It's not the idea, its the vision like yours that is so basic and simple. This is a phenomenally good idea. Researchers in fields of UI design research through years to find exceptionally intelligent ways of response and feedback. This is one of those ways. Just because it's minute in its implementation and usage, doesn't mean its basic.
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
It's not the idea, its the vision like yours that is so basic and simple. This is a phenomenally good idea. Researchers in fields of UI design research through years to find exceptionally intelligent ways of response and feedback. This is one of those ways. Just because it's minute in its implementation and usage, doesn't mean its basic.
these cases are too damn complicated and its too easy to go round in circles for ever du to technicalities and appeals.. only folks benefitting is lawyers.. its a complete waste of time
This is great news. Maybe soon the US government will realise how flawed their patent system is.
----------
How about reading the last sentence again:
----------
How about reading the last sentence again:
I think that's the whole Problem: Mitsubishi did. And they showed it to Apple back in 2001.
"Phenomenally good idea", "exceptionally intelligent"? Spare us the Apple-talk. It is a fairly obvious solution, a very good solution as a matter of fact, but let's not go too far with the usage of fancy adjectives. It is definitely nothing that should be allowed to be patented.
I don't even care about this anymore, my only concern is just how absolutely terrible this patent system is. What is the point of the patent system if you can't even put a patent on something without it getting overturned because some idiot judge thinks it should be normal..
What good is a patent system that allows you to keep amending patents during/after a lawsuit? Or one that allows something to be patented which has prior art? Or one that....
Maybe you don't like this decision - but the core issue being addressed you should be in favor of (in my opinion of course). That a patent needs to be explored deeply to make sure it's valid.
Yeah, ok, Apple invents cool stuff, but you can't patent literally every single aspect of everything. You just have to accept that your inventions will be so successful that others will also try to replicate them, thus making life better for everyone, not just Apple's customers.
On the other side, however, my friend just got a Sony phone that runs Android, and we were shocked by how obviously they copied Apple's interface elements, pretty much exactly as it is on iOS, with no modifications. I mean they didn't even change the colors of the buttons. The camera app has the same exact buttons, the notification centre slides down from the top with a swipe, you have to "slide to unlock" at the bottom of the screen, etc… I think that in general, this kind of copying is unfair and should be understood as such. It's the same kind of thing when you go to a Chinese market and you see exact replicas of everything, like watches, shoes, bags... but in worse quality and lower price. That's not always legal though, so why is Android legal then?
It just shows how damn lazy some companies are, that despite having tons of money (khm khm, Google), they don't even take the slightest effort to do something new, but rather copy and paste an interface exactly as it is on their competitor's system.
On the other side, however, my friend just got a Sony phone that runs Android, and we were shocked by how obviously they copied Apple's interface elements, pretty much exactly as it is on iOS, with no modifications. I mean they didn't even change the colors of the buttons. The camera app has the same exact buttons, the notification centre slides down from the top with a swipe, you have to "slide to unlock" at the bottom of the screen, etc… I think that in general, this kind of copying is unfair and should be understood as such. It's the same kind of thing when you go to a Chinese market and you see exact replicas of everything, like watches, shoes, bags... but in worse quality and lower price. That's not always legal though, so why is Android legal then?
It just shows how damn lazy some companies are, that despite having tons of money (khm khm, Google), they don't even take the slightest effort to do something new, but rather copy and paste an interface exactly as it is on their competitor's system.
Last edited:
Patented ideas usually come from someone being presented with a 'problem' and coming up with a solution for it. As Apple was building the iPhone, a genuinely unique and new product, they obviously would have ran into many problems that they had to solve.
The thing is, many of these problems would have been very easily solved, like adding bounce to scrolling so they don't have to come to an abrupt stop. So what they're doing is solving these problems, patenting the simplest/best solution and then later, when other designers come across those same problems (and they're problems they've reached without infringing on any other patents) that person who's now also faced with that problem can't implement the same simple solution. The idea was unique, but it was only a unique idea because nobody else needed to solve that problem before.
It's like 2 miners striking gold in two separate places and at different times. But the 2nd miner can't retrieve the gold because the first guy patented the only good method for getting the gold from the mine. They both deserve the gold.
I never said I was in favour of or against this judges decision. I am merely stating that the state of the patent system is absolutely atrocious.
Apparently you didn't know Android had the swipe-down notification bar years before Apple. Apple isn't the only company in the world that "innovates".
Technically, the request contains 62 pages of *proposed* prior art. It's quite possible, depending on the exact wording of the patent, as compared to the proposed prior art, that some/most of it doesn't actually apply.
You want a scary statistic? Something like 60% of patents that are challenged are invalidated. The current incentive/evaluation system at the USPTO is broken. Patent examiners are graded on how many patents they *approve*. (Not process. Approve.) If anything, patent examiners should be graded based on how many patents they *deny*.
The non-obvious requirement a patent application is supposed to be judged against has been perverted to mean "nobody has done *exactly* this before", not "given the state of the art in this industry, this would or would not be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in this industry".
As a result, far too many patents are granted, which are *neither* novel nor non-obvious. Processes are granted patents not because they're *new*, but because someone is the first to apply for a patent on that process on a computer, or over the internet, or on a mobile device, or over a wireless network.
----------
Bingo.
Apple isn't the problem. Samsung isn't the problem. Google isn't the problem. Microsoft, Nokia, Motorolla, et al. aren't the problem. The problem is the process by which patents are *initially* evaluated. It isn't stringent enough, because patent examiners are flooded with applications, and they are graded on how many patents they *approve*.
Back when patents were first granted, you had to convince someone (the king or queen) that your invention was *worthy* of the monopoly a patent would grant. Now, you just have to obfuscate it enough that an over-worked patent examiner doesn't recognize it.
I agree. And we don't always agree - do we.
I'll add that I do think that the process should be twofold
When a patent gets filed - it should be thoroughly examined. Once examined it can be approved or declined. The it should be sent to an "auditor" who verifies/validates the approval or denial.
The first person should be paid based on the number of UNCONTESTED approvals. This way - they just don't approve willy-nilly. And this way - denying every claim doesn't get them a bonus either.
I'll add that I do think that the process should be twofold
When a patent gets filed - it should be thoroughly examined. Once examined it can be approved or declined. The it should be sent to an "auditor" who verifies/validates the approval or denial.
The first person should be paid based on the number of UNCONTESTED approvals. This way - they just don't approve willy-nilly. And this way - denying every claim doesn't get them a bonus either.
Most companies become *aware* of the patents which potentially threaten them *when they are actively threatened with them*. Last year, something like half a million patents were *granted*. Just trying to give each of them an uninformed skim would be a full time job for about hundreds of people. Reading them to understand them well enough to determine if they applied to your industry would add an order of magnitude to that number. Digging for prior art to prove invalidity would add a couple more orders of magnitude.
It isn't the job of every company in the country (world?) to do the job of the USPTO. Let's put the blame where it belongs. Squarely on the USPTO for granting so many bogus patents to begin with.
And you think that's easy? Whatever man.
----------
Oh, spare you the Apple talk? So I don't have the right to call that exceptionally intelligent, but you sure have the right to tone it down and call it 'very good'?
I am as much entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. To me the idea is exceptionally amazing; I've been at Stanford for years and have got through my PhD in ML at CMU. They have been testing UI designs for generations and they (and I) were shocked for a UI breakthrough in iPhone OS 1.0. May be you don't realize it but go to Stanford and see the kind of praise you would get from UI researchers and experts who have been researching at Stanford for almost all their life.
But again, you have the right to call it 'very good' and somehow the qualification to allow or disallow it as a patent. Hypocritical, enough?
Uspto
Every time a patent is later invalidated because of "prior art" it shows the massive flaws of the USPTO. If there was prior art then it should have been caught in the initial application process.
As I understand Judges are graded on how many of their rulings are later overturned. The USPTO needs to be graded the same way.
Every time a patent is later invalidated because of "prior art" it shows the massive flaws of the USPTO. If there was prior art then it should have been caught in the initial application process.
As I understand Judges are graded on how many of their rulings are later overturned. The USPTO needs to be graded the same way.
Because you shouldn't have to, nor should you be able to, patent something like this.
It's like patenting the concept of a door knob, or the concept of a power button. It's utterly absurd and should not be allowed.