Rant: Office 2007 UI licensing
-
Is it just me or does anyone else find the idea of needing to license a UI ridiculous ? As far as i know it is well established that file formats can't be protected (i.e. require licensing), the owner of the data has the right to read/write their data, the value is in the data not the format. How is the Office 2007 UI anything other than an interface format, with the analogous data being the application specific menus, buttons, ... Aside from that there is the matter of it still being menus, buttons, ... I don't see that grouping commands is enough to consider the UI licensable. ... granted i don't have any need to use the UI (for now), but just the idea sends me off. ... and don't even start with "MS allows free licensing", as far as i'm concerned it's just the thin end of a wedge to set precedence/validation to the idea that they can license a UI, or any interface control for that matter. The _only_ positive i see is that they are using the license requirement to enforce consistent UI implementation / behavior. While i agree it's a good idea, i expect the potential (future) cost of requiring licensing to far outweigh the benefit.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
Is it just me or does anyone else find the idea of needing to license a UI ridiculous ? As far as i know it is well established that file formats can't be protected (i.e. require licensing), the owner of the data has the right to read/write their data, the value is in the data not the format. How is the Office 2007 UI anything other than an interface format, with the analogous data being the application specific menus, buttons, ... Aside from that there is the matter of it still being menus, buttons, ... I don't see that grouping commands is enough to consider the UI licensable. ... granted i don't have any need to use the UI (for now), but just the idea sends me off. ... and don't even start with "MS allows free licensing", as far as i'm concerned it's just the thin end of a wedge to set precedence/validation to the idea that they can license a UI, or any interface control for that matter. The _only_ positive i see is that they are using the license requirement to enforce consistent UI implementation / behavior. While i agree it's a good idea, i expect the potential (future) cost of requiring licensing to far outweigh the benefit.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
There's (or supposed to be i guess, i haven't looked) a huge spec document available as part of the license. So, you agree, and you get a step-by-step list of what a true Office work-alike should do. If that's how it stays, fine. Somehow though, i expect to see Ballmer throwing chairs and threats in the general direction of the first person to write a reverse-engineered Ribbon for OpenOffice or the like. :sigh:
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
Is it just me or does anyone else find the idea of needing to license a UI ridiculous ? As far as i know it is well established that file formats can't be protected (i.e. require licensing), the owner of the data has the right to read/write their data, the value is in the data not the format. How is the Office 2007 UI anything other than an interface format, with the analogous data being the application specific menus, buttons, ... Aside from that there is the matter of it still being menus, buttons, ... I don't see that grouping commands is enough to consider the UI licensable. ... granted i don't have any need to use the UI (for now), but just the idea sends me off. ... and don't even start with "MS allows free licensing", as far as i'm concerned it's just the thin end of a wedge to set precedence/validation to the idea that they can license a UI, or any interface control for that matter. The _only_ positive i see is that they are using the license requirement to enforce consistent UI implementation / behavior. While i agree it's a good idea, i expect the potential (future) cost of requiring licensing to far outweigh the benefit.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
Remember the stink Apple raised about Microsoft having a trashcan on the desktop? That's why there's now something called "UI licensing". Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Remember the stink Apple raised about Microsoft having a trashcan on the desktop? That's why there's now something called "UI licensing". Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithI remember the trashcan, and i notice we still have one in Windows. IIRC Apple lost most (all ?) of their GUI infringement claims. But it's not even a 'UI' they are licensing, it's a couple of controls. That's what freaks me out. I can just see everyone and their brother (and i have 2) creating all sorts of controls and then requiring you to license them. Think of the different color picker controls out there. There are only so many usefull interface designs. Now imagine that they are all licensed by different people. Now imagine you are trying to write an app and have to license a bunch of different controls - blah.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
Is it just me or does anyone else find the idea of needing to license a UI ridiculous ? As far as i know it is well established that file formats can't be protected (i.e. require licensing), the owner of the data has the right to read/write their data, the value is in the data not the format. How is the Office 2007 UI anything other than an interface format, with the analogous data being the application specific menus, buttons, ... Aside from that there is the matter of it still being menus, buttons, ... I don't see that grouping commands is enough to consider the UI licensable. ... granted i don't have any need to use the UI (for now), but just the idea sends me off. ... and don't even start with "MS allows free licensing", as far as i'm concerned it's just the thin end of a wedge to set precedence/validation to the idea that they can license a UI, or any interface control for that matter. The _only_ positive i see is that they are using the license requirement to enforce consistent UI implementation / behavior. While i agree it's a good idea, i expect the potential (future) cost of requiring licensing to far outweigh the benefit.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
Why don't you write an appliation with a UI that looks and feels like that in Office 2007. Make sure the product is very popular. Get sued by Microsoft and we can settle the question. (I'm actually half-serious; this would be a nice question to resolve. So would the validity of the GPL and LPGL [believe it or not, they've never actually been tested in court; FSF has gone to great lengths to ensure that has never happened.])
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Why don't you write an appliation with a UI that looks and feels like that in Office 2007. Make sure the product is very popular. Get sued by Microsoft and we can settle the question. (I'm actually half-serious; this would be a nice question to resolve. So would the validity of the GPL and LPGL [believe it or not, they've never actually been tested in court; FSF has gone to great lengths to ensure that has never happened.])
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Make sure the product is very popular.
Not sure it would even need to be that popular. I would expect, like patents, they'd have to defend all infringements or else face loosing their right to prosecute any.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
this would be a nice question to resolve
I agree, although i'm afriad i don't have deep enough pockets to foot the bill on this one.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
Is it just me or does anyone else find the idea of needing to license a UI ridiculous ? As far as i know it is well established that file formats can't be protected (i.e. require licensing), the owner of the data has the right to read/write their data, the value is in the data not the format. How is the Office 2007 UI anything other than an interface format, with the analogous data being the application specific menus, buttons, ... Aside from that there is the matter of it still being menus, buttons, ... I don't see that grouping commands is enough to consider the UI licensable. ... granted i don't have any need to use the UI (for now), but just the idea sends me off. ... and don't even start with "MS allows free licensing", as far as i'm concerned it's just the thin end of a wedge to set precedence/validation to the idea that they can license a UI, or any interface control for that matter. The _only_ positive i see is that they are using the license requirement to enforce consistent UI implementation / behavior. While i agree it's a good idea, i expect the potential (future) cost of requiring licensing to far outweigh the benefit.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
cmk wrote:
As far as i know it is well established that file formats can't be protected (i.e. require licensing), the owner of the data has the right to read/write their data, the value is in the data not the format.
MP3? GIF? PLM? Loads of file formats need (or have needed) licensing.
cmk wrote:
How is the Office 2007 UI anything other than an interface format
You are directly benefiting from the considerable research, development and marketing that has gone into the interface. Those add up to $million's of man hours. If you start selling a car that looks like a Cadillac right down to the badge on the front, but it drives like a 1920's Ford, then it is going to impact negatively on Mr. Cadillac and his investors. That is what Microsoft are protecting here. We are very lucky they are even licensing it at all as almost all the other big software vendors will sue the pants off of you if you copy their UIs. i.e. Adobe suing Macromedia over their tabbed modeless dialogs, (before buying them).
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
cmk wrote:
As far as i know it is well established that file formats can't be protected (i.e. require licensing), the owner of the data has the right to read/write their data, the value is in the data not the format.
MP3? GIF? PLM? Loads of file formats need (or have needed) licensing.
cmk wrote:
How is the Office 2007 UI anything other than an interface format
You are directly benefiting from the considerable research, development and marketing that has gone into the interface. Those add up to $million's of man hours. If you start selling a car that looks like a Cadillac right down to the badge on the front, but it drives like a 1920's Ford, then it is going to impact negatively on Mr. Cadillac and his investors. That is what Microsoft are protecting here. We are very lucky they are even licensing it at all as almost all the other big software vendors will sue the pants off of you if you copy their UIs. i.e. Adobe suing Macromedia over their tabbed modeless dialogs, (before buying them).
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
MP3? GIF? PLM? Loads of file formats need (or have needed) licensing.
It's not the file format you are licensing it's compression algorithms.
David Wulff wrote:
You are directly benefiting from the considerable research, development and marketing that has gone into the interface.
I would argue that MS benefits more, i believe that realization is part of why they aren't charging for licensing. Office Word tends to dictate the UI experience that users come to expect from all products. You are aware that they are blocking licensing to anyone who wants to create a product that directly competes with an Office product. I could write volumes about the issues i see with this.
David Wulff wrote:
If you start selling a car that looks like a Cadillac right down to the badge on the front
Trademarks are a different issue. As for copying body style, the automotive field is rife with examples.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
David Wulff wrote:
MP3? GIF? PLM? Loads of file formats need (or have needed) licensing.
It's not the file format you are licensing it's compression algorithms.
David Wulff wrote:
You are directly benefiting from the considerable research, development and marketing that has gone into the interface.
I would argue that MS benefits more, i believe that realization is part of why they aren't charging for licensing. Office Word tends to dictate the UI experience that users come to expect from all products. You are aware that they are blocking licensing to anyone who wants to create a product that directly competes with an Office product. I could write volumes about the issues i see with this.
David Wulff wrote:
If you start selling a car that looks like a Cadillac right down to the badge on the front
Trademarks are a different issue. As for copying body style, the automotive field is rife with examples.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
cmk wrote:
It's not the file format you are licensing it's compression algorithms
You can't read the contents of the file without decompressing it, therefore they are one and the same.
cmk wrote:
I would argue that MS benefits more, i believe that realization is part of why they aren't charging for licensing
Of course Microsoft benefit more - we sell their operating systems which sells their software. That has nothing to do with them not charging for licensing their application UIs though. Microsoft are very good to third party developers given the usual industry trends. Licensing costs for technologies that cost millions of dollars to create are considerably lower, if any, and their developer and partner programmes are some of the best.
cmk wrote:
You are aware that they are blocking licensing to anyone who wants to create a product that directly competes with an Office product. I could write volumes about the issues i see with this.
Yes I was. In fact they have done the same for years - for example, you can't write a competing product to Microsoft Access using their free MSDE database, amongst the most obvious ones. If I am to give you something for free you had better expect me to say you can't compete with me in my own arena using my own property. You are right though in that Microsoft is unique here -- because they are letting you do what you do for free -- whereas almost every other vendor in this industry will expect you to pay significant licensing costs just for the privilege of looking at their technology (and still force the same no-compete restrictions). Please do go ahead and write volumes about that restriction though, because I really want to see what your issue with it is.
cmk wrote:
Trademarks are a different issue
No they are not. Trademarks, patents and copyrights are all owned intellectual properties that can be licensed by their owners in any way they choose. In respect of licensing they are indentical.
cmk wrote:
As for copying body style, the automotive field is rife with examples
My full quote was significant. Show me one manufacturer that uses the same brand as another, because it is that very specific identity here that is being protected.
-
cmk wrote:
It's not the file format you are licensing it's compression algorithms
You can't read the contents of the file without decompressing it, therefore they are one and the same.
cmk wrote:
I would argue that MS benefits more, i believe that realization is part of why they aren't charging for licensing
Of course Microsoft benefit more - we sell their operating systems which sells their software. That has nothing to do with them not charging for licensing their application UIs though. Microsoft are very good to third party developers given the usual industry trends. Licensing costs for technologies that cost millions of dollars to create are considerably lower, if any, and their developer and partner programmes are some of the best.
cmk wrote:
You are aware that they are blocking licensing to anyone who wants to create a product that directly competes with an Office product. I could write volumes about the issues i see with this.
Yes I was. In fact they have done the same for years - for example, you can't write a competing product to Microsoft Access using their free MSDE database, amongst the most obvious ones. If I am to give you something for free you had better expect me to say you can't compete with me in my own arena using my own property. You are right though in that Microsoft is unique here -- because they are letting you do what you do for free -- whereas almost every other vendor in this industry will expect you to pay significant licensing costs just for the privilege of looking at their technology (and still force the same no-compete restrictions). Please do go ahead and write volumes about that restriction though, because I really want to see what your issue with it is.
cmk wrote:
Trademarks are a different issue
No they are not. Trademarks, patents and copyrights are all owned intellectual properties that can be licensed by their owners in any way they choose. In respect of licensing they are indentical.
cmk wrote:
As for copying body style, the automotive field is rife with examples
My full quote was significant. Show me one manufacturer that uses the same brand as another, because it is that very specific identity here that is being protected.
David Wulff wrote:
You can't read the contents of the file without decompressing it, therefore they are one and the same.
The distinction is legally significant.
David Wulff wrote:
Of course Microsoft benefit more -
The discussion has drifted off topic. My argument is that controls are not, or at least should not, be licensable. They are primarily form, concept, style. This is quite different than the other technologies that they license e.g. MSDE. I believe you misunderstood my comment about trademarks. You gave an example about a Cadillac clone complete with emblem. I was pointing out that copying the body style is ok, and done in just about every field. Copying the emblem is trademark infringement - two separate issues. We are talking about licensing controls, i'm arguing they are like the body style, there is no 'emblem' or trademark issue here. A control design isn't a trademark, or patentable, nor can it be copyrighted, so exactly what legal basis is there to require a license? A specific instance could be copyrighted; any new algorithms used within the control to allow it to function in a specific way could be patented; neither case applies to the style. Look at the fashion industry, copying styles is done all the time, the only time there is a problem is when someone copies a label - fraud and trademark infringement. A guy i fence with is a patent lawyer, he's off for a week but i think i'll talk to him about this when he gets back. I took 4 undergrad and grad law courses, they were all general civil and contract law, and the last one was 15yrs ago. I admit my recollection of patents, trademarks, ... may be rusty, but i still see this as quite distinct from any other licensing done in the industry and believe it would be a bad thing if it is validated and becomes common practice.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
cmk wrote:
It's not the file format you are licensing it's compression algorithms
You can't read the contents of the file without decompressing it, therefore they are one and the same.
cmk wrote:
I would argue that MS benefits more, i believe that realization is part of why they aren't charging for licensing
Of course Microsoft benefit more - we sell their operating systems which sells their software. That has nothing to do with them not charging for licensing their application UIs though. Microsoft are very good to third party developers given the usual industry trends. Licensing costs for technologies that cost millions of dollars to create are considerably lower, if any, and their developer and partner programmes are some of the best.
cmk wrote:
You are aware that they are blocking licensing to anyone who wants to create a product that directly competes with an Office product. I could write volumes about the issues i see with this.
Yes I was. In fact they have done the same for years - for example, you can't write a competing product to Microsoft Access using their free MSDE database, amongst the most obvious ones. If I am to give you something for free you had better expect me to say you can't compete with me in my own arena using my own property. You are right though in that Microsoft is unique here -- because they are letting you do what you do for free -- whereas almost every other vendor in this industry will expect you to pay significant licensing costs just for the privilege of looking at their technology (and still force the same no-compete restrictions). Please do go ahead and write volumes about that restriction though, because I really want to see what your issue with it is.
cmk wrote:
Trademarks are a different issue
No they are not. Trademarks, patents and copyrights are all owned intellectual properties that can be licensed by their owners in any way they choose. In respect of licensing they are indentical.
cmk wrote:
As for copying body style, the automotive field is rife with examples
My full quote was significant. Show me one manufacturer that uses the same brand as another, because it is that very specific identity here that is being protected.
-
David Wulff wrote:
You can't read the contents of the file without decompressing it, therefore they are one and the same.
The distinction is legally significant.
David Wulff wrote:
Of course Microsoft benefit more -
The discussion has drifted off topic. My argument is that controls are not, or at least should not, be licensable. They are primarily form, concept, style. This is quite different than the other technologies that they license e.g. MSDE. I believe you misunderstood my comment about trademarks. You gave an example about a Cadillac clone complete with emblem. I was pointing out that copying the body style is ok, and done in just about every field. Copying the emblem is trademark infringement - two separate issues. We are talking about licensing controls, i'm arguing they are like the body style, there is no 'emblem' or trademark issue here. A control design isn't a trademark, or patentable, nor can it be copyrighted, so exactly what legal basis is there to require a license? A specific instance could be copyrighted; any new algorithms used within the control to allow it to function in a specific way could be patented; neither case applies to the style. Look at the fashion industry, copying styles is done all the time, the only time there is a problem is when someone copies a label - fraud and trademark infringement. A guy i fence with is a patent lawyer, he's off for a week but i think i'll talk to him about this when he gets back. I took 4 undergrad and grad law courses, they were all general civil and contract law, and the last one was 15yrs ago. I admit my recollection of patents, trademarks, ... may be rusty, but i still see this as quite distinct from any other licensing done in the industry and believe it would be a bad thing if it is validated and becomes common practice.
...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
cmk wrote:
The distinction is legally significant.
Not it's not. You cannot have one without the other, therefore they are one and the same.
cmk wrote:
My argument is that controls are not, or at least should not, be licensable
You were saying that designs can't be protected, not controls. Microsoft are not licensing any controls through their Office 2007 UI programme.
cmk wrote:
We are talking about licensing controls
Again, you may be but I, and significantly Microsoft, are not. I think you need to to read through exactly what is being offered for licensing here.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
cmk wrote:
The distinction is legally significant.
Not it's not. You cannot have one without the other, therefore they are one and the same.
cmk wrote:
My argument is that controls are not, or at least should not, be licensable
You were saying that designs can't be protected, not controls. Microsoft are not licensing any controls through their Office 2007 UI programme.
cmk wrote:
We are talking about licensing controls
Again, you may be but I, and significantly Microsoft, are not. I think you need to to read through exactly what is being offered for licensing here.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
You cannot have one without the other, therefore they are one and the same.
That has nothing to do with the legal distinction. Further, i can open the file read the headers, verify the file structure, without using any of the patented algorithms - they are not one and the same.
David Wulff wrote:
You were saying that designs can't be protected, not controls.
(quickly rereads all comments) Ummm, no, the only time i used the word design was "A control design ...", and taken in context you can't separate the words control and design.
David Wulff wrote:
Microsoft are not licensing any controls through their Office 2007 UI programme. ... Again, you may be but I, and significantly Microsoft, are not. I think you need to to read through exactly what is being offered for licensing here.
Ok, i'll read it again ... http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/nov06/11-21officeui.mspx[^] http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface.aspx[^] Relevant clips: allows virtually anyone to obtain a royalty-free license to use the new Office UI in a software product, including the Ribbon, galleries, the Mini Toolbar, and the rest of the user interface. Sounds like a bunch of controls to me. We want to ensure that when someone implements the Ribbon (for example) that they do so the right way ... Ribbon Resizing, which details the way in which the Ribbon must scale up and down to adjust to varying horizontal resolutions The Ribbon - the new tabbed control bar control: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/09/14/467126.aspx[^] Perhaps it might be easier if you woul
-
David Wulff wrote:
You cannot have one without the other, therefore they are one and the same.
That has nothing to do with the legal distinction. Further, i can open the file read the headers, verify the file structure, without using any of the patented algorithms - they are not one and the same.
David Wulff wrote:
You were saying that designs can't be protected, not controls.
(quickly rereads all comments) Ummm, no, the only time i used the word design was "A control design ...", and taken in context you can't separate the words control and design.
David Wulff wrote:
Microsoft are not licensing any controls through their Office 2007 UI programme. ... Again, you may be but I, and significantly Microsoft, are not. I think you need to to read through exactly what is being offered for licensing here.
Ok, i'll read it again ... http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/nov06/11-21officeui.mspx[^] http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface.aspx[^] Relevant clips: allows virtually anyone to obtain a royalty-free license to use the new Office UI in a software product, including the Ribbon, galleries, the Mini Toolbar, and the rest of the user interface. Sounds like a bunch of controls to me. We want to ensure that when someone implements the Ribbon (for example) that they do so the right way ... Ribbon Resizing, which details the way in which the Ribbon must scale up and down to adjust to varying horizontal resolutions The Ribbon - the new tabbed control bar control: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/09/14/467126.aspx[^] Perhaps it might be easier if you woul
cmk wrote:
Perhaps it might be easier if you would explain what you believe the license covers, if not the new controls. The term UI is too vague, give me specifics
You know, the Press Pass link you give explains it perfectly (emphasis mine)...
Microsoft is licensing its intellectual property rights in the UI (which cover both design and functionality) and offering a comprehensive Design Guidelines document that is a roadmap for developers implementing the UI. Licensees can sign up on the Web and register their products with us on the Web site as well. We are not licensing any code
Design is very much protectable. Did you know that Mercedes has intellectual property rights in the way you push their buttons? No other car manufacturer in the world can produce buttons with the same operation. (Note I'm talking about the process you go through to push the buttons, not the physical design.) BTW, you haven't addressed my Adobe example yet, which is a clear and well documented example of these sorts of rights being enforced through the courts.
cmk wrote:
Further, i can open the file read the headers, verify the file structure, without using any of the patented algorithms
Maybe you don't understand what one and the same means? If you are moving bits around then you are already licensed under whoever it was who first patented moving bits around, but actually using or consuming the content is very much up to the IP owner to license. Not all file formats expose headers. Verifying a file structure could well be licensed -- I know for a fact that at least one major public data vendor requires a multi-thousand dollar license to even own a protected file, let alone touch it.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
cmk wrote:
Perhaps it might be easier if you would explain what you believe the license covers, if not the new controls. The term UI is too vague, give me specifics
You know, the Press Pass link you give explains it perfectly (emphasis mine)...
Microsoft is licensing its intellectual property rights in the UI (which cover both design and functionality) and offering a comprehensive Design Guidelines document that is a roadmap for developers implementing the UI. Licensees can sign up on the Web and register their products with us on the Web site as well. We are not licensing any code
Design is very much protectable. Did you know that Mercedes has intellectual property rights in the way you push their buttons? No other car manufacturer in the world can produce buttons with the same operation. (Note I'm talking about the process you go through to push the buttons, not the physical design.) BTW, you haven't addressed my Adobe example yet, which is a clear and well documented example of these sorts of rights being enforced through the courts.
cmk wrote:
Further, i can open the file read the headers, verify the file structure, without using any of the patented algorithms
Maybe you don't understand what one and the same means? If you are moving bits around then you are already licensed under whoever it was who first patented moving bits around, but actually using or consuming the content is very much up to the IP owner to license. Not all file formats expose headers. Verifying a file structure could well be licensed -- I know for a fact that at least one major public data vendor requires a multi-thousand dollar license to even own a protected file, let alone touch it.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkI guess we differ on what 'specifics' means. Anyways ... Mercedes: I did not know that, nor could i find any information on it, so i can't really make any argument for or against what you are saying. Adobe: Didn't know you were waiting for me. I looked it up and admit i was rather surprised - you are correct, it is a good example. Not only was there a patent for a control design, but the judge upheld the patent (to the surprise of more than a few people). http://www.turdhead.com/2005/11/09/patently-absurd-no-tab-panel-dragging-in-flash-8/[^] The search also lead me to the following site: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/[^] in particular the Adobe patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5546528.html?s_id=aca40fb214c57100da635d87bd61e137[^] I also followed some of the related patents and was horrified at what has been patented. The patent office is even more out of control than i had thought. This was also a good site contrasting the different types of intellectual property: http://patent-faq.com/types.htm[^] http://patent-faq.com/design.htm[^] All that aside, i still have some comments. The design patents, that i expect these control/UI patents fall under, are based on making something that looks the same. I find the following quotes relevant: There is little breadth of protection provided by design patents. In the US, ever since 1878, the question of whether or not an accused product infringes a design patent is put in the terms "would a consumer who wanted to buy the patented product and who saw the accused product and the patented product next to each other on a shelf pick up the wrong one?". Only if the consumer can’t readily tell the