Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for Google, Apple, Microsoft sued over file preview here
Google, Apple, Microsoft sued over file preview
MultiQuote
#3
nghtstr 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 09-October 08
Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:37 PM
{quote:title=TxTom wrote:}
Litigate this fool into oblivion, pretty please. These 'patents without products' are getting so very tiresome.
{quote}
I don't think I have ever heard anything quite as funny as that!! Now excuse me, I need tissues to clean the Mt. Dew out of my nostrils.... ;-)
Litigate this fool into oblivion, pretty please. These 'patents without products' are getting so very tiresome.
{quote}
I don't think I have ever heard anything quite as funny as that!! Now excuse me, I need tissues to clean the Mt. Dew out of my nostrils.... ;-)
#4
whostolemyname
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 07-July 05
Posted 24 December 2008 - 05:08 PM
File content preview was an established "prior art" in patent terms prior to 2001. It was a function of a class of software known by the name Digital Asset Management (DAM) since the early 1990's and some of the DAM software offered file content preview for certain file types.
Aldus had a product called Fetch, acquired Adobe in 1996, later acquired by Extensis and re-named "Portfolio". It had plug-ins and extensions to generate embedded previews as to provide readable file content preview by Fetch/Portfolio prior to 2001. It could also generate file icon previews that appeared in the Apple Mac OS in the late 1990's for supported file types such as Quark Xpress, Adobe Illustrator and other graphic design programs as well as bitmapped image previews for many filetypes.
Apple showed a file preview in its "Get Info" function for certain file types independently of DAM generated previews. At first this was limited to JPEG and TIFF images but expanded to include other file types over time. I believe it's OS X 10.0 debut, March 24th 2001 had this feature. So it would be interesting to know the plaintiff's patent filing date. Apple may well have filed prior to the beta period of OS X in 2000. Perhaps NeXT operating system had this feature.
I would think these examples alone are sufficient prior art that the 2001 patent may have been improperly granted. I haven't read the patent, but I would think content preview by software would be "not-unique" and not without prior and common enough use by multiple vendors.
Aldus had a product called Fetch, acquired Adobe in 1996, later acquired by Extensis and re-named "Portfolio". It had plug-ins and extensions to generate embedded previews as to provide readable file content preview by Fetch/Portfolio prior to 2001. It could also generate file icon previews that appeared in the Apple Mac OS in the late 1990's for supported file types such as Quark Xpress, Adobe Illustrator and other graphic design programs as well as bitmapped image previews for many filetypes.
Apple showed a file preview in its "Get Info" function for certain file types independently of DAM generated previews. At first this was limited to JPEG and TIFF images but expanded to include other file types over time. I believe it's OS X 10.0 debut, March 24th 2001 had this feature. So it would be interesting to know the plaintiff's patent filing date. Apple may well have filed prior to the beta period of OS X in 2000. Perhaps NeXT operating system had this feature.
I would think these examples alone are sufficient prior art that the 2001 patent may have been improperly granted. I haven't read the patent, but I would think content preview by software would be "not-unique" and not without prior and common enough use by multiple vendors.
#6
suisunca
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 07-November 07
Posted 24 December 2008 - 05:59 PM
Where are McMillan's editors?
To wit:
"While Cygnus has sued three very high profile companies, there may not be the only vendors in Cygnus’s sites."
Might read better as:
...THEY may not be the only vendors in Cygnus's SIGHTS.
To wit:
"While Cygnus has sued three very high profile companies, there may not be the only vendors in Cygnus’s sites."
Might read better as:
...THEY may not be the only vendors in Cygnus's SIGHTS.
#7
vfx2k4
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 354
- Joined: 29-September 04
Posted 24 December 2008 - 06:41 PM
I wish MacWorld and other sites that report on patent trolls would also update the stories to reflect the massive financial losses most of them rack up after losing their dubious claims. I think it would do a lot to discourage this waste of court time...
#8
Lisamacnewton
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 27-November 06
Posted 24 December 2008 - 06:45 PM
And they're suing NOW (i.e. the economy is bad and we need some capital)??????
#9
Wondercow
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 836
- Joined: 21-July 04
Posted 24 December 2008 - 07:51 PM
+1
That was glaring to me as well. It has been noted, unfortunately, that the online version of Macworld is unedited by anyone other than the author of the piece. There is at least one writer who is, apparently, a senior editor and who seems to stubbornly refuse to correct his articles. He even sides with the trolls when people like us point out the errors. Too bad, Macworld used to be a quality publication.
That was glaring to me as well. It has been noted, unfortunately, that the online version of Macworld is unedited by anyone other than the author of the piece. There is at least one writer who is, apparently, a senior editor and who seems to stubbornly refuse to correct his articles. He even sides with the trolls when people like us point out the errors. Too bad, Macworld used to be a quality publication.
#10
tech_head
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 68
- Joined: 19-January 05
Posted 24 December 2008 - 07:53 PM
Hi,
I agree with the first post.
Patents are not to cover ideas but invention s.
You cannot patent ideas. (But the USPTO lets some through).
As a side note. The abstract covers MacOS back to the 90's along with Digital Research's GEM desktop.
They need to be blown out of the water.
I agree with the first post.
Patents are not to cover ideas but invention s.
You cannot patent ideas. (But the USPTO lets some through).
As a side note. The abstract covers MacOS back to the 90's along with Digital Research's GEM desktop.
They need to be blown out of the water.
#11
LowededWookie
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 02-July 06
Posted 24 December 2008 - 08:10 PM
There's a question missing from this forum...
Where the hell is FireFox in this list? They've gone for Apple, Microsoft, and Google which uses code from Apple and yet the other big name is non-existent.
Something smells very fishy here.
Where the hell is FireFox in this list? They've gone for Apple, Microsoft, and Google which uses code from Apple and yet the other big name is non-existent.
Something smells very fishy here.
#12
bonesb
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 12-September 01
Posted 24 December 2008 - 08:55 PM
In addition to what whostolemyname's fine input, I distinctly remember using QuickView in Windows 95 for Word and Excel files. In 1995. I know they licensed it from some company, but the technology was around and being used by MS long before 2001, Cygnus...
#14
RamaFan
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 01-September 08
Posted 24 December 2008 - 11:03 PM
@Suisunca
I'm no genius when it comes to spelling; and fairly often misuse words but you sir or madame need to research your own references before your criticize others.
SIGHTS is defined a something seen...as with the eyes. In this context, a reference, CITE would be the correct word. Which can also be used as a plural without an S at the end.
I'm no genius when it comes to spelling; and fairly often misuse words but you sir or madame need to research your own references before your criticize others.
SIGHTS is defined a something seen...as with the eyes. In this context, a reference, CITE would be the correct word. Which can also be used as a plural without an S at the end.
