| |||||||||||||
A visit from the trollsA visit from the trollsPosted Oct 15, 2007 21:35 UTC (Mon) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)Parent article: A visit from the trolls
I find this very interesting. Consider the FVWM window manager. That WM had two different concepts: virtual desktop and multiple desktops. A "virtual desktop" was the idea that your real desktop was huge, and your physical screen was just a window that looked out onto that desktop. So you'd move your screen around to see different parts of the big virtual desktop behind it. Windows could move freely on the virtual desktop, but in order to move them between desktops you had to do something special (usually a menu option or similar). I think VTWM had a similar structure. In these WMs you didn't have to have your screen "flipping" between discrete screenfuls of virtual real estate (although most of the time you did): you could drag a little viewer around to show any part of the virtual desktop on the screen.
So, does this patent cover this "one large virtual desktop" idea? It doesn't seem to, to me: it's got a completely different terminology and intent. It talks about different workspaces and discrete objects that have a spatial relationship within that particular workspace; in the virtual desktop theory there is only one "workspace" and all objects have spatial relationships to each other in that workspace, and it's the screen that is too small to show the whole thing. But I don't know...
If the "one large virtual desktop" idea is not covered by the patent then one way to work around it (until next December) is to change the existing WMs to adhere more closely to this idea. Really, it's not much more than a change in perspective and user representation, plus one new feature: the ability to show any contiguous area of the "virtual desktop" that is the size of the screen, rather than (or in addition to) flipping between discrete "windows".
Really, some WMs already do something close to this; for example I've been playing with Compiz in the Ubuntu Gutsy release candidate, and if you use Expo for example you can see all your "desktops" in one view, and drag windows between them and even leave windows halfway between them. You still can't look at half of one desktop and half of another (in normal size) but it's part-way there.
(Log in to post comments)
A visit from the trolls Posted Oct 15, 2007 22:24 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I doubt the patents would cover the "window into a larger desktop"; I think that idea is rather older than the patent.
I *think* [very light analysis] the patent is largely about the idea of being able to have the same objects in multiple windows, possibly in different places. Note that it's "the same display object", not multiple display objects that present the same underlying data - it's about linking into the same underlying graphical object, which can render itself in which ever window is visible.
A visit from the trolls Posted Oct 15, 2007 22:34 UTC (Mon) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] Hm. Has anyone read the claims in the lawsuit that was filed, rather than the claims in the patent? Presumably the lawsuit will have to list specific instances they allege violate the patent, including programs and the specific behaviors of those programs. Is the lawsuit available publicly yet?
That should give us a lot of information about what they, at least, believe the patent means.
Reading the lawsuit Posted Oct 15, 2007 22:43 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Yes, of course I read the complaint - I also linked to it so you can. The complaint lists specific claims that are said to be violated, but has no information on just how those claims have been violated. That will, presumably, come during the discovery phase.
Reading the lawsuit Posted Oct 16, 2007 1:22 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] I believe, though I didn't check with my-daughter-the-IP-attorney, that the complaint only needs to allege one representative infringement in each patent - that the litigation would consider the whole patent regardless of the complaint because it's the overall amount of overlap that drives the decision.
Reading the lawsuit Posted Oct 16, 2007 2:36 UTC (Tue) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] Sorry; that wasn't an accusation. More like an idle question. I haven't seen anyone address the specifics of the complaint... most likely because there aren't any :-/.
A visit from the trolls Posted Oct 15, 2007 22:51 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I find your use of the past tense in regard to fvwm disturbing. :)
(I just wish it supported compiz-like effects, but I suspect I'll have to
3D FVWM in the present Posted Oct 16, 2007 1:00 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] What about Metisse?
A visit from the trolls Posted Oct 16, 2007 8:07 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] You still have virtual desktop, right inside X itself. (There is settings for both the virtual desktop size, and "physical" desktop size) It could work exactly like the multiple desktop idea, instead of jumping pixels, you could jump screen sizes, and the panel(s) could be made as overlays in the desktop. Question is if that isn't just another way of implementing multiple desktops, and would also be covered. But if we skipped the jumping of screen sizes, and kept the panel(s) overlaid, then it could possibly be non-infringing, and maybe quite nice. - That we maybe have to bow to the will of the patent trolls some day, on the other hand, is quite disgusting. Even more, since us outside US will be affected by ridiculous American law, again.
|
|||||||||||||