Moom removed from sale due to patent violation claim

The tool does work like a grid but with start and end positions instead of sizes so you can move and resize at the same time. ^1^3 is from position (1,1) to (3,1) (i.e. top row), ^1^6 is (1,1) to (3,2) (top two-thirds) etc. You can basically paint the location and size of the window using your numeric keypad. Its pretty straightforward once you try it.

But, quoting:

"The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, in particular

1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

2. aesthetic creations;

3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

4. presentations of information."

I believe the patent in question falls under 4, 3 and perhaps 2.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...

What use is a novel invention if the patent owner does nothing with it. I would argue that Moom or other apps have provided more value to society at-large as compared to the patent owner.

[1] http://lifehacker.com/5715221/divvy-window-organizer-lands-o...

In that section, it mostly compares itself to Microsoft Windows' stacking (not tiling) window manager. There's no comparison to ANY of the already existing tiling window managers.

It was filed on June 2nd, 2008.

There were a ton of tiling oriented windows managers in place for many, many, years prior. Many of them supported automatic layout, and many supported a variety of grid layouts as depicted in the patent.

Here's a video from 1987, 21 years prior to the filing of this patent, showing the Siemens RTL tiling window manager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFd0FDv3fQc You can see the selected layout in the upper left hand corner of the screen. The video itself shows the user choosing where new windows will land, and the automated tiling/fit.

As mentioned earlier, a ton of other tiling window managers existed well before the filing of this patent. Many of them with automatic tiling, and several grid layout options. I don't see anything in the patent that sounds novel to me.

And the patent pretty much describes the mouse based interface which Moom implements, and I can't think of any prior art of that.

You should be able to find prior art and invalidate many clauses of the patent, like the general idea of grid based layouts, especially driven by keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures, but the general concept of a graphical drop-down menu for arranging windows will probably stay.

0: http://jgpaiva.dcmembers.com/gridmove.html

Edit: first alpha version May 30 2006 (http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=3824.msg2...).

I read/skimmed the patent, I cannot find anything described which is obviously novel. Care to provide a quote of these particular features?

Looking at these screenshots[1] and these diagrams[2] I can't possibly agree that this is what you're doing with tmux.

[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20110309004337/https://manytricks...

[2]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20130219331A1/...

> I doubt this patent will hold up in court.

I don't think a judge would be amused by that defence either.

Of course the problem with the patent system is, who can afford to court? Even if they get completely pro-bono legal help from someone like the EFF, it's a massive time-sink and also means their game is no longer on sale.

So you can easily register something, write it in an unreadable way and sue people for it.

Additionally there's a corrupt area int Texas where judges and lawyers have a very high tendency to rule in favor of patent trolls, because they'd have no jobs without them.

Here's an easy proposal: Let anyone claim patents for everything. If someone sues you for patent infringement it's their job to proof you infringed on their patent. And it's their job to proof their idea is complex enough to constitute a patent. And it's their job to proof their idea is novel. After the patent holder invested some money to show all these things; They can start to sue you.

This puts the assumption of innocence back in our justice system like it should be. And makes sure less people get patent trolled, since trolling now is a lot more expensive then sending out thousand of spam letters.

The trade off with patents is that the author will, in exchange for a limited monopoly, reveal his invention to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". In the case of software patents, the things that are patented are not worth this trade off and, IMO, are a net drag on Progress.

As a developer, I'm making Progress in spite of patents. Software patents are a bit like giving tax breaks to oil companies when we are awash in cheap oil - the cost isn't worth it.

Whenever a client wants to patent what I've done for them, I grit my teeth and fill out the paperwork they ask me to. My reluctance is partly because I know it is making the world a worse place for developers and partly because I feel ashamed that they would consider it patent-able - like getting your crayon drawing put up in the Louvre.

but the current system in the US, which it forces on the rest of us via trade agreements, is completely bonkers.

this is the fact: the public in countries where copyrights and patents are granted have voluntarily given up their prerogative to copy or implement a work or an invention in return for the public good of dissemination of those ideas (which might otherwise be "locked up").

As with everything else in the US, big corporations have co-opted the system using lobbyists, and public good is harmed by actions such as this.

And in the era of the internet, is dissemination and publication as valuable as it was in the past? I would argue that it is not.

it would be fascinating to hit the reset switch: delete all IP, patent, and copyright code from the legal system, and see the real effects it's having on the economy. having said that, it's probably too drastic of an action to take all at once given the far-reaching effects it would have. but it's the right direction to move in, for sure.

You definitely could argue that for pure software features copyright and trademarks is enough, and granting patents on them doesn't facilitate innovation but likely slows it down.