I 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