ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Microsoft patents Tab button use

Time: 14:26 EST/19:26 GMT | News Source: Geek.com | Posted By: Robert Stein

A patent for which Microsoft applied on March 6, 1997, has been granted: "Discoverability and navigation of hyperlinks via tabs." In other words, when a computer user uses the Tab key to move the focus from one hyperlink to another on a webpage opened in a browser, the use of that function is now owned by Microsoft. The Tab patent, number 6,785,865, was granted on August 31st, just one among multiple patents granted to the software giant on that day. Another interesting grant is number 6,784,354, with an application date of March 13, 2003: "Generating a music snippet." Yes, you read that right. Now dividing a music stream into portions is Microsoft's domain.

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 11 of 11

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 2332 (207.31.248.242) at Wednesday, September 08, 2004 03:36:22 PM

They "own" neither.

What they "own" is a patent for tabbing through hyperlinks.

This is, of course, only slighly less rediculous than owning the tab key and/or the ascii code.

Somebody needs to go over to the patent office and bitch slap somebody. Anybody. Please.

#2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, September 08, 2004 05:14:00 PM

I knew someone who was a patent examiner. He explained it like Halcyon.

It it is up to the US Courts to decide whether or not they are truly legitimate and enforceable.

The reason is largely so that the Patent Office is not responsible for making a judgement based on limited facts as to what is or not acceptable.

Once you understand that, it makes more sense.

#3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at Wednesday, September 08, 2004 08:25:13 PM

#3 "Unfortunately it's not the patent office's job to question the validity of patents"

If that's not their job, then it should be! What's the point of having a patent office in the first place if they simply rubber stamp everything that comes in? How is using the tab key an invention? And people are genuinely suprised at the number of people who want software patents banned? If you're ever wondering why, here's a perfect example! The US PTO is a joke.

#4 You could possibly try to get a patent for using the scroll wheel on a mouse with your index finger, that's just as inventive as this patent.

#4 By 18033 (211.26.193.94) at Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:08:23 PM

Youre right, its not competition, its domination.

You might as well bow down to MS now if you havent already.

After all, they already 0wn your skin...... ;-)

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+patents+body+power/2100-1014_3-5244766.html?tag=nefd.top

#5 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:26:23 PM

i have a patent on a medical procedure.

when i applied for that patent it was not for a procedure but rather for a device which the patent examiner rightfully identified as prior art. he did allow for the patenting of the proceedure to use the device which had not been described or published.

these examiners are very smart and well versed in their respective fields. (to wit albert einstein was a patent examiner).

nevertheless, i suspect a large company like ms can steamroll these patents through this process with expensive attorneys and later hold other companies hostage by threat of litigation.

these patents stifle innovation. this is bad.

innovation is good:).

#6 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at Thursday, September 09, 2004 08:24:57 AM

Man, this is simply unbelieveable.

There HAS to be prior discovery on this and I can't believe this can possibly hold up.

TL

#7 By 12071 (203.217.77.163) at Thursday, September 09, 2004 09:58:48 AM

#13 Grow up and get over yourself zealot. We're not complaining about this patent (and software patents in general) because it was granted to Microsoft! We're complaining because it should never have been granted to ANYONE! This is NOT an invention! This is a perfect example of what a joke the US PTO is and why there is a problem with software patents. It doesn't matter whether it was granted to Amazon or Sun or IBM or Google or Redhat or Kodak or Microsoft or Oracle or Apple etc.

#8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:37:28 PM

chris_kabuki - "We're not complaining about this patent (and software patents in general) because it was granted to Microsoft! We're complaining because it should never have been granted to ANYONE! "

I'm not convinced of that, based on your history.

I just don't see this as a cut and dried issue, yet. There's a lot of patents I think are silly. On the other hand I would like to see discussion on patents which might not be silly. I assume they exist, but we just never hear about that.

For instance, what about RSA's patent for PKI? Was that bad? Was it obvious? It's expired now, were we harmed by it's existence?

Did the laws change to allow patenting of business processes? When did this change occur? What were the reasons given for making that change?

#9 By 3653 (68.54.230.116) at Thursday, September 09, 2004 07:58:10 PM

I took some time off these boards, and now I remember why. So many of you are generally clueless on how the world works. You apply emotions to companies (spite, jealousy, etc) and think make a conspiracy theory out of anything. For example, someone mentioned that MSFT had steamrolled this patent through. WTF? It was applied for over 7 years ago. In what world is that STEAMROLLED?

And fyi... Oracle is to blame for the state of the USPO. They heavily financed Clinton's first presidential compaign, and Clinton appointed all the USPO inspectors. Nah, just kidding. But half of you dumbarses would believe that conspiracy, if I didn't set you straight.

This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, September 09, 2004 at 20:01.

#10 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at Friday, September 10, 2004 01:24:44 AM

#17 Go read my message again.

#19 "I'm not convinced of that, based on your history."
I would love to convince you sodablue, i honestly would, but I just couldn't be bothered wasting my time just to satisfy you. Think whatever it is that you want to think, I'm not going lie awake at night wondering whether or not I managed to convince you or not! You don't see anything wrong with this patent because it came from Microsoft and you're a Microsoft zealot, based on your history. That's fine, parkker's in the same boat. Parkker argues that there's nothing wrong with this patent because RedHat/IBM/whomever also have been granted patents over things which aren't really inventions. I didn't realise that two wrongs makes a right!

My point was that this is not an invention and it's a joke of a patent and should never have been granted - just like all the other non-inventive patents that have been granted shouldn't have regardless of who applied for them. Of course you cannot understand this because you would rather try and turn this into an anti-Microsoft issue (that's your choice, good luck with that). I would have said exactly the same thing no matter who was granted this patent. Maybe not all software patents should be thrown out, but ones like this definetely should be.

At this point you still disagree, and I'm willing to bet that you're disagreeing because this is Microsoft's patent! So I'll give you another example of a software patent that should never have been granted - but this time you'll agree with me. How do i know this? Because not that long ago Microsoft came up against this patent (which is currently nullified if I remember correctly), I'm speaking about the Eolas patent of course.

So I've got nothing against Microsoft (in this particular case), I have no doubt in my mind that if they didn't try and patent this "invention", that someone else would have! My problem lies with the US PTO (in this particular case) for granting such stupid software patents.

"For instance, what about RSA's patent for PKI? Was that bad? Was it obvious? It's expired now, were we harmed by it's existence?"
RSA patented an algorithm - something that originally you could not do but due to another case a new precedent came in which said that you can patent an algorithm as long as it's part of an otherwise patentable process. (You can read up a bit more here if you're interested: http://www.cyberlaw.com/rsa.html). My own personal view is that you shouldn't be allowed to patent any algorithm.

#11 By 3653 (68.54.230.116) at Friday, September 10, 2004 05:39:34 PM

muddle, exactly which typewriter did you ever see that typed HYPERLINKS?

the reality is that "tabbing through hyperlinks" is as patentable as "navigating through html pages via mouse gestures" (a patent that opera is seeking, last I heard).

What people are missing is that many of these patents are DEFENSIVE. If MSFT didn't patent it, then IBM might... and then seek licensing payments from Microsoft. If you wanna get your panties in a bunch, at least do it over a good reason. Wait until MSFT tries to extract licensing money for the patent (they won't) before you get all worked up.

replica watches