>
This is really sad - the prior art here is piled very deep - the examiner
must not have looked very far to have let this one through.
...
In any case the Microsoft use should never have been granted a patent.
/>


I posted the original article, and i agree in principle with most of the
points that have been raised by various people.
However, it must be realised that patents cover innovation that can include
the combination of various previously known things that are combined in a
unique manner. In this case the "button" referred to is presumably a screen
depiction of a button and not a physical button - and that is a vast
difference in patent terms. I wonder how many of the prior art activities
relate to screen objects using a pointing device (aka mouse)?

I have a Pocket PC 2000 O/S Jornada PDA in which a quick stylus tap on an on
screen object will start the related application but in which a tap and hold
will, after a short delay, open a menu. This seems very close to what is
claimed BUT there is no button image per se, and no mouse involved. Also,
the patent talks about launching an application with different sub
attributes depending on how long the button click is held. This is not the
same as presenting a menu. It may be that Micro$oft'$ patent is essentially
novel within a very limited range of functionality. If so, they deserve
protection as much as any other innovator* IF it cannot be shown that what
they are doing is unoriginal. (* however much that may be ;-) )

        RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu