Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>The patent doesn't appear to describe tiling window management

It does though. The screenshots show grid options, and describe how the end user can place windows in the grid. It specifically complains about how MS Windows has overlapping windows. Grid + no overlap == tiling.

>Indeed the patent describes a user interface to accomplish this that looks very similar to screenshots of Moom.

Sure. The argument about "novel" is that the patent holder wasn't the first to do something "similar to Moom". The idea that 2008 was the first time someone had the notion of grid layouts and allowing an end user to place a window in them is just silly.




> The idea that 2008 was the first time someone had the notion of grid layouts and allowing an end user to place a window in them is just silly.

That's not what's being patented. The gui menu to select placement of windows is what's being patented.

Did that exist before 2008?


Yes, it did.

I know I used window managers with almost the same grid square select in the 1990's. Not able to conjure up a screenshot yet. I did find one that's very close, here: http://www.badros.com/greg/papers/scwm-extensible-wm.pdf

That is clearly a UI for dynamic window placement and sizing, just not with the exact grid dynamic, though you can define new constraints, so it's possible it can do it as well. It's not the one I remember, but it's hard to Google up old UI's in HN time.

Given some time, I'm sure I could find something exactly like it.


It may be silly, but remember that the US uses first-to-file, not first-to-invent.


That only comes up when two people file for patents that overlap. You cannot patent known inventions.


First to file, though, is just about the patent being granted. Once you start using your patent to bully people, prior art, even non-patented prior art, can be used against you.

Edit: "Once the patent has issued, you can challenge it at the USPTO by filing a request for reexamination of the patent"[1]

[1] https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/patent-liti...

Edit2: It's also possible there are overlapping, earlier patents. This one looks promising...compare the drawings: https://www.google.com/patents/US5712995


> Edit2: It's also possible there are overlapping, earlier patents. This one looks promising...compare the drawings:

There's also:

https://www.google.com/patents/US5796402


That's not what 35 USC. ยง 273 says. It says that commercial prior use may be legitimate defence for that prior use, which isn't the same thing at all.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: