Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

[theodp]

While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.

--> Link to Microsoft's Patent Application

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20040088709

[Daniel R. Tobias]

th****@aol.com (theodp) wrote in message news:<e7******* *************** ****@posting.go ogle.com>...

While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.

Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".

--
Dan

[Rahul Dhesi]

da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) writes:

Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".

But implementing this in a Microsoft operating system is a "new use",
don't you think?
--
Rahul

[Barry Margolin]

In article <c7**********@p enguin.wetton.e xample.org>,
"Bernd Jendrissek" <be****@prism.c o.za> wrote:

In article <ba************ **************@ comcast.ash.gig anews.com> Barry
Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> wrote:

In article <40******@news. peakpeak.com>,
Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> wrote:

Haven't looked at the application, but I would be surprised that
if just that much was new and nonobvious. Seems like Mac
and UNIX have had such for awhile.

The part about fast switching between users has been in MacOS for a
couple of years, but I don't think Unix has it at all (su changes the
userid, but it doesn't bring up the new user's desktop environment).

Linux + XFree86:

Ctrl+Alt+F1/F2/F3...

In any case, a patent doesn't just cover the end result, it covers the
*method* used to obtain that result. So unless the techniques used in
Linux or MacOS render the technique used in Windows obvious, the patent
may indeed be reasonable. I haven't read the patent application, and
I'm not familiar with the internal workings of the Linux and MacOS
implementations , so I can't tell how similar they are.

As an analogy, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting other ways of fastening papers together.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <aa************ **************@ posting.google. com>,
da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) wrote:

th****@aol.com (theodp) wrote in message
news:<e7******* *************** ****@posting.go ogle.com>...

While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.

Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".

30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
they could be considered prior art.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA

[Daeron]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

But implementing this in a Microsoft operating system is a "new use",
don't you think?

Unix and Vaxes have been around for about twenty years and multi
tasking. Context switching I believe they called it. Yet this method
Micros~1 has suddenly decided they own.

Notice how he refers to 'most operating system' not being able to
multitask. Most Windows systems not being able to multitask that is.
It's as if the last twenty years of computing did not happen.

"The present invention provides improved methods and arrangements for
use in multiple user computing environments"

As usual they co-opt a standard methodology and pollute it enough with
feetures so as to claim ownership. Lying crooked bastards - all of them.

"Certain solutions, such as, for example, the "Identity Manager"
available in Microsoft Outlook Express .." - *SNORT*

They're obviously relying on the Patent examiner being as dumb as a door
post. (Gee wizz you can log in to a computer and get your own
personalized work space)

[Daeron]

Barry Margolin wrote:

Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".

30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
they could be considered prior art.

The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
keyboard and screen. Nothing new here.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <2g************ @uni-berlin.de>, Daeron <da****@demon.n et>
wrote:

Barry Margolin wrote:

Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".

30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
they could be considered prior art.

The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
keyboard and screen. Nothing new here.

I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA

[Rahul Dhesi]

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes:

As an analogy, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting other ways of fastening papers together.

And also, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting the use of staplers for stapling Microsoft stuff together.
--
Rahul

[John]

Daeron wrote:

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

But implementing this in a Microsoft operating system is a "new use",
don't you think?

Unix and Vaxes have been around for about twenty years and multi
tasking. Context switching I believe they called it. Yet this method
Micros~1 has suddenly decided they own.

Notice how he refers to 'most operating system' not being able to
multitask. Most Windows systems not being able to multitask that is.
It's as if the last twenty years of computing did not happen.

"The present invention provides improved methods and arrangements for
use in multiple user computing environments"

As usual they co-opt a standard methodology and pollute it enough with
feetures so as to claim ownership. Lying crooked bastards - all of them.

"Certain solutions, such as, for example, the "Identity Manager"
available in Microsoft Outlook Express .." - *SNORT*

They're obviously relying on the Patent examiner being as dumb as a door
post. (Gee wizz you can log in to a computer and get your own
personalized work space)

Then, perhaps, we should contest this patent. Maybe if a few of us stand up
to this kind of abuse, Microsoft will think twice about patenting
everything they allegedly "invented" that was, in fact, prior art.

[pltrgyst]

On 07 May 2004 18:35:44 +0200, LEE Sau Dan <da****@informa tik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:

.... that's not stopping Microsoft from
theodp> seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
theodp> providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a
theodp> shared computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed
theodp> Thursday.

If this paragraph is really disclosed by the USPTO, then that clearly
indicates that the USPTO is aware that there are plentiful prior art.
Why are they still entertaining M$?

The meat of a patent is the claims. They are what may be issued or denied. They
are what is contestable in court.

To evaluate the scope of this application, you need to analyze the claims very
carefully, with particular emphasis on the term "concurrent ."

All the discussion here thus far is pointless, politically-correct hot air.

-- Larry