I have very mixed feelings about refiling of patents post-facto or during a lawsuit. This seems like something that should have been done during development or at product launch to ensure their patent was "up to date." My .02
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Key to Samsung Lawsuit Preliminarily Invalidated
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have very mixed feelings about refiling of patents post-facto or during a lawsuit. This seems like something that should have been done during development or at product launch to ensure their patent was "up to date." My .02
Well, it's obvious that more and more of these are slipping through the cracks, though frankly, it's probably impossible to never have a patent go through even with prior art. That is why there's a re-examination process where players can submit evidence that a patent is invalid. Some prior art is just obscure and hard to find and would never be found by an examiner doing a thorough job, it just has to be submitted once the patent comes to light.
The system is broken not because it doesn't have the proper checks and balances in place, it does, but it's broken because more and more examiners aren't performing all the proper research, probably due to the sheer load of work created by the entities trying to get patents about anything and everything in the first place.
I see you never worked in an government organization, or just struggle with comprehension.
Prior art is what the USPTO decides is prior art.Pretty sure "Prior art" means someone made it before...
I checked out the Lira patent and couldn't find a reference to rubber banding, or an effect similar to it. There's a whole lot about inertia-based scrolling though, but that's irrelevant to a rubber-banding effect.
As others have said, it'd be interesting to see the prior art, before going "Yep, that's prior art" like a blind man listening to and trusting others, if not only to satisfy curiosity.
Did you also look at Apple's patent? I haven't - I'm sincerely asking. Because I'm wondering how detailed (or not) their filing is. If they are just as vague (as you say Lira's is) that could be the reason, no?
Samsung has denied that report and I was surprised to see that Macrumors hadn't updated the article here. It's directly from the horse's mouth, and not via Korea Times citing "unnamed sources" this time (i.e. potentially making up rumors to bring up their ad views).
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57537773-37/samsung-says-its-still-supplying-lcd-panels-to-apple/
Did anyone else notice that the co-inventor of one of the listed patents that were referenced as prior art was Scott Forstall???
I think the other poster's point is that inertia-based scrolling and rubber-banding are actually opposite to one another, so it seems odd that one would be considered prior art for the other.
Nobody should be able to patent such simple, tiny ideas regardless of if they were the first to think of them. There should be a certain degree of complexity to something if it is to be patented. The bouncy scroll lists are a very simple simulation of physics. It's just too basic, too simple.
I hadn't looked when I wrote that post but I see this part of Apple's patent now
So there you have the "bounce", I think. I couldn't find anything about reversed direction when meeting list boundaries in the other patent after a quick check. But I could of course have missed something here.
'Sad Apple fan nerds' VS. 'Sad Samsung fan nerds’, round 821.. FIGHT!!
(spoiler: and the winner is: MacRumors' ad revenue!)
(spoiler: and the winner is: MacRumors' ad revenue!)
Hmm yeah still doesn't seem very innovative to me. The fact that this is a key patent used in their case against Samsung is what is wrong with the whole process. Both companies should've spent more time refining their products instead. Can't say for Samsung's (since I'm an iphone user) but apple has a lot of issues to sort out in terms of their QA.
I hadn't looked when I wrote that post but I see this part of Apple's patent now
So there you have the "bounce", I think. I couldn't find anything about reversed direction when meeting list boundaries in the other patent after a quick check. But I could of course have missed something here.
I'm curious about WHEN this patent was challenged.
The 'if you don't enforce it, you lose it' rule, should work the other way, too. 'If you don't challenge it when it's granted, you lose the right to challenge later on.'
Seems just as fair, in the mind bendingly twisted logic of the patent process.
- Was it challenged during the approval process
- after the patent was granted
- or some time much later, say, as a legal manoeuvre, when the patent became part of a court proceeding?
The 'if you don't enforce it, you lose it' rule, should work the other way, too. 'If you don't challenge it when it's granted, you lose the right to challenge later on.'
Seems just as fair, in the mind bendingly twisted logic of the patent process.
If this is invalidated, I hope this doesn't lead to a free-for-all on "bouncy" scrolling in phones.
I've gotten used to the pulse of light on Android when reaching the end of lists over the bounce that Samsung used to add to TouchWiz. I hope it stays that way.
I've gotten used to the pulse of light on Android when reaching the end of lists over the bounce that Samsung used to add to TouchWiz. I hope it stays that way.
THANK GOD
What a stupid think to grant a patent for. I've recently been designing software that has a scrolling grid (think something like a spreadsheet). It scrolls smoothly through cells but once the user stops scrolling, it will snap to even divisions. Scrolling beyond the top or bottom cell to a limited degree and having it snap back is simply a logical extension of the same behavior (it even uses the same function).
What a stupid think to grant a patent for. I've recently been designing software that has a scrolling grid (think something like a spreadsheet). It scrolls smoothly through cells but once the user stops scrolling, it will snap to even divisions. Scrolling beyond the top or bottom cell to a limited degree and having it snap back is simply a logical extension of the same behavior (it even uses the same function).
I agree. There are some Software innovations that are worthy of a patent, but some as simple as the bounce back doesn't seem to fit the definition of innovative.
Just goes to show that the US patent system is a farce and the only people that it currently serves are the lawyers. I bet if closely scrutinised the vast majority of software patents would be seen to be invalid.
Last edited:
Absolutely, because Apple is the only tech company to file such frivolous patent claims.
See Microsoft's "patent" for the progress bar... look it up on your Android phone if you can get the browser to work.
----------
And who decides this "threshold of simplicity"?
Er... as this whole thread is discussing, if there's "prior art," i.e. someone invented it before you, then you shouldn't be granted a patent.
Can anyone explain how this is an example of corporate arrogance?? Apple invented a game-changing gizmo. They "patented the hell out of it." Emulators follow. Apple tries really hard to stop them. Apple then is told that the patents they're using to stop them aren't really patents any more. WOW, WHAT ARROGANCE!!
Sounds more like a bit of a USPTO screw job if you ask me.
Absolutely, because Apple is the only tech company to file such frivolous patent claims.
See Microsoft's "patent" for the progress bar... look it up on your Android phone if you can get the browser to work.
This ruling and thread isn't about Microsoft. Please keep on topic. Especially if you're going to try and be snarky about it.