Google, Apple, Microsoft Sued Over Patent For Thumbnail Icons
from the what-counts-as-a-patent-these-days dept
As a bit of a non-Christmas gift, it appears that a patent holder, using the infamous Niro Scavone law firm (to whom the name "Patent Troll" was first applied) has sued Google, Apple and Microsoft over a patent that the patent holder appears to believe covers any sort of thumbnail image that shows some of the actual file. You can read the full patent for a system and method for iconic software environment management and then ponder what is allowed to pass as a legitimate patent these days. The patent was first filed in 2001, but the priority date appears to be 1998. Either way, you'd be hard pressed to find anything in the patent that wouldn't have been considered a natural progression in 1998 (or well before that). Nothing like ending the year with yet another ridiculous patent lawsuit.
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: patents, thumbnails
Companies: apple, google, microsoft, niro scavone
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Idea vs implementation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
prior art..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crazy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That said, I think such a patent is ridiculous, and has no ground to stand on. As it's been said, I'm sure plenty of prior art exists, and I don't think it's fair to patent a basic idea about something. A patent is meant to protect a specific method of doing something. For example, the "idea" of a book, an object that holds information in written form, is not patentable (is that even a word?), but a unique process for printing and binding a book could be patented.
I think that unless the patent defines a specific method of how a system reads the contents of a file to generate thumbnail images, it should be invalidated and thrown away. And before anybody gets hot under the collar, I'll say right now that I don't know all the specific details of what is or is not legally allowed in our current patent system. All I'm saying is that this is how I think it should work, as opposed to how it may work right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Word of the day
"The computer use, 'a small graphical representation, as of a larger graphic, a page layout, etc.' is a specific application of the general sense. It is first found in the 1980s. " -- written in 1997
that should be enough to drop the lawsuit immediately, imho ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Word of the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nothing like ending the year with yet another article about a "ridiculous patent lawsuit" without any evidentiary basis for so stating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I guess it is easier for commenters to decry the big, bad RIAA's, MPAA's, content industries, content providers, etc. of the world without a firm grasp on the underlying facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
" A method of accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, comprising the steps of:
capturing automatically one or more graphical representations of one or more portions of information content of one or more computer files while an application is manipulating the one or more computer files;
creating automatically an icon including selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content of the one or more computer files wherein the icon graphically depicts at least a portion of the information content from the one or more computer files and wherein the icon is created while the application was manipulating the icon's corresponding one or more computer files and includes selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content;
linking the icon to the application and to the one or more computer files based on the ability of the application to manipulate the information content of the one or more computer files corresponding to the icon;
storing the icon in a memory;
displaying the icon in a window on a display screen;
invoking the application for manipulating the information content of the one or more computer files upon selection of the icon by accessing the more or more computer files by reference to an underlying file system corresponding to the icon and opening the one or more computer files within the application.
"
See the 1997 dictionary definition above. Case closed. Not just a stupid patient, but one so breathtaking, epically stupid it boggles the mind. The only plausible explanation for this patent being approved is that on one on the patent office had ever seen or used a computer, or known anyone who had - in 2001. Six years after Win95, which has this feature - you could then and still can today choose 'thumbnail' view in explorer and get *Exactly* what this patent claims to have 'invented!'
What part of this is 'unknown' to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. The contents of the file wrapper.
2. The contents of the prior art that was cited during prosecution of the application.
3. The date of "conception" coupled with "diligence".
4. The specific features in the Microsoft, Apple and Google products that are deemed to infringe and why they are deemed to infringe.
5. Etc.
Absent a grasp of at least the above it is well nigh impossible to determine if this matter is ridiculous or not. Just because a techdirt article speculates that "ridiculous" pertains does not a priori make it so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thumbnails before 1998
Alchemy Mindworks used an automatic thumbnail generation system back in the days of Windows 3.11 (predating 95) for their Graphics Workshop. There were also several programs for DOS that did the same.
This lawsuit is frivolous, and I hope the judge moves to have the firm bringing it, and all attorneys currently working for it (12/29/08) disbarred for legal malpractice and wasting of taxpayer dollars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stop the shilling!!!
Stick with something you know...like taking out the trash. Beyond that you appear unqualified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]