tag:www.post-issue.org,2012:/2009/2/13/knowledgeable-persons-7/comments Mephisto Drax 2009-05-19T17:47:34Z Jitiday tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:3867 2009-05-19T04:49:33Z 2009-05-19T04:49:33Z I should email you about this. paul tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:3269 2009-04-30T09:42:14Z 2009-04-30T09:42:14Z Also check out switcher/multifinder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiFinder which was Apple's first hack at a mutli app system that was done with multiple desktops the lived side by side and slid in on top of each other Sparky tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:121 2009-02-19T00:33:25Z 2009-02-19T00:33:25Z WindowMaker is based on NextStep. It has the feature to make windows persistent across workspaces. The ability to bind an application window into multiple workspaces (or all workspaces) appears to be the just of the claims of invention. NextStep was released in 1989, however, it was previewed starting in 1986 (according to the wikipedia NeXTStep article). NeXT might have documented prior art to at least some of the claims. (OTOH, it is also possible that NeXT licensed these patents from Xerox... ...well, no, the timing is wrong.) Of course NeXT was bought by Apple. So if Apple settled on this patent, it was likely because they could not defeat all of the claims. However, the Apple desktop and that of WindowMaker, Gnome and KDE, (not to mention others) are not the same. It is possible that prior art embodied in NeXTStep defeats the claims against these window managers. Now, GNUStep, (again according to the wikipedia OpenStep article), began development based on NeXTStep prior to the open API specification by Sun and NeXT in 1993. It is possible that some of the original GNUStep developers have information about NeXTStep that could constitute evidence of prior art on at least the claims that could be defeated by NeXTStep. If I was faced with busting these claims, I would start by talking to the NeXTStep or original GNUStep developers as the WM not only implemented the UI described in the patent but the object-oriented data strucutures in the underlying implementation as well. I would also see if Apple could be candid about why they settled on these claims inspite of being owners of NeXT IP. Bill Perilli tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:112 2009-02-16T18:04:34Z 2009-02-16T18:04:34Z There is a device called a 'word selector' which is part of a 'telemetry station' for a scientific payload. Such an item was already in world-wide use in the 1970's. This piece of telemetry equipment was hooked up to a demux box. The demux box would feed multiple word selectors set up on a rack system for use by the ground crew. All of this is IRIG standard equipment. On each system you were also able to run BNC connectors off of the back to a strip chart machine for paper printouts. The word selector (and there really could be as many as you want for as many scientists that you would like as long as you had the budget) would have multiple pages. Each of these would be a unique layout. Part of this were the control for the cut down of a balloon payload. There were multiples of these as well. This technology is most likely still in use by some science groups. The equipment that I used went back to the early 1970's and was like, third generation of this technology at that time. The whole thing was the 'workspace' for the payload. Ozzee tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:102 2009-02-16T09:00:47Z 2009-02-16T09:00:47Z Patent 5,072,412 claims 1: ... a display; first and second workspace data structures relating respectively to first and second workspaces that can be presented on the display; each of the first and second workspaces including a respective set of display objects; each of the display objects being perceptible as a distinct, coherent set of display features; the display objects of each respective set being perceptible as having spatial positions relative to each other when the respective workspace is presented on the display;... Note the "as having spatial positions relative to each other " is very specifically not what Linux workspaces do. The claim is probably not infringed by the workspaces implementations in Linux distros. Fuzzy tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:96 2009-02-15T18:13:01Z 2009-02-15T18:13:01Z Sudhir Ahuja - US 4,414,628 - http://www.spoke.com/info/pky8b5/SudhirAhuja Fuzzy tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:95 2009-02-15T18:07:56Z 2009-02-15T18:07:56Z Rob Pike - US 4,555,775 - http://research.google.com/people/r/ Anne Marie Tobias tag:www.post-issue.org,2009-02-13:67:82 2009-02-14T21:33:41Z 2009-02-14T21:33:41Z This is an absurd patent, but prior art is easy to find. Ashton Tate, Inc. sold a very popular application called Framework, that employed "Multiple Work Spaces", and well as multiple files types, multiple application subfunctions, and a unified primary control interface. I think you will find that this instantly and utterly renders the patent worthless.