[thelist] Persistent User Interface patented?

[Kevin Cannon]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:03:08AM -0700, Scott Brady wrote:
> >None at all, it is patently ridiculous (forgive the pun!).  The concept
> >of a persistent user interface has been with us for a long time - how
> >about chapter titling in books; staffing in sheet music; A-Z tabs in
> >phone-books? These are things which predate patenting itself.

> If you come up with a new interface in a new medium (even if it could be
> considered to an interface in a different medium), then it is patentable.

In the US. :P

Thankfully, elsewhere in the world doesn't support software patents thank god.

> Obviously, a "frames-like" interface could be patentable, because it's a new
> interface in a new medium.  (so, it's not like A-Z tabbed pages in a phone
> book).

It's not a discovery, it's a design.  It's damned hard to patent design.

> However, the problem with this patent is that not only did Netscape have
> frames in a released browser before the patent was issued, they had frames
> in a release browser before the patent was even applied for.

Anyway, with most patents, especially patents in the US, they way things works
seems to be allow anyone to patent anything and lets the courts decide.  AOL
patented Instant Messaging a few months back.

In conclusion, take no heed. (:

- Kevin