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

[baryon]

Image

looks exactly like

Image

That's not at all what the camera app looks like on the Sony phone.

 

[chagla]

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.

it doesn't look like iphone cam at all.

 

[Oletros]

That's not at all what the camera app looks like on the Sony phone.

That the camera app that Google has developed

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

Would you think they considered that before invalidating the patent? Or would you like them to validate it once again, till you see the prior art and had a chat with the person/organisation involved ?

To be honest I am shocked these organisations/courts do not get approval from the mac-rumours forums before a decision is made. Simple poll would work. We seem to have all the industry experts and legal minds on here.

I was just seeking more information. For the curious: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/apple-rubber-band-patent-invalidated-by-previous-apple-patent/

 

[ChazUK]

That's not at all what the camera app looks like on the Sony phone.

Sony made the camera app on the Sony phone FYI.

Google made the camera app available on offer with the Android Source code. See "Connect and Share"

http://www.google.com/nexus/#/galaxy/features

 

[samcraig]

And in other news...the Dutch court just ruled that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's multitouch patent

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/24/dutch-court-rules-that-samsung-didnt-infringe-on-apple-patent/

 

[AppleFan1984]

This really hurts the innovator.

True. Think of the money this guy's losing:

 

[harlequinn]

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.

I think you'll find most features in iOS were probably envisioned in literature a long time ago. What iOS represents is a good implementation of these previous visions (which were not implementable because hardware did not yet exist that could implement it).

If you can show me something from iOS that wasn't discussed in research/media/etc. prior to iOS existing I'd be quite surprised.

----------

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.

No, it's not exactly "the same thing". But it is the same effect. They took an already existing effect and implemented it for a different reason. The reason why you implemented the effect doesn't really matter - it is the technical implementation that is being patented. So this is a perfect example of prior art.

A significant amount of recent discussion is along the lines of patents hurting innovation - not enabling it. I'm inclined to agree.

 

[subsonix]

No, it's not exactly "the same thing". But it is the same effect. They took an already existing effect and implemented it for a different reason. The reason why you implemented the effect doesn't really matter - it is the technical implementation that is being patented. So this is a perfect example of prior art.

Of course the reason the effect is used matters! In this case, the reason is that it ends up solving the problem, a different "effect" may not. It's not intuitively obvious that this particular real world effect should be used, or indeed that any real world imitation at all should be used. You can not say the same thing about all "effects" borrowed from the physical world. The discussion is not helped by being dumbed down or trivialized.

Your last paragraph on the patent system is a completely different point.

 

[kdarling]

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.

If true, then perhaps they should've been out creating touch UIs in the field for a while. Then they would not have been shocked at all.

As for me, I created my first finger-driven gesture UI in the mid 1980s. It was used in instrumentation that needed moisture resistant touchpad controls. By the early 1990s I was programming capacitive displays for casino gaming machines. A ton of knowledge of user behavior with touch came from that experience.

After a stint working on interactive TV boxes, I moved on to handhelds. Our group had been making handheld touch UIs used by tens of thousands field techs for a decade by the time the iPhone came out. Some versions had flick scrolling, context sensitive popup keypads from the bottom, main menu at bottom, finger friendly buttons, etc. (Those are all things that you naturally end up doing once you embrace touch input.)

Anyway, we were expecting Apple to come out with something radically new, but all they did was repeat the same old tired icon grid, one-app-at-a-time UI that had been around for decades. It didn't even have something clever like Swype for input.

Sure, to people with no extensive touch experience it was new and fresh. And that's part of the problem with patents on such things... it's highly unlikely that examiners have in-depth personal experience on the topic.

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.

Right, to mimic a real document, there should be visible page edges or vibration or something. Real paper doesn't bounce when you get to the end. But Apple didn't emulate a real paper document.

Instead, Apple emulated mechanical items that come to a stop by bouncing back. A scrolling slot machine list that bounces back to the last item. A window rollershade that bounces back at the end. A spring-driven weight scale pointer that bounces past zero and back to stop.

Physical reality is not patentable, and certainly emulating it should not be.

As for the comparison with digital slot machines, here's a secret: the code already knows where the reels will end up... at the moment the customer clicks the spin button. The outcome is randomly generated, so the odds are fair, but the end result is figured out before the virtual reels even start to spin.

So the end of the list is already known, and everything else is just scrolling until you get to the end, then you bounce back to the last item. Programmatically speaking, it's exactly like the Apple bounce back idea.

There's rarely anything genuinely new in the world of UIs.

 

[subsonix]

Right, to mimic a real document, there should be visible page edges or vibration or something. Real paper doesn't bounce when you get to the end. But Apple didn't emulate a real paper document.

Instead, Apple emulated mechanical items that come to a stop by bouncing back. A scrolling slot machine list that bounces back to the last item. A window rollershade that bounces back at the end. A spring-driven weight scale pointer that bounces past zero and back to stop.

Physical reality is not patentable, and certainly emulating it should not be.

As for the comparison with digital slot machines, here's a secret: the code already knows where the reels will end up... at the moment the customer clicks the spin button. The outcome is randomly generated, so the odds are fair, but the end result is figured out before the virtual reels even start to spin.

So the end of the list is already known, and everything else is just scrolling until you get to the end, then you bounce back to the last item. Programmatically speaking, it's exactly like the Apple bounce back idea.

There's rarely anything genuinely new in the world of UIs.

Right, but the patent is not related to everything that bounces, only when it's used in the context of document browsing and reaching the last page. It's not bouncing per se that is patented. Case in point, that slot machine example would not infringe on Apple's bounce back patent.

 

[AidenShaw]

ἡ εις άτοπον απαγωγη

Right, but the patent is not related to everything that bounces, only when it's used in the context of document browsing and reaching the last page. It's not bouncing per se that is patented. Case in point, that slot machine example would not infringe on Apple's bounce back patent.

But how would you argue that "bounce back" in a slot machine GUI wasn't "prior art" that would invalidate Apple's attempt to patent "bounce back" in a document?

It's like a classic reductio ad absurdum argument.

 

[subsonix]

But how would you argue that "bounce back" in a slot machine GUI wasn't "prior art" that would invalidate Apple's attempt to patent "bounce back" in a document?

Because it isn't related to document browsing or reaching the edge of a document at all. It directly mimics the real world physics of a slot machine, if you look at the AOL patent in question that is brought up as actual prior art here, it directly relates to the same thing.

Why try to add vaguely related examples when there is a directly related example that has made the USPTO make a preliminary 180 on it's prior decision.

 

[harlequinn]

Of course the reason the effect is used matters! In this case, the reason is that it ends up solving the problem, a different "effect" may not. It's not intuitively obvious that this particular real world effect should be used, or indeed that any real world imitation at all should be used. You can not say the same thing about all "effects" borrowed from the physical world. The discussion is not helped by being dumbed down or trivialized.

Your last paragraph on the patent system is a completely different point.

No, it really doesn't matter. The solution to the problem being a particular animation is trivial. You could use other animations (e.g. you could have it fade away and then reappear back as it should be - oh magic) to solve the same problem. This is why in software patents you can often patent an implementation of a particular thing but not necessarily the thing itself. It also doesn't matter if this was a real world effect at some stage - it's not being borrowed from the real world effect - it's being borrowed from other computer programs and their implementation of it.

How is the discussion not helped by it being dumbed down or trivialised? Is that a veiled suggestion I'm doing dumbing it down? Usually simplifying things makes it easier for most people. I can go look up 100 case law references that support me - would that make it easier somehow?

Realistically all software patents are bogus. Mathematical formula and equations in general are not patentable - the exception being software because most people don't understand that it is just that (most people including patent examiners, lawyers, and judges).

 

[Ryan John]

Well it certainly looks like Apples billion dollar payout is in jeopardy. I have a feeling this will be the first of many ridiculous patents that get re-examined. Not just from Apple but other large technology companies too.

Software patents are an area that the original patent system was not designed for and in urgent need of a rethink. More sensible software patents will prevent them being used solely as weapons to hinder competitors or make financial gain.

 

[subsonix]

Realistically all software patents are bogus. Mathematical formula and equations in general are not patentable - the exception being software because most people don't understand that it is just that (most people including patent examiners, lawyers, and judges).

It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, because at this time no software patents are bogus. So no, you can not make the conclusion that since all software patents are bogus so is this.

How is the discussion not helped by it being dumbed down or trivialised? Is that a veiled suggestion I'm doing dumbing it down? Usually simplifying things makes it easier for most people. I can go look up 100 case law references that support me - would that make it easier somehow?

Not if it's simplified to the point where you end up making a completely different point. It then becomes a strawman argument, Apple's patent is not about bouncing in general. Of course the discussion is also not helped by making it unnecessary complicated, like brining in 100 case law references. A good balance would be to look at Apple's patent and the alleged prior art patent.

No, it really doesn't matter. The solution to the problem being a particular animation is trivial. You could use other animations (e.g. you could have it fade away and then reappear back as it should be - oh magic) to solve the same problem. This is why in software patents you can often patent an implementation of a particular thing but not necessarily the thing itself. It also doesn't matter if this was a real world effect at some stage - it's not being borrowed from the real world effect - it's being borrowed from other computer programs and their implementation of it.

Well it does, because the patent isn't as general as you make it out to be.

 

[Ryan John]

A good balance would be to look at Apple's patent and the alleged prior art patent.

Nothing "alleged" about it. It has been rescinded, meaning the prior art was good.

 

[subsonix]

Nothing "alleged" about it. It has been rescinded, meaning the prior art was good.

It's preliminary, the meaning of that from FOSS patents.

Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time).

 

[samcraig]

It's preliminary, the meaning of that from FOSS patents.

The patent is preliminarily invalidated. Not the fact there's prior art. You wrote "A good balance would be to look at Apple's patent and the alleged prior art patent. "

There is a prior art patent in existence. The question becomes - is it enough to invalidate Apple's claim.

That is what the poster was contesting in your statement. Follow?

 

[subsonix]

The patent is preliminarily invalidated. Not the fact there's prior art. You wrote "A good balance would be to look at Apple's patent and the alleged prior art patent. "

There is a prior art patent in existence. The question becomes - is it enough to invalidate Apple's claim.

That is what the poster was contesting in your statement. Follow?

If the final decision is that it's not enough then it can not be considered prior art, because prior art should invalidate Apple's patent.

But let's use a different word if that is all your concerned about.

 

[harlequinn]

It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, because at this time no software patents are bogus. So no, you can not make the conclusion that since all software patents are bogus so is this.

Not if it's simplified to the point where you end up making a completely different point. It then becomes a strawman argument, Apple's patent is not about bouncing in general. Of course the discussion is also not helped by making it unnecessary complicated, like brining in 100 case law references. A good balance would be to look at Apple's patent and the alleged prior art patent.

Well it does, because the patent isn't as general as you make it out to be.

It's not irrelevant - there are very large groups of people (including whole countries) who believe that software patents should not be granted at all. I'm among that group. I'm sure that's pertinent to a discussion about software patents.

I didn't make a straw man argument though.

The non-patent in question (at this point it's basically invalidated - that could change) was a specific implementation of the rubber banding effect. I didn't suggest otherwise. I specifically said it had to be a specific implementation.

Are you happy with software patents? Do you see them as producing a larger marketplace with more robust competition?

 

[Renzatic]

I love how people blow up something as simple as a bouncing animation as some great feat, worthy of a patent.

"There's so much more to it than just a simple bounce. So much work was done getting it to track your finger, identify the end of the document, realize how far it needs to bounce to produce a smooth, enjoyable effect. Thousands of hours of R&D were sunk into it. It cost Apple millions".

...no. I'm pretty sure your average game uses more complicated code for its AI than Apple used for the bounce effect, yet you don't hear about Epic games running to the patent office to gain exclusive rights to their AI code. If you want to get even more technical, I'm sure getting a GPU to shade ambient occlusion is more complicated than 99% of the UI code in the entirety of iOS. Yet Apple gets a patent...because coding is hard to do and might've cost them a bunch of money. Right.

Bounce back is a great effect, sure. It's clever as hell, and makes for a better user experience. But it's not worth a patent.

 

[Melab]

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.

They also aren't asking if the patent is actually novel.

 

[Tech198]

I totally agree with what Steve Jobs said at AllThingD back in 2005 (I think)

It was over Adobe and the white-paper abouts "Thought in Flash"

Steve said "Enough is Enough... We're tied if this company trashing us........ " he went on ti say "We in only want to make great products... We didn't want to start a war"

I believe, all of this is the same today....

Will this battles ever end?


Thats is probably about the first, and only, thing that actually made sense.

 

[samcraig]

I am betting this is a good reason why Apple is pissed at Samsung..