
Stupid Patent of the Month: Microsoft’s Design Patent on a Slider - sinak
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/stupid-patent-month-microsofts-design-patent-slider
======
ayi
I don't think nitpicking, saying "this is just a slider, you can't patent it"
or "ms copied all concepts from xerox and apple lisa" is rational in this
situation. Because this patent is not about these subjects. Just look at the
bigger picture: Corel copied Office suite apps almost pixel by pixel. I would
be pretty angry after seeing this to screenshots:

This is Office Excel:
[http://weborb.gcflearnfree.org/weborbassets/uploads/ID_82/wo...](http://weborb.gcflearnfree.org/weborbassets/uploads/ID_82/workbook_2.png)

This is Corel Calc: [https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/G/01/software...](https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/G/01/software/detail-page/CorelCalc_LG.jpg)

Even the shade of blue is the same.

~~~
cturner
DR-DOS was a clean-room reimplementation of MS-DOS. Linux is a
reimplementation of unix. Fender guitars work remarkably like Gibson guitars.
The steering mechanisms on Masdas are the same as Mercedes. Nothing wrong with
it. If you don't allow people to copy interfaces - where does that end? Does
that mean that APIs should be protected from being copied?

~~~
DanBC
An electric guitar is a slab of wood, some pickups, some controls, some
outputs, some strings, a neck, some frets, a head, some tuning pegs, and a
couple of pegs for the strap.

But even with this small number of elements there are many differences between
Gibson guitars and Fender guitars.

The obvious difference is the shape of the head. Gibsons tend to have a spade
shaped head with three pegs each side. Fenders tend to have a scroll shaped
head with all six pegs in a line.

The screen shots supplied in this thread are much harder to tell apart.

~~~
nanny
>An electric guitar is a slab of wood, some pickups, some controls, some
outputs, some strings, a neck, some frets, a head, some tuning pegs, and a
couple of pegs for the strap.

I think that's his point. The things you listed are the interface, and the
differences lie in Gibson's and Fender's implementations of that specific
interface.

~~~
DanBC
But there's nothing else to a guitar.

There's a bunch of stuff to a spreadsheet, and the interface is how most users
will access those features. When the interface is nearly identical it's a
problem.

It's a bit more complicated here because Corel are apparently following MS
instructions about how the interface should look.

------
tim333
I had though the suit was stupid but I had a look at the Corel Office pics on
Amazon and they do look kind of like a near identical copy:

Corel Calculate for instance Corel Calculate [https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/G/01/software...](https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/G/01/software/detail-page/CorelCalc_LG.jpg)

( from [http://www.amazon.com/Corel-
Office-5-3-Installs/dp/B006N1Q0W...](http://www.amazon.com/Corel-
Office-5-3-Installs/dp/B006N1Q0W2) )

vs Excel
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Microsoft_Off...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Microsoft_Office_Excel_2007.png)

~~~
trymas
When I still was using Windows few years ago (and was not very active
developer), I though MS finally made app developers to use Windows native
UI/UX design.

I mean that, I thought tabular design of complex apps was pushed to third
party app developers from MS. IMHO tabular GUI is rather good, so I was happy
user, where many big apps were rather similar and easy to use. Before MS
Office 2007, every app had very cluttered UI and after many apps had similar
design.

I cannot remember many, but I know AutoCAD [1] started using design as in MS
Word, also MathCAD [2].

TIL it wasn't new Microsofts design language and many apps were/are living on
the knifes edge and can be sued if they will get too close to MS's GUI design.

[1]
[http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots/AutoCAD_1.png](http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots/AutoCAD_1.png)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathcad#/media/File:Top_right_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathcad#/media/File:Top_right_Prime_screengrab.png)

~~~
iamtew
The UI/UX could also be licensed, so you were allowed to use it. I can't
remember what they called it, but I do remember a few years ago my job at the
time we had a big .NET application that was using the same design, and we had
a license to use it all.

~~~
spyder
It's called "ribbon" UI:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_%28computing%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_%28computing%29)

And from the bottom of the wiki page:

 _" The Microsoft Ribbon Licensing Page has been retired, therefore it is no
longer possible to license the ribbon control from Microsoft."_

~~~
nailer
Going to be picky here and clarify that _Microsoft_ \- and the small niche of
people who run wikipedia - want people to call it ribbon. But anyone who's
used major software from Lotus or KDE knows that tabbed toolbars are tabbed
toolbars and Microsoft didn't invent them in 2007.

~~~
tamana
MS also had tabbed toolbars before they built their ribbon format.

------
cperciva
This seems like an entirely reasonable design patent to me. There are lots of
ways of drawing such a slider; the patent does not cover any function, merely
the ornamental design.

Now, the idea that this should entitle Microsoft to all of Corel's profits for
the entire product is clearly absurd; as the article points out, that's the
current legal precedent but is being appealed. Lawyers are hardly going to not
take advantage of precedents which favour them; nor would it even be good if
they did -- the fastest way to overturn bad law is to apply it strictly and
make obvious its failings.

~~~
jondubois
Microsoft should not have been allowed to patent this particular design
because it is made up mostly of elements which are in the public domain. For
example, the 'plus' and 'minus' symbols are universal symbols. Circles and
straight lines would also fall into the public domain.

I don't think you should be able to patent designs which are just basic
compositions of symbols/motifs which have existed for thousands of years.

Besides, lots of old remote controls use plus/minus symbols to indicate
volume-up/volume-down in a similar fashion. This design is obviously
derivative.

~~~
throwawaykf05
You are analyzing design patents as you would utility patents, which I doubt
is correct. These patents are more about "look and feel". You don't break down
a design into its components (else taken ad absurdum, everything would
decompose to curves and straight lines and combinations thereof), but instead
analyze it as a whole. I believe prior art searches for design patents look
for almost exact matches of a given diagram.

~~~
Natsu
Patents are (supposedly) a power granted to "promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts" and it's rather hard to see how patents over mere
ornamentation can further that goal, even in principle.

~~~
throwawaykf05
I'd say UI design is an "useful Art". If somebody is forced to come up with
their own designs rather than ripping somebody else's off, is that not
progress? If there is no conceivable alternative way of doing a design (which
I find extremely improbable) the solution is well-known: license it.

~~~
yohui
I agree good UI design offers utility, but often those "forced to come up with
their own designs" are simply forced to kludge together a workaround rather
than do what would come naturally. This hardship may sometimes spark
innovation, true, but in other cases the effort and frustration might have
been better spent pushing the envelope elsewhere.

And if the "invention" is obvious, developers (and users) really shouldn't
have to pay the cost to license it.

~~~
throwawaykf05
Thing is, in the world of design patents even trivial changes are sufficient
to avoid infringement.

~~~
talmand
Two things that make me feel design patents seem stupid in general.

1\. What if the design is trivial itself? So trivial that there are no trivial
changes to make?

2\. If trivial changes is all that's require to avoid the patent, such as
change a solid line to dotted line, then why have the stupid design patents in
the first place?

I could maybe understand such a thing for the entire application, but just a
small insignificant part of the overall design? It's stupid.

~~~
throwawaykf05
Not a big fan of design patents either, but...

1\. Not sure if something trivial (e.g. an empty circle for a button) would be
eligible even for a design patent.

2\. The solid and dotted lines are just to indicate the claimed design vs the
rest of the product respectively. Potentially the dotted lines in one patent
maybe claimed as solid lines in a separate design patent.

~~~
talmand
I have seen designs I would consider trivial, such as a slider made up of two
circled symbols, a solid line, and a small box for an indicator.

I wasn't referring to the lines in the claim, but in the design. I was saying;
for instance, if changing a solid line in the design to a dotted line may get
you past the design patent, then they are worthless to begin with.

~~~
Natsu
They're actually saying that the lines indicate what's claimed in the patent.
While it may be true that you just have to not match the solid lines of the
patent, when you have a minimal design that's barely anything but a rounded
rectangle (as posted below), the design patents become a farce.

------
frik
"If Corel is found to infringe even one of Microsoft’s design patents through
even the smallest part of Corel Home Office, current Federal Circuit law
entitles Microsoft to all of Corel’s profits for the entire product. Not the
profits that can be attributed to the design. Not the value that the design
adds to a product. All of the profit from Corel Home Office."

With such a crap "design patent" on a generic slider, Microsoft tries to
extinguish another Office competitor?

~~~
sergers
by itself, yes this is a stupid patent.

however this is not a stupid lawsuit by MS.

this article sucks to highlight the lawsuit. most people are not reading past
this is a stupid patent and they are suing corel for such a petty reason.

from the actual complaint, microsoft patented the office 2007 UI and specific
workflows over multiple patents including this simple stupid one. the others
are fairly specific

"Microsoft brings this action to protect its rights and investment in its
innovations embodied in utility U.S. Patent Nos. 8,255,828 (“the ’828
patent”), 7,703,036 (“the ’036 patent”), 7,047,501 (“the ’501 patent”),
5,715,415 (“the ’415 patent”), 5,510,980 (“the ’980 patent”) and design U.S.
Patent Nos. D550,237 (“the D’237 patent”), D554,140 (“the D’140 patent”),
D564,532 (“the D’532 patent”), and D570,865 (“the D’865 patent,” collectively
“the Microsoft Asserted Patents”), copied by Corel into its infringing
products."

"Corel has copied the look and feel of the Microsoft interfaces in its accused
products. Among many examples, Help for WordPerfect X7 suggests that the user
“simulate the Microsoft Word workspace until you are accustomed to work in
WordPerfect”: "

that is just the opener in the complaint, corel is using these same UIs in a
"word mode" essentially cloning the patented "look and feel", which is against
micrososft's licensing and use of these elements.

[https://www.eff.org/files/2015/12/28/microsoft_v_corel_-
_com...](https://www.eff.org/files/2015/12/28/microsoft_v_corel_-
_complaint.pdf)

the patent doesnt seem so stupid when you put it all together with the other
patents and can see what Microsoft was trying to protect overall.

~~~
frik
How can you protect an UI, that was heavily inspired by A) Xerox Star B) Apple
Lisa C) beside other lesser known third parties and is very common for 30+
years. Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia/Adobe Dreamweaver, KDE shell, Gnome Shell,
Wine, Apple MacOS/OSX, BeOS, etc. Many products from other companies had very
similar UI designs years earlier than Microsoft or come up at the same time.
There was a famous dispute between Apple and Microsoft about the Windows UI
that has been settled outside of the court (and the second case was
interesting too):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp).

~~~
sergers
when its a near identical clone, with corel outlining it as a selling point,
Microsoft has fair game.

the lawsuit isnt about an "inspired" UI.

i think regardless of the patents, MS still has a lawsuit. i dont think they
should be entitled to profits really, but if they win Corel should remove the
word mode.

------
DGAP
Why didn't we get "Stupid Patent of the Month" HN posts when Apple patented
"electronic devices with rounded corners?"

~~~
Alterlife
I'm sure we will will have a flood of well upvoted posts if apple tries to
enforce that patent.

~~~
fatratchet
Didn't that already happen with the samsung lawsuit?

------
josaka
This suit is probably in retaliation for an earlier Corel suit against
Microsoft this summer. [http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/07/corel-software-
sues-micro...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/07/corel-software-sues-
microsoft-for.html).

This one reason companies keep a war-chest of patents, so they can fight back
when targeted with a dying company's portfolio.

------
enjo
" For example, Samsung explains that under the Federal Circuit’s ruling,
“profits on an entire car—or even an eighteen-wheel tractor trailer—must be
awarded based on an undetachable infringing cup-holder.” "

At some point companies are just going to stop doing business in the United
States. I get that it's the worlds largest economy, but little by little this
nonsense will fix that.

~~~
georgemcbay
This is not really meant to be a defense of the United States since the origin
of this 1990s+ era patent nonsense is clearly our fault (speaking as an
American), but I think it is somewhat naive to assume other countries will be
spared or will be useful as safe havens.

I mean, just look at the various trade agreements and their related IP
provisions that are currently being debated or have already been passed. The
ultimate driver of this lunacy isn't the US government, but rather
multinational corporations (who are increasingly not even technically US
companies since they keep tax inverting into other countries) and they are
pushing hard for this crap everywhere and mostly winning still.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yup. A lot of those new provisions aren't in the interest of citizens, or even
governments - politicians have no incentive to push for them except various
types of legal and illegal bribes they get from corporations.

------
FussyZeus
Honestly as stupid as this (and many others) are, it's the fault of the patent
system, not the companies. The companies are reacting rationally to the system
as it's been created, i.e. patent everything possible so you have more patents
covering more things than your competitors. The only reason patent troll
companies exist is because some smart investors realized you didn't need to do
the risky bit, make products, to hold and enforce patents.

The system needs to be fixed, and then shit like this will go away naturally.

~~~
wstrange
True -the system does need reform.

But certain companies behave much more badly than others. We should call them
out on it.

------
kyberias
This is not a good article. The relevant context is missing: Corel has
implemented a "Word mode" in it's product that mimics the look and feel of
Microsoft Word. Mimics too well, Microsoft thinks.

~~~
frik
Microsoft WinWord is basically feature complete since 1989/90\. And it wasn't
an original design at all. Xerox and various other companies had word
processors several years before Microsoft. Microsoft managed to have an
competitive advantage by owning the Windows 3 and DOS platforms - changing
platform APIs to make competing word processors and spreadsheet programs
incompatible wasn't a fine thing. Microsoft has certainly a bad track record
how they act with competitors. Is this the "new Microsoft" everyone tries to
tell me they see in their new CEO? It seems it's the same old company with the
same old well known tactics.

~~~
kyberias
Disregarding your other comments, which I think are irrelevant to the topic,
I'm interested in this:

> changing platform APIs to make competing word processors and spreadsheet
> programs incompatible wasn't a fine thing

You claim that the only reason Word succeeded in competing with e.g.
WordPerfect, was by "changing platform APIs".

Could you be more specific? What OS, application and exactly what APIs?

------
javajosh
I get how we all intuitively want the PTO to not issue "stupid patents" but is
there an objective, mechanical way to determine what is stupid? Do we care
more about false positives (as in this case) or false negatives (a
hypothetical alternative universe where too few, rather than too many, patents
are awarded).

Now, before you start arguing against patents entirely, what I really want to
know is: without patents, how are individual supposed to profit from their
inventiveness when a larger entity could trivially copy the idea and profit
based on their superior connections and capitalization? And yes, I'm talking
about software. Are software inventors just supposed to give away their
inventions as open source and feed themselves by working for someone else who
a) got the ask, and b) defended their IP?

~~~
FredFredrickson
As an artist, this is exactly the point that I make when I argue with people
who say patents should be abolished.

Without any kind of protection, anyone who has a greater means of
production/marketing than you will always steal your ideas and profit more
from them than you can.

Obviously we need to fix the process so that as few bad patents are awarded as
possible. Someone's just got to figure out how!

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> Without any kind of protection, anyone who has a greater means of
> production/marketing than you will always steal your ideas and profit more
> from them than you can.

Since you're an artist shouldn't you only care about copyright and trademarks?
What's a patent going to do for you? If someone steals your designs then you
can sue them through means other than patents. If they copied your idea but
executed differently then well I guess that sucks to a degree but if it's an
obvious evolution then more than likely it happened independent of you anyway.

I would imagine artists would have the least issue with just abolishing
patents entirely so I'm curious why you do.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
I know Harry Connick Jr. holds at least one patent to do with performing his
music.

Imogen Heap has also been working with some guys to develop their Mimu Gloves.
Which probably have some proprietry software & engineering.

So there are at least a couple of people wanting to protect ideas.

------
throwawaykf05
As josaka points out, this may be in retaliation to Corel's patent lawsuit:

[http://www.law360.com/articles/684098/microsoft-word-copy-
pa...](http://www.law360.com/articles/684098/microsoft-word-copy-pastes-
wordperfect-s-ip-corel-says)

All the patents in this lawsuit, of which the EFF picked just the one in TFA:

8,255,828 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US8255828](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8255828)

7,703,036 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US7703036](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7703036)

7,047,501 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US7047501](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7047501)

5,715,415 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5715415](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5715415)

5,510,980 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5510980](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5510980)

D550,237 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/USD550237](https://patents.google.com/patent/USD550237)

D554,140 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/USD554140](https://patents.google.com/patent/USD554140)

D564,532 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/USD564532](https://patents.google.com/patent/USD564532)

D570,865 -
[https://patents.google.com/patent/USD570865](https://patents.google.com/patent/USD570865)

The ones beginning with "D" are the design patents. The rest are utility
patents.

~~~
bazzargh
I'm surprised the '415 patent stands. That's the one for an in-window help
pane. `C-h m` (describe-mode) in emacs looks very similar to what they
describe and was certainly there in 1995 and earlier. I know there's lots of
caveats reading patents, but it appears that the independent claims are 1, 11
and 28 and they all look like at least XEmacs would have beat them to the
punch.

~~~
throwawaykf05
I'd agree the '415 is not a good patent for other reasons too. It claims the
result rather than the method in very broad terms.

------
iamcreasy
The purpose of A Patent is to allow the inventor to openly share their idea
without the fear of stealing. The inventors are also allowed/encouraged to
financially profit from their idea so they can continue invention.

But these type of patents are hurting everybody except one person.

Shame.

------
lostinpoetics
a silly patent (even by design patent stds), but the complaint illustrates
that this patent is a pretty small part of a [smallish] thicket of patents on
the ribbon concept, as well corel pretty brazenly trying to capitalize on the
Office UI (whether that is a legit claim or not is up for debate) back when MS
was pushing it (and of course MS allegedly meeting with Corel to "resolve" it
after finding out). personal opinion is that it may have been a compelling
claim in 2007/2008, but now just gives you that slimy feeling again. another
good fact (probably irrelevant) is that microsoft is now (and has been)
encouraging people to use the ribbon metaphor (as far as i can tell).

------
ams6110
_Putting aside whether Microsoft’s design was actually new and not obvious in
2006 (when Microsoft filed its application)_

UI sliders were certainly not novel in 2006. And I'd be surprised if Corel did
anything other than use the stock slider in Microsoft's UI library. Maybe they
implemented their own and it looks too much like Microsoft's?

~~~
sergers
from the actual lawsuit, it is more about corel creating a "Microsoft word
mode" to mimic the UI/style of MS Word.

this slider is just part of it.

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-
the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface.aspx)

edit: fixed link, thank commenter below for identifying error

~~~
Falkon1313
Interesting link. One of the core ideas behind Windows' success back in the
day (when almost every program implemented its own unique GUI system and they
were very inconsistent) was that it provided reusable UI components and
Microsoft said that all developers _should_ use their standard design, GUI
components, and keyboard shortcuts to provide consistent interfaces for
Windows programs. Seems rather hostile that Microsoft would now be suing
someone for doing exactly what they always told everyone to do (especially
considering that other developers using their UIs is a significant part of
what made Microsoft itself so successful).

I guess the fact that they made it available to anyone not directly competing
with their office suite is something. But the whole "Do what I tell you to
do!" "Ok, I will." "Now you're in trouble for doing that!" routine still seems
obnoxious.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Aren't they taking a page from Apple's playbook here? "You can do mostly
whatever, as long as you don't duplicate functionality of our existing - or
_planned_ applications; in the latter case we'll retroactively pull you from
the market."

------
ikeboy
>Putting aside whether Microsoft’s design was actually new and not obvious in
2006 (when Microsoft filed its application), whether Microsoft needed the
patent incentive in order to come up with this design

Abrupt shift from legal argument to meta-legal argument. Seems stylistically
wrong.

------
wstrange
What is interesting to me is that industry has conditioned us to view copying
as a bad thing.

Is there any invention that did not benefit from copying ideas that came
before it? We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

We need more copying, not less.

------
ianamartin
Stuff like this makes me really excited about the Samsung appeal to the
Supreme Court here in the U.S. regarding their ongoing suit and countersuit
with Apple.

I'm an unapologetic Mac user at times, but I find myself intellectually on the
side of Samsung in that case.

If Samsung gets cert and a positive outcome from SCOTUS, the patent system
here will be forced to reform.

Stuff like this will simply go away. As it should.

------
ommunist
Ehm... this design resembles the design of rheostat slider like that
[http://olx.ua/i2/obyavlenie/reostat-provolochnyy-
maksimalnoe...](http://olx.ua/i2/obyavlenie/reostat-provolochnyy-maksimalnoe-
soprotivlenie-3-kom-IDa8DQr.html) and is not original.

~~~
threesixandnine
Thumbs up for this!

------
habitue
This is the Microsoft we know. Welcome back!

~~~
lvs
The application was filed in 2006.

~~~
cryptoz
Microsoft filed this lawsuit against Corel 10 days ago (December 18, 2015),
claiming all profits to Corel Home Office.

~~~
EGreg
Wow, that should get them a whole couple million dollars! Is Corel still big?

~~~
_nedR
i have never used Corel Draw personally, but here in India, I have seen it
(maybe very old versions )being used in PCB printing and laser cutting shops
(probably other shops too that i haven't seen/can't recall now). Seems like a
defacto standard in that niche. Don't know whether there are other popular
alternatives in the industry though.

------
brazzledazzle
It kind of bugs me that an OS maker is suing a software developer and
utilizing a UI/UX design patent to do it.

------
nitin_flanker
I don't think it is that stupid. There's a whole lot of designs available for
a slider. It is just a design patent so it won't hurt any other
company's/product design, they can easily swap it by making little changes or
designing an entirely new design for such a small thing.

As many people already linked the Corel Calc user interface design, which is
exactly same as Microsoft's Excel. I don't think Microsoft is doing wrong by
patenting their design elements.

~~~
wstrange
Except for the part where Microsoft wants 100% of Corel's profits. Does that
sound even remotely reasonable?

~~~
nitin_flanker
That sounds ridiculously stupid. The design patent seems legit but, demanding
for the entire profit is totally unreasonable.

------
zekevermillion
A design patent protects purely ornamental features, thus it is not fair to
criticize a design patent on the basis of it not being useful. Inherently, if
it were useful, it would not be eligible for protection as a patented design.
It may be fair to criticize the entire legal regime that affords patent
protection to ornamental designs (e.g., the famous rectangle with rounded
corners that caused a jury to find for Apple vs. Samsung).

------
EGreg
I thought that was always a possibility - the punitive damages could even MORE
than eat up any profits. Sort of a "crime doesn't pay" attitude. Isn't that so
for utility patents?

Otherwise people would "go ahead and execute" their idea, and sell a lot
before getting sued, then simply pay a "fair and reasonable price" for a
patent license. Which is it?

------
talles
That's not much of a surprise considering that's from the same company that
once patented the double click.

[https://newscientist.com/article/dn5072-microsoft-gains-
doub...](https://newscientist.com/article/dn5072-microsoft-gains-double-
clicking-patent)

------
kyriakos
If Microsoft was to buy Corel would it be anti competitive behaviour?

Microsoft stands to gain more than just getting corel's office package out of
the market, they will gain ownership to Coreldraw and paint which are one of
the few Adobe competitors.

------
alanh
A popular article on Ars Technica is entitled: "2015: The Year Microsoft
started to get the benefit of the doubt."

"Started." Indeed. But old habits die hard.

------
tracker1
Doesn't QT's QSlider predate this patent by a few years?

~~~
kyberias
Maybe, but this is a DESIGN patent.

~~~
tracker1
Aren't design patents still subject to prior art?

------
gruez
The complaint is from 2015. Who the hell uses Corel Office?

------
yuhong
The patents involved in the suit mostly looks like MS's patents on parts of
Office 2007 UI that was filed in 2006 or so, including parts of the Ribbon.

------
ahmedfromtunis
What happens if I put the (+) and (-) in squares ([+] and [-])?

~~~
josaka
Possibly no infringement. Design patents are easy to design around. Just
change the design.

The real threat is when the plaintiff can get back damages for pre-suit
infringement. You can't do anything about your previous use of the design, and
the exposure for infringement is much higher that utility patents: loss of
profits, rather than just a reasonable royalty.

Whether you can get pre-suit damages depends, usually, on whether you gave
some kind of notice, e.g., a letter to the defendant or marked your product
"protected by patent XYZ."

------
shmerl
It's indeed a stupid patent. Such thing shouldn't be patentable because it's
trivial.

~~~
sbuk
This is a _Design_ patent not a _Utility_ patent.

~~~
shmerl
And why should trivial design be patentable? It shouldn't be. Patentablity of
stuff like rounded corners is beyond ridiculous.

~~~
sbuk
No, deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting design patents is
ridiculous. Arguing that Pepsi should be allowed to imitate the design of a
Coke bottle is ridiculous.

Rather than taking a zero-sum approach, nuance is needed.

~~~
wstrange
Why is that ridiculous? If the Coke bottle has a superior shape, why not use
that design?

That is quite different than _trademark_. Consumers should be able to clearly
understand if their beverage is a genuine Coke or a Pepsi.

In this particular case, I don't think any consumers bought Corel Office
thinking it was in fact Microsoft office.

------
lolc
To think that some body must have written this monstrosity of a patent.

------
ZoeZoeBee
Can't say I'll miss the lawyers about to be put out by AI

~~~
BinaryIdiot
Arguably if lawyers are to be replaced by AI wouldn't the AI work quicker,
file more lawsuits and seek faster judgements? Seems like AI making a literal
interpretation of many things would make this problem far worse :)

------
bitmapbrother
I'm anxious to see what angle the Microsoft supporters use to justify this
truly stupid patent. They proclaimed Microsoft had changed LOL - Microsoft is
still the same old Microsoft. They're still using old prior art ridden patents
to shake down companies and either make them sign ridiculous patent licensing
terms or take them to court in a battle of attrition.

~~~
paulddraper
More than one person works at Microsoft.

Kinda like how more then one person comments on HN.

