I see this patent debated a lot, and personally I feel it's completely valid.
Sorry, but it is not completely valid. In July 2013, the USPTO permanently rejected 16 of its 20 claims.
We've had UI's since the 70s and nobody else thought to add bounce back to a scrollable computing device.
On the contrary, of course others had thought of bounceback. That's why most of the claims were rejected.
If you get a chance, read Exhibit A in
this Scribd document from the USPTO. It goes into detail about the Lira patent that predated the Apple patent. For that matter, Apple itself had a previous patent that anticipated their newer one, and even Apple failed to know about it (!).
The fact is, there is almost never anything new under the sun as far as software goes. Something that seems new to many people, can often be decades old. For example, flick scrolling seems new, but is really old.
Apple does it, other OEM's see just how much better it makes the experience and copy it.
Sure, just as Apple has "copied" many more important features from other systems (e.g. multitasking cards from WebOS, pulldown notifications and control centers and flatness from Android and Samsung and Microsoft, etc).
Since neither side actually invented most of this stuff, I don't think anyone using the same things is "copying" in the meaning of "stealing". It's more like each company sees that something which was already known, is now popular, and chooses to include that feature to take advantage of its new popularity (or obvious usefulness).
In other words, you can't "copy" something that pre-existed. If you want car analogies, the one I always use is tail fins. They had been around almost as long as cars have, yet it wasn't until Cadillac used them in the 50s that they became popular and a must-have item. However, that did not mean Cadillac owned the idea.
i don't see any usable point of this... looks cool, but it needs polishing like all iOS7
