn about this topic and then man enough to admit just how wrong you have been. I am willing to bet that the answer is NO on both counts.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new here
As described herein, a tool group becomes a user-manipulable entity unto itself. This accommodates easy reorganization of a toolbar, either by the user, or automatically, to further productivity. Other manipulations, such as allowing a user to wrap a toolbar comprising multiple groups, or merge two toolbars, or selectively hide tools on a group-by-group basis, provide further conveniences to users in having toolbars behave as desired. Another aspect is automatic configuration of tools and groups of tools in a toolbar based upon tool usage frequency."
This has been done for a long time. Well before his 2005 filing date.
I'd like to see the images associated with the patent application, but it requires Quicktime installation, and I refuse to install that bloatware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new here
The key date is actually in 2000, not 2005.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new here
BTW, you do not need QT to view USPTO documents. The site refers people to a small utility than permits viewing of the entire document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird
PS: Photoshop has had this for 10 years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Maybe
Just a thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is doing more then Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Word 6.0 most definitely had a configurable toolbar, with an editor to let you drag-n-drop various toolbar buttons between different toolbars. But I don't know that different toolbars are the same thing as the "groups" that this patent talks about. And, from what I remember, there was no way to "merge" toolbars/toolbar groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Odom provides services that include performing searches for prior art. It is doubtful he filed his initial application without having performed such a search.
Some attorneys on another site have noted that a single reference was cited against this application during prosecution. What they have not done is also look at the original application. During the prosecution of his two applications (he filed one initially, but at a later date was split into two...likely because of a requirement imposed by the USPTO) 12 references were cited as prior art, 9 of them patents and 3 of them printed publications.
Please note that I am not expressing any opinion on the validity of the patents. I am merely making two observations that may prove helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious patent troll is obvious.
As is any form of a user customizable toolbar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now if he patented...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: now if he patented...
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey you stole that from me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wanna get a patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if it were legit . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if it were legit . . .
Microsoft and other members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness (aka. Piracy Coalition) keep learning the hard way to stop their illegitimate use of other patent property rights.
But then again, like Mike Masnick they think that the patent system should be destroyed so that they can take all the new inventions for their own profit.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toolbar Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PDF Files of the Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odom has the expertize Mike needs !!!
Mike whines some more, saying "He's been known to comment here on occasion, employing the style seen all-too-often among patent system apologists commenting on TechDIRT posts: insult repeatedly and broadly, offer no actual points, refuse to actually counter anything we say, provide absolutely no evidence and (for good measure) insult again". To which I say that Mr. Odom is by no means the person taking Mike to task for spewing endless drivel about two topics, patents and economics while leaving absolutely no doubt about his total lack of competency in those areas.
Mike says " I won't comment on the patent itself and whether or not its obvious". Well I guess that Mike is finally learning to avoid commenting on at least some of the things he is ignorant about. Of course he goes on to spew nonsense about the patent, demonstrating that he simply does not understand either the patent's coverage or the prior art.
Mike even invokes the father of the patent system with "At some point you have just sit back and look at the system as a whole and wonder how we got from the vision of Thomas Jefferson to here." I have absolutely no doubt that Jefferson would box Mike's ears for using his name in this manner. Mike constantly commits stupid and misleading stunts like this and then wonders why people disrespect him.
I have some more advice of you Mike. Your assignment is to study all of Odom's writings because he actually has the expertise you need to be able to comment about patent issues intelligently. Now the only question is are you intelligent enough to take a deep breath and learn about this topic and then man enough to admit just how wrong you have been. I am willing to bet that the answer is NO on both counts.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odom has the expertize Mike needs !!!
You provide so much verbiage, and not a SINGLE point of retort.
Well done. You have just insult[ed] repeatedly and broadly, offer no actual points, refuse to actually counter anything we say, provide absolutely no evidence.
Welcome to the don't-bother-creating (Know-Nothing with big mouth dept.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
The anti-patent views are NOT those of the "big infringers". There are many of us, especially in the software industry, who start SMALL companies and find ourselves in a rats nest of problems because programs we have developed IN ISOLATION wind up infringing on someone's patent for "configurable mouse speeds" or "blue menus" or "buttons that have different styles when depressed".
The above patent is an incredibly OBVIOUS extension of software. In fact, the OVERWHELMING number of "advancements" in software are simple enhancements to existing paradigms. There have been extremely few advancements worthy of the term "invention" much less "patent".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey is on payroll
When did you get your last paycheck from MShit ?
Or you are getting paid by CPF or BSA ?
Tell us, Mikey
The audience wants to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is on payroll
Have you seen any articles on this blog that praise the BSA? I certainly have seen the opposite...
Sorry dude, you strike out again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is on payroll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey is on payroll
Unfortunately techdirt is a private outfit and the money sources are not transparent to outside observers
Nevertheless, it is easy to see the slant of Mike's posts:
on each and every important tech issue, be it patents or H1B visas, he sides with BSA members...
Mike's writings go against the interests of all tech workers in America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is on payroll
Never. Never done any work with Microsoft.
Or you are getting paid by CPF or BSA ?
I don't know who CPF is. As for BSA, have you not noticed I disagree with them on almost every point? I've discussed, in great detail, how I think they're full of crap with most of what they do. The only time in my life I've spoken to anyone from the BSA it ended badly:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1350531114.shtml
Very badly. To suggest that I'm somehow a shill for the BSA seems rather laughable. It's difficult how you can even think that I'm even remotely aligned with that group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whoa
angry dude == stv == mls == Ronald J. Riley == dorpus
are they all the same person ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoa
Switch to something else dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoa
I have no problem putting my name on my comments -- unlike you. You put your name on some comments, but when people start pointing out your logical inconsistencies you start posting anonymously again. Or, you start pretending to be other people. You once even pretended to be me.
MLS, why not put your name on your comments when you decide to tell lies about me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whoa
BTW, I use Webroot's Window Washer quite regularly to clean out my internet files/cookies/etc., and whenever I do so the techdirt cookie is removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoa
angry dude == stv == mls == Ronald J. Riley == dorpus
are they all the same person ?
Nah, they each have their own distinct personalities -- and they all come from unique IP addresses. Well, MLS goes through phases where he reverts to being an Anonymous Coward or pretending to be others (even me, at times).
angry dude just throws insults and lies. He never adds anything remotely of value, and if you call him on it, he gets even more insulting. He claims to hold a patent, but never will show us what it is. Actually, he once claimed to own many patents, and then years later, claimed to have just received his first patent. So, his credibility is what it is.
stv calls me a shill repeatedly, and when confronted with actual evidence, suddenly runs and hides. By his own definition of a shill, he is a much bigger shill than I am. He posted once that a shill was anyone who only took one side on an issue. He seems to fit that to a T.
MLS is an IP lawyer, and goes through phases where he pretends to be an unbiased "elder wise man" who will correct "errors" here. But he has been caught repeatedly in logical inconsistencies. When he first showed up, he actually did add some useful counterpoints to the conversation. I think he means well, but he hasn't come across folks who disagree with him who actually have evidence behind their positions, so he's not quite sure how to deal with it. Lately, he's reverted to name calling and insults like the others. It's too bad.
Ronald Riley is a well known "character" convincing independent inventors to give him money in order to protect their interests. Whether or not he actually does so is a pretty open question. He's good at getting press for himself. He's not so good at actually making an argument or presenting evidence however.
dorpus stays out of patent debates, and prefers to focus on throwing non sequitors and vaguely insulting or threatening comments on random posts. Occasionally he's been known to threaten the lives of famous individuals.
You also left out Willton, who's a law student who tends to act as a stand-in for MLS at times. Willton also (I believe) means well, though it clearly frustrates him that some of us aren't as bought into the concept of the patent system as he is. He's bet his future livelihood on the patent system, so it's a little understandable that he has some cognitive dissonance when presented with evidence of problems with the system.
See? They're all different. MLS and Willton both mean well, and at times add value. stv, RJR and angry dude just throw insults and logically impossible claims that are easily proven false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
many of us have frequently provided evidence to counter your one-sided articles, but gave up when it became clear it would be to no avail. are you paid by large corporate thieves who are working to destroy our patent system so they can avoid those pesky small entities who are always out innovating them? We noticed how you never provide the views of anyone but the big infringers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Please point to a single example where you have done so. You have not. Since you started showing up the only thing you have done is yell about me being a shill. I presented evidence to the contrary and it has not stopped you.
At this point, it's clear that you are willfully lying.
but gave up when it became clear it would be to no avail
I am always open to evidence. You have yet to provide any.
are you paid by large corporate thieves who are working to destroy our patent system so they can avoid those pesky small entities who are always out innovating them?
Nope. My views are my own entirely. My views on patents actually disagree with most of the companies you speak about. We've pointed this out to you in the past.
We noticed how you never provide the views of anyone but the big infringers.
Then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. We attack the big companies for stupid patent antics all the time. My view has nothing to do with "big companies" or "small companies." It has to do with innovation and what's best for it.
I have explained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]