Apple Patent: Translucency

I like. Would help students understand the active window concept.

I do hope they get this patent. I'm sick of Microsoft stealing every idea Apple has.

I hope they don't succeed in patenting it.

Prior art exists. For example, if you set Trillian to use transparency, and set the "always on top" option, you can manipulate objects beneath with ease.

The only innovation is the "fading" part, but on a moral basis that doesn't really qualify. Unfortunately, considering the generalised lack of common sense exhibited by the US Patents & Trademarks office, they'll probably approve it.

Incidentally, speaking of Microsoft "stealing every patent Apple has" conveniently ignores the fact that Apple's GUI (which they then proceeded to sue lots of companies over, including Microsoft) was, at the very least, "inspired" by research at Xerox PARC. If suing somebody for copying something you yourself have copied isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.

Not that I'm against patents. Far from it. But I'm fed up of stupid patents being used as weapons by and between companies, and against third-parties (that in some cases have already implemented the idea).

People here are inclined to always forgive Apple because they percieve Apple to be a "Good Company". Lets face it: Apple Inc. is a profit-orientated organisation and as such, deep down, their behaviour can be just as bad as anybody else's.

Sounds like something for 10.4 - maybe 10.5

yea, i remember a version of AIM for windows that had that same feature...

i think the real question is should this sort of thing be patentable?

i think the real question is should this sort of thing be patentable?

My answer is: "Most definitely not!" I say this as a computer programmer and a company manager - I do both.

Thank God Germany has decided not to sign the new convention on Intellectual Property and Patent Law the EU drafted. Hopefully we Europeans won't fall victim to Software/Biotech Patents and DMCA-type monstrosities after all.

This sounds cool. Now, would this work in conjunction with Expose or replace it altogether?

...Apple's GUI...was, at the very least, "inspired" by research at Xerox PARC. If suing somebody for copying something you yourself have copied isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.

I thought Steve and his buddies got permission to use the stuff from PARC. (Please fill me in on the facts...really.) If not, why didn't Xerox sue? Or did they? Any Silicon Valley historians out there?

Squire

Don't be blinded by your love and devotion to Apple. Software patents are just flat out wrong. They stifle innovation. Just think if companies had been patenting software since the 1980's with the regularity they are doing now. We wouldn't be anywhere near the level of software development we are now. Microsoft and Apple are just taking advantage of the horribly outdated patent system and inadequate Patent Office we have in the United States. Meanwhile, the little developer, whether they are an open source developer, a shareware developer, or trying to sell a product themself, gets screwed. How can you fight Microsoft or Apple in court? They probably spend as much on lawyers as they do on R&D.

My answer is: "Most definitely not!" I say this as a computer programmer and a company manager - I do both.

Thank God Germany has decided not to sign the new convention on Intellectual Property and Patent Law the EU drafted. Hopefully we Europeans won't fall victim to Software/Biotech Patents and DMCA-type monstrosities after all.

If not, then we are going to run into computer programs that are identical. Innovation will cease and computing as we know it will become bland. It's because of patents that Apple has become the trailblazer in modern operating systems and Windows is following behind. If Apple patented nothing they did (or they were unable to do so due to legislation), Windows would just be a x86 version of OSX, assuming, of course, Apple even tried anymore to be innovative. More likely, due to budget issues, Apple would have crapped out a long time ago b/c they couldn't compete with Microsoft's deep pockets. It's innovation that keeps Apple from dying and if Apple can't protect its innovation, then why even try.

As for the small developer, they have as much right to patent their products as do the big boys. As costly as it may be, if I had a legitimate claim to my patent and Microsoft or Apple tried to throw lawyer after lawyer after me, I would still fight. In the end, I know I would win and then the big boys could pick up the tab on my court fees. People give up too easily anymore.