Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Key to Samsung Lawsuit Preliminarily Invalidated

[tbrinkma]

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.

Heh. Based on memory, I think this might actually be the first time.

Not sure I agree with the details of your idea, mostly because it would end up spreading the patent load across fewer people in the initial approval phase (further swamping the examiners), but it's almost certainly better than what we've got now.

We should also bring back the working model requirement. It was dropped because the USPTO couldn't afford to store the models, but that can be solved by requiring that the *applicant* pay for the storage. Failure to keep the storage fees paid could simply result in abandoning the patent early.

Regardless of the particulars, there needs to be a better solution than 'let the courts sort it out'. That's supposed to be the last-ditch solution to a bad patent, not the normal one.

 

[samcraig]

Absolutely agree about working models. And I think that's where things went south. Unless you can physically demonstrate your idea - you shouldn't be able to patent it. Like I said earlier - I also question the ability to keep adding onto one patent vs filing another as well. Especially in the start or middle of litigation.

Some people mistake my "passion" about this whole case as an Apple or Samsung supposed bias. But I've always looked at this first as a broken patent issue. I don't blame Apple or Samsung for working within the bounds of the law/patents/etc - that doesn't mean I agree with what they are doing or that the patent system works (as it should).

Heh. Based on memory, I think this might actually be the first time.

Not sure I agree with the details of your idea, mostly because it would end up spreading the patent load across fewer people in the initial approval phase (further swamping the examiners), but it's almost certainly better than what we've got now.

We should also bring back the working model requirement. It was dropped because the USPTO couldn't afford to store the models, but that can be solved by requiring that the *applicant* pay for the storage. Failure to keep the storage fees paid could simply result in abandoning the patent early.

Regardless of the particulars, there needs to be a better solution than 'let the courts sort it out'. That's supposed to be the last-ditch solution to a bad patent, not the normal one.

 

[lilo777]

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.

As a software developer who does a lot of UI (among other things) I have yet to meet those researchers who spend years on trivial things like that.

 

[linuxcooldude]

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*.

Looking this up myself, I'm finding it quite different. One of the criteria examiners are evaluated on is how many patents they process and the quality of their work.

Approving patents that are not worthy of being issued a patent is not quality work.

They also have Quality Assurance Specialists that review randomly selected in-process and allowed applications to determine how well the USPTO’s quality goals are being met.

Some applications are viewed by a second pair of eyes or two examiners to check the validity of a patent which is quoted this:

Patentability determinations performance factor of the examiner in question might be a-ected when the
second pair of eyes considered an application to have been allowed in error

http://documents.jdsupra.com/b6b6038f-1287-470e-ae3b-f9a3c5722f08.pdf

Not quite the "The examiner awards the patent anyway & let the courts determine the validity later" senario some people are trying to push.

 

[sulliweb]

Absolutely agree about working models. And I think that's where things went south. Unless you can physically demonstrate your idea - you shouldn't be able to patent it. Like I said earlier - I also question the ability to keep adding onto one patent vs filing another as well. Especially in the start or middle of litigation.

Some people mistake my "passion" about this whole case as an Apple or Samsung supposed bias. But I've always looked at this first as a broken patent issue. I don't blame Apple or Samsung for working within the bounds of the law/patents/etc - that doesn't mean I agree with what they are doing or that the patent system works (as it should).

Actually, that doesn't favor the small guy. I can't verify this with any real certainty, but it seems to me the point of patenting an idea is to protect an inventor who doesn't have the resources to turn his idea into a physical product. For example, say I had an idea to improve the iPhone... Something Apple hadn't come up with yet. I could patent the idea, and then, I could sell the patent to Apple. If I had to physically demostrate it... Well, I don't have the resources or the skills. That doesn't mean the idea is any less mine or my request for compensation any less valid.

Moving to a different venue, it's like a publishing company buying the idea for a book from someone and using it with another author. Or when people pitch TV ideas in Hollywood. They aren't necessarily the ones who end up creating or writing those shows. There are a lot of times in our culture where an idea is a marketable commodity. However, you have to be able to patent the idea, or the big companies can take it and ignore any claims you make.

Just food for thought.

 

[samcraig]

I never meant to imply a finished or working model. My point was that in the past - you used to have to demonstrate your product/idea in order to get a patent. That can take on many forms from simulation, to physical product. What it doesn't mean is simply submitting a hand drawn sketch.

Actually, that doesn't favor the small guy. I can't verify this with any real certainty, but it seems to me the point of patenting an idea is to protect an inventor who doesn't have the resources to turn his idea into a physical product. For example, say I had an idea to improve the iPhone... Something Apple hadn't come up with yet. I could patent the idea, and then, I could sell the patent to Apple. If I had to physically demostrate it... Well, I don't have the resources or the skills. That doesn't mean the idea is any less mine or my request for compensation any less valid.

Moving to a different venue, it's like a publishing company buying the idea for a book from someone and using it with another author. Or when people pitch TV ideas in Hollywood. They aren't necessarily the ones who end up creating or writing those shows. There are a lot of times in our culture where an idea is a marketable commodity. However, you have to be able to patent the idea, or the big companies can take it and ignore any claims you make.

Just food for thought.

 

[TheHateMachine]

I was expecting more fanboy tears, sadly they did not go beyond page 1.

That being said, much like everyone here has seemed to agree on the Patent System being borked...

 

[alexlc1]

Pretty sure "Prior art" means someone made it before...

----------



Pretty sure, again, Hindsight doesn't apply to "Prior".

HIL-larious! I literally chuckled out loud at work causing confusion. Thanks for that.

 

[mackinmike]

it's about time. this patent should have been thrown out a long time ago. patenting an effect that you reach the end of page? really?

 

[iBug2]

This really hurts the innovator. If Apple knew that some of the aspects of their phone was not patentable they might have waited more until they secured more stuff before releasing the phone. This way they are fooled that they are on solid ground, they release the product, everyone copies the hell out of it and then they learn that their patents are invalid. I don't think that the phones would look like they do today if Apple waited until 2010 to release the first iPhone and they could patent more stuff about it since competitors would not start patenting their own phone innovations without Apple's product out there. This patent system is broken and it hurts the innovator a lot.

 

[Seiga]

Goes to show that the courts are really seeing Apple's monopoly in the smart phone industry will see some justice. I'd still prefer to have The Woz's philosophy of synergy between all smart device ecosystems.

 

[inscrewtable]

wrong thread

 

[Shasterball]

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.

This guys knows something...

 

[csmark]

People @ the patent office.

A decade or so ago I saw a 60 minutes piece on patents. If you work at the patent office your job is to grant, not deny, patents.

With the massive number of patent applications the office cannot, nor is expected to extensively validate a patent application.

 

[baryon]

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".

Right, but it looks *exactly* like iOS. The behaviour was copied by Apple, but that's one thing, while on the Sony phone I'm talking about, pretty much everything looks like an iPhone clone.

Certain features of that phone are exact replicas of iOS, like the camera app. Why not change the button colors at least? I'm not talking about cool features, but unnecessary stuff like button textures and background colors.

What I mean is that the way things look is not a necessity to create a good product, so why doesn't Google give Android a unique look, instead of copy/pasting graphics from iOS? It's totally unnecessary. I see the point of copying certain features, like iOS copying the notification centre, and Android copying pinch to zoom, but I don't see the point of copying the looks of things just for the sake of it.

Android is successful, but they don't have to look like iOS to be successful.

 

[kdarling]

Re: bounceback. When I was working on computer games back in the 1980s and 1990s, we used that effect a lot.

Ever seen what the item list on a slot machine does when it stops scrolling?

Yep, that's right. Just send a programmer to get drunk in Vegas and see what ideas he comes back with, that are simply rehashed versions of something that's been done for decades.

 

[Oletros]

so why doesn't Google give Android a unique look, instead of copy/pasting graphics from iOS? It's totally unnecessary. I see the point of copying certain features, like iOS copying the notification centre, and Android copying pinch to zoom, but I don't see the point of copying the looks of things just for the sake of it.

Android is successful, but they don't have to look like iOS to be successful.

What graphics has copy pasted Google?

 

[subsonix]

Re: bounceback. When I was working on computer games back in the 1980s and 1990s, we used that effect a lot.

Ever seen what the item list on a slot machine does when it stops scrolling?

Yep, that's right. Just send a programmer to get drunk in Vegas and see what ideas he comes back with, that are simply rehashed versions of something that's been done for decades.

YouTube: video

It's not the same thing, that clip shows a video game that mimics how a mechanic slot machine works and looks. The bounce back in iOS is used to give user interface cues about the end of a document. In a real document or book you get these cues by thickness, texture and weight of the pages in your hand, it provides tactile feedback that is not precent in a digital representation, which is why a virtual aid is added.

 

[samcraig]

It's not the same thing, that clip shows a video game that mimics how a mechanic slot machine works and looks. The bounce back in iOS is used to give user interface cues about the end of a document.

Did you read his comment? "Yep, that's right. Just send a programmer to get drunk in Vegas and see what ideas he comes back with, that are simply rehashed versions of something that's been done for decades."

 

[subsonix]

Did you read his comment? "Yep, that's right. Just send a programmer to get drunk in Vegas and see what ideas he comes back with, that are simply rehashed versions of something that's been done for decades."

Of course, but I don't agree which is why I posted my response. Did you read it. BTW, programmers solving user interface problems is part of the reason they have sucked for so long.

 

[baryon]

What graphics has copy pasted Google?

Well, the camera app! It looks exactly like on the iPhone 4S.

 

[TheHateMachine]

Well, the camera app! It looks exactly like on the iPhone 4S.

If you say so...

 

[Oletros]

Well, the camera app! It looks exactly like on the iPhone 4S.

looks exactly like

 

[brdeveloper]

Obvious? If it's so obvious, why no one made it before?

I think there were desktop apps that behaved like that when you dragged UI elements outside their bounds, but I can't recall exactly which.

I think Apple was the first one to implement that in touchscreen devices simply because it was the first company paying serious attention to the touchscreen UIs, so they evolved first in user interfaces than the competitors. But creating a market reserve because of that sounds so anti-american and anti-liberal that, although I believe it can be legal, I imagine this is somewhat absurd to the U.S. citizen's mind.

 

[Mr Bigs]

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.

Many of the things you claim Android copied weren't truly invented by Apple which is why this stuff is slowly coming out. The slide to unlock is gonna be the next big one. A perfect example is the clock Apple copied and got caught.