[LowededWookie]

Nope, you're wrong and suisunca is correct.

The article used the words "sites" implying "sights" as in a scope used by a rifleman. A common English phrase "to have someone in their sights" means they are taking aim which is what the article was implying not cite as requesting someone to appear in court although in both cases it would make more sense than that used by the writer who used the word "sites" as in website or building site etc.

[Loren]

(...Cygnus is also suing Barack Obama, Tiger Woods and God.)

Only Barack is infringing. Useful preview.

[LondonRuss]

Correct! You are no genius, the correct word used here is 'sights' as they are talking about who the company will target next.

[Lisamacnewton]

Even if they aren't mentioned, Firefox=Google (as Mozilla's 90% funded BY Google)

[Cog3125]

Oh for the love of... (sighs deeply)
Now someone is claiming they "invented" preview thumbnails? Pathetic. How far does this sort of thing go? Is there someone out there who is one day going to allege they "invented" the idea of a software application and therefore anyone who ever writes an application of any sort owes them royalties?
What is really disgusting is the incompetence of whoever is issuing these patents in the first place. Do they just more or less rubber stamp pretty much anything that passes their desk now? How does it come to pass that time and again people claim IP protection on increasingly vague generic ideas?
Maybe I should try and take out a patent on breathing. Then I could retire on the royalties from six and half billion humans who've implemented this "system and method for hematic gas exchange." Oops. Shouldn't have posted that before I filed the paperwork. Gotta go!

[Rhywun]

And why Microsoft? Considering how half-hearted their preview system is, and that they're still completely incapable of previewing video at all. I think they should get a pass :)

[zahadum]

the prior art for preview/thumbnails goes back much further than apple.
IBM had a "light table" feature (courtesy of the phenomenal SOMobjects) for its sweet sweet WorkplaceShell in OS/2 in the early 90's.
why can the American Bar Association not create a pro edure for publi ally discommending lawyers who are plainly non-feasant?! ... surely this kind of black mark system would help prospective clients appreciate what a fool's errand they are contemplating before they waste everyone's time?
since a discommendation would be a step short of disbarrment, the cretins should be required to prominently display this certificate of shame inside their offices, in the adverts, and on their business cards!
grocklaw - what do you think?!

[Belgo]

Patent for thumbnails or preview... I agree totally pathetic !!

I do remember one of my favorite program available early in the '90 on Macs (has won several awards in Europe AppleExpo Paris) a wonderful document management called "MarcoPolo" (Mainstay, CA).

Thumbnails and even antialiasing previews of all documents called "miniPages" were widely used. This program was one of the most advanced doc management available only on Mac (was even network based).

Crazy to read that others could sue for such "feature" alreeady featured by others almost ? 20 years ago !

[alexbates]

Don't forget that Google also owns Chrome. Does anyone know if Chrome has that same file preview thing on the browser? Google has no reason to be sued, nor does Apple or Microsoft (well, people can find a lot to sue Microsoft for).

[smgreenfield]

Patents protect a PROCESS that can be the expression of an idea. There is absolutely no requirement that the process be reduced to practice (i.e. "created").

There is no question that in the software world there are many high-profile examples of processes that should never have been allowed as patents. However, it's not fair to paint all software patents with the same brush: true innovators of software have every right to expect that their inventions can hope to achieve the same legal protections as any other novel, useful, and non-obvious engineering invention. Those are the three tests that all patents -- software or otherwise -- must pass.

Given the quantity of prior art cited it seem highly unlikely that anyone could challenge Apple / Microsoft. However, a common tactic used is that if Apple uncovers definitive prior art, then the suing company may cut Apple a deal for a royalty-free, unlimited use of the invention. Then the problem continues on to other software vendors to defend.

[jragosta]

"Patents protect a PROCESS that can be the expression of an idea. There is absolutely no requirement that the process be reduced to practice (i.e. "created")."

That is not correct. U.S. Patent law requires that an invention be reduced to practice.

That does not require that it be commercialized, but it has to be in tangible form. For software, that tangible form might be written code.

I have seen some cases where 'theoretical reduction to practice' has been used, but those appear to be a violation of the actual law which states that the invention must be reduced to practice.

[macxpress]

Whats sad in all of this is that in the end, all 3 will just settle out of court for a sum of money. It happens every time. Would be great if all 3 would team up and fight these stupid lawsuits to the end. Maybe they would stop because these money strapped small companies know they'll have to fight this in court to the end. All of these asinine lawsuits only hurt customers in the end.

[smgreenfield]

jragosta said:

That is not correct. U.S. Patent law requires that an invention be reduced to practice.

JRaosta, yes -- however reduction to practice may be accomplished by either: (1) filing a patent application, or (2) constructing a prototype. From the US PTO web site:

2138.05 "Reduction to Practice"

Reduction to practice may be an actual reduction or a constructive reduction to practice which occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is filed. The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application. Thus the inventor need not provide evidence of either conception or actual reduction to practice when relying on the content of the patent application.

[precision]

Prior art contained in a shipping product from a UK Mac developer was already on its third revision with this functionality in May, 2001 so this was commercially available even before the patent was filed.