Hacker News Reader

Comment by frik | Hacker News Reader

"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?

View on HN

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...

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.

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....

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.

Please read the thing you're responding to. Microsoft isn't claiming patent over windows, icons, and mouse pointers.

These are the same type of patent that came up during Apple v. Samsung, leading to the infamous bit about rounded corners.

Which was also an equally inaccurate depiction of the patents in question.

What is the inaccuracy?

In the lawsuit, they used very broad design patents of the general iPhone shape that were later invalidated due to obviousness and prior art leading to a cut in the awarded compensation.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-office-consider...

The inaccuracy was that people believed that the patents were on the concept of "rounded corners". Just like people here seem to believe that it is a patent on a generic slider.

Regarding the invalidated patents, if you read the blog and the Office Action within ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/274897046/15-08-05-Non-final-Rejec...), this was due to the priority date being moved forward due to a technicality in claiming priority to their own previously filed patent. As a result, previously excluded prior art came into play, including Apple's own previously issued iPhone design patents, which was actually on simply different aspects of the exact same design. As such, although the patent was invalid, it is inaccurate to say the design itself was "obvious" per se (although I really don't understand how obviousness works in the world of design patents).

The patent was on the design as a whole, but when they tried to filter out which elements of the design were both protected and similar, rounded corners were held to be enough to establish infringement.

So it doesn't lose its silliness when you understand it better.

> ... rounded corners were held to be enough to establish infringement.

... amongst other elements. This is what Apple's complaint stated:

>"Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products reinforces the conclusion of substantial similarity. Samsung copied every major element of Apple's patented design:

a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded corners;

an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the display screen and substantial borders above and below the display screen; and

a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front surface above the display screen,

where the rectangular front surface is otherwise substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional button area centrally located below the display."

Certainly not the most earthshaking design, but a lot more than "rounded corners".

Because it's missing a color screen with icons aligned on a grid...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com