News Apple Seeks Patent for Translucent Windows

From eWeek:

Apple is seeking a patent on a method for rendering translucent-appearing windows, technology that appears similar to features Microsoft has been previewing for its next major Windows release.

Apple Computer Inc.'s patent application, which dates back to November 2003, was published Thursday on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Web site. By law, most patent applications become public record within 18 months of being filed, a patent office spokeswoman said.

According to the filing, the patent covers a method in which "information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent."

The translucency would intensify the longer a window's content remains unchanged, the patent application states.

For its next Windows operating system, code-named "Longhorn," Microsoft Corp. has demonstrated translucent-appearing windows, said Matt Rosoff, an analyst at Kirkland, Wash.-based Direction on Microsoft.

More here

Is this a transparent attempt to stymie Longhorn's graphical whizziness? Or is it just an opportunity to milk the Redmond cash cow?

 

someones patenting translucent windows..... glaziers are up in arms!

its just apple trying to worm some cash out of microsoft. they will try to put a problem in MS's path, and work on the theory that MS will solve that problem the same way they solve every other.... throw a bingbag full of cash at it and wait for it to go away.

gotta admit though, it would be funny as hell to see apple get a patent on it, then deny MS any use of translucent windows.....

 

I'm more worried about the open source community.

 

microsoft will likely just find a way around the patent. you can't patent the idea of translucent windows, just the technology/code behind it. there are likely a million different ways to code translucent windows. this would be like MS trying to copywright a gui interface. they can only patent the way that they did it.

in other words, this will likely not affect the open source movement at all

 

patents are bad full stop.

they limit the productivity and effectiveness of technology entire. patents limit the usability of technology and stunts the growth of us all as an intellectual species.

 

some patents are good, imho
many people would feel less passionate about creating something truely useful if there was no financial incentive
who wants to make the world a better place if you cant make your own life better (well, more financially fruitful) in the process? some may, many wouldnt

you are making your statement as if it is fact, while it is merely your opinion

patents have really gone too far though
i think ill patent urination while standing

 

Ok, they're not patenting translucent windows, they're patenting a very specific application of translucency which IMHO is kind of a cool idea that I haven't seen done anywhere before.

The odds that this specific technique is used in Longhorn are pretty slim.

I'm generally against software patents in general, but the actuality of this one isn't as insane as the original headlines I've seen led me to believe

 

WOW! its like you went into my head and pulled out my exact thoughts. couldn't agree more with that.

but i could really care less, if longhorn gets denied translucency or not. when i get longhorn i'll do the same tweaking i do with xp, strip off all the so-called "prettyness" and make it look and function almost exactly like good ol' windows 98.

 

It's true... some examples are clear...

why would ATI make graphics cards if as soon as they were released they were copied and sold cheaper? Why not wait until someone else spends the money on developing something?

why would Intel makes CPUs when they know AMD could freely copy them.

why would any car manufacturers bother to design new cars if they're can just be copied and remade without design costs?

why would a drugs company bother to spend billions on cancer if as soon as they cure the illness someone else is allowed to copy their process?



Patents are great! They are being developed to try and have the perfect balance between incentive and time period before everyone can use the design.

The problem I have with it is that the legal system can't keep up with IT. 20 years of protection on a combine-harvester might be bang on, 20 year protection on a GPU is stupid when new ones come out every 6 months!

 

because it would take lots of time and money and research to revearse engineer something like a graphics board. and by the time they got it copied and working the copy would be obsolete as ati would have developed a new board. unless they worked off what they learned from revearse engineering but then theyre making their own card anyway i would still say that the people who origionally developed the card would know more about it than the poeple who copied it, so ati would still have the edge.

same as above replace "ati" with "intel" and "they" with "amd".

because again they would have to revearse engineer and try to figure out what is at play in the design that makes the improovements happen and have to figure out how to get those same improovements. which, again, would add a lot of time and money to trying to copy a design.

because you cure diseases to heal people not for financial gain. this is why companys aren't allowed sell medicine for insane ammounts of money, because its not right.

 

there are huge amounts of ways to code anything, even things as mundane as "1 + 1", and as apple is a closed source company how do you know if you've coppied there code without knowing it. But if your also a closed source company, how would apple know that your copying their code... All they can see is that the two peices of software do the same thing, so both companies are gonna want proff without giving out there code. It would just be a lenghty battle, and by the time it ended both would've seen each others code and the whole hype about it would've disapeared and then all you offer is an appology...


In order to stop poeple from coppying things you must show them what not to copy thus aiding them to copy it in the first place.

 

ask pharmaceutical ceos and senior management why they go to work every day, i promise it isnt in the hope to "heal people". its nice to know that people are being healed, but its nicer to know that you're getting a 7/8 figure paycheck
also, companies *do* sell drugs for insane amounts of money because drugs *do* cost an insane amount of money to develop and people *do* get paid an insane amount of money on the way.

it would be great if everyone did things just for the benefit of the world but that just not the way things work don't ya know

edit: nothing agaist pharmaceutical execs at all, phamaceutical companies make drugs that do great things, if they make a mint along the way then well done to them.

 

I hope you still feel the same way when you invent something, and then have a large multi-national take your idea and market it in a way you could never afford to do, effectively killing any chance you had of making any money.

Patents are good.. they protect the little guy.

 

couldnt have said it better myself

only when "the big guy" starts using patents to try to accomplish a market monopolisation of sorts do they become undesirable

 

Erm.. does it really matter, I mean what good are translucent windows anyway?

 

Not really. They only protect those with sufficient financial resources to defend their claim.

The idea behind patents whereby the designer is entitled to make a bit of money out of their design for a short period of time is great. However, the system doesn't provide that protection for so many designers. It would appear that only the large corporations can benefit from patents.

@sadfff

That simply isn't how the world works.

It is always cheaper to copy someone else's idea than to design something from scratch. In theory, patents provide protection from copycats. Protection of Intellectual Property is EXTREMELY important to industry. If the clever guys keep getting their ideas ripped off because they can't protect them, then believe me, they will soon stop coming up with ideas.

As for pharmaceuticals. Have you ANY idea how much it costs to develop a new drug. We are talking billions, if not tens of billions of dollars. Equally, they only get their patent for a short period of time, most of which is taken up by clinical trials, so once the drug is released to the market, they only have a few years to recoup their costs before the patent expires. Once it expires, then anyone can make the drug and sell it for what ever they like.

But if the pharmaceutical company didn't have that period of time where they collected all the profits from the drug, then where would they get the money back to repay the costs outlayed developing the drug. They wouldn't and the company would go bust. No-one would want to develop drugs, because there would be no way of getting back the MASSIVE original financial outlay.

8-ball

 

And once the patent expires, everyone else can make "generics".

Example: Viagra. Invented and produced by Pfizer who also own the patent. No one else is allowed to make it or a so-called Generic, or they'd be sued (and lose). All this Generic Viagra crap we get spammed about is an illegal product, which may or may not do the same job as the real stuff.

Patents are a generally good thing, as long as you have the time and money to back your claims up. They only become a bad thing when they stifle good design and halt progress. Something that almost ALL software patents do, but this is mainly a US problem, as their patent office appears to only employ morons who grant stupid patents to all and sundry

 

lol, i'll pipe in with the 'patents are good' speech as well. If you think they're bad, you're clueless, because without them NOTHING would get done. Whats the point in designing and engineering if theres no protection? I myself am a qualified Industrial Designer, and IP (intellectual property) is a HUGE part of the job description. Theres countless examples of people ripping off others in the real world, and if you actually had a look around, you'd realise how often it happens and how unfair it is. The big obvious computer related one that comes to mind involves a certain australian and a certain US company, im sure most of the watercooling community knows what im talking about.

 

I think most people know about the troubles cathar has had protecting his designs.

And there is the problem.

A patent would more than likely cost Cathar more than he would ever make selling waterblocks. So what should he do?

As I said before, although the idea of patents is nice, they only serve to make the rich richer and screw over those without the money to apply for/defend patents.

8-ball

 

There would be no need to reverse engineer without patent - just get a copy of the designs and notes for the government office.


In a socialist / communist world it would be true to say all the medicine and stuff for the good of society - but "unfortunately" capitalist is the way the developed world works.

8-ball's spot on with the good theory, but it's not working well thing