[Ilugc] Re: Battering the poor mouse
- From: ramanraj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ramanraj K)
- Date: Sat Jul 3 19:39:11 2004
Sivasankar Chander wrote:
Double-clicking is problematic. It's there in Windows 1.0, and Apple also
had it in the Macintosh (1984), so there's going to be a fight between
Apple & Microsoft on this one. X, unfortunately, does not have a
double-click primitive, although the later GUIs (kde, ...) built on X do
have it.
Apple/Microsoft's patent portfolio can get problematic for us going forward.
Our best hope is to make peace with Apple.
Double clicking causes needless strain on both the right index finger
and the right button ;) A mouse serving single click X should ideally
serve twice as long as a mouse serving the problematic double clicks.
The battering with double clicks can cause RSI in humans and kill the
mouse too soon.
"Double click" does not qualify as a patentable "invention" at all,
because it is a frivolous claim, or more plainly, a stupid claim.
There is considerable prior art if it is seen as an "inventive process"
: For quite a long time, in buses and trams, there have been bells that
are used like this: ting: go; ting-ting (double click in quick
succession): stop. The most significant click double-click prior art
exists in the telegraph invention where morse-code is used and the
messages were sent dit daw daw dit .... BTW, try using the BSD program
morse on your system, that can take text input and output morse code.
The process has also been used in punch cards and paper tapes to store
information.
As Arvind points out, these patents pose threats, and there are no
reasons to go soft on them, which should be crushed with hard double
bangs ;)
For more analysis, please visit:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040605025933409
Other related posts:
- » [Ilugc] Re: Battering the poor mouse - Ramanraj K