Steve Jobs iPhone Keynote Invalidates Apple's Rubber-Banding Patent in Germany

[LaidBack]

While it seems strange that apple prevented itself from being granted the rubber-banding patent in Germany, I agree with the idea that someone shouldn't have the chance to invent something they saw in public that isn't patented. Then find out a year later that, actually, it is patented, and it's illegal keep making your copy.

 

[bretm]

While it seems strange that apple prevented itself from being granted the rubber-banding patent in Germany, I agree with the idea that someone shouldn't have the chance to invent something they saw in public that isn't patented. Then find out a year later that, actually, it is patented, and it's illegal keep making your copy.

Seems backward. Something is copy written the instant it is documented in public. No need to send it to the copyright office. In fact any public demonstration would actually super cede any later copyright.

 

[Oletros]

Seems backward. Something is copy written the instant it is documented in public. No need to send it to the copyright office. In fact any public demonstration would actually super cede any later copyright.

Copyright it is not the same than patents.

 

[ownamac]

Nice to watch Steve again. He looked good then.

At 50:50 mark Dr. Eric "Don't Be Evil" Schmidt is introduced. He runs onto the stage. Fool rushing in? Methinks not.

 

[roland.g]

Please, accept my apologies on behalf of Europe. Would you like fries with that?

See? I can do half hearted racial slurs too!

I used a racial slur? Really? Hmm. Methinks not. You assume I am an American. Born in Liverpool actually of Euro and Mediterranean descent.

And trust me, as for Americans, there are so many problems with so many of them.

But I do find it funny the need of so many to defend such a ridiculous ruling. However, it shouldn't have come as a surprise considering some of the prior rulings in the patent wars.

 

[mrxak]

I rewatched the entire keynote, and a few things stuck out to me.

1) There were only a handful of visible screens in the audience. Looked like less than 10 laptops in the whole place. Today, when you watch one of these keynotes, nearly everyone in the audience has a screen, and most of them are tablets like the iPad or touchscreen smart phones like the iPhone. Incredible how far we've come in such a short time.

2) Eric Schmidt cannot present to save his life. I still have no idea what he actually was trying to say on stage, there. I still have no idea why he (and the Yahoo Chief) were even invited to talk on stage.

3) First of all, who even remembers Cingular these days? I forgot all about them until I saw it on the original iPhone screen. That must have been AT&T's best acquisition in their company's history, getting them that multi-year exclusivity contract with Apple originally negotiated by Cingular. I wonder, though, if Apple was really better off having gone that route, as it left Verizon as a means for competitors to gain a foothold as well in the market.

 

[Nozuka]

Why this law exists:

Without this law, someone can just show something to the public and not patent it. Then wait until everyone copies it. Apply for the patent... and sue them.

 

[AnonMac50]

A subtle demonstration of the rubber-banding technology is barely noticeable at 33:40 in this video.

YouTube: video​

It was also majorly demonstrated when he was demoing music on the phone. "You had me at scrolling".

 

[applebook]

Samsung must truly be evil if they're going to break patients.

But only if the patients aren't evil. If they're evil, then Samsung is good

 

[Snookerman]

You can see it better at 16:23 and he even calls it rubber-banding.

 

[Oletros]

But I do find it funny the need of so many to defend such a ridiculous ruling.

Ridiculous ruling? Not at all, in fact it is great, it prevents submarine patents.

 

[subsonix]

Ridiculous ruling? Not at all, in fact it is great, it prevents submarine patents.

You may think that the outcome is great, but dismissing the patent based on prior art could certainly be viewed as ridiculous since the prior art is Apple's own. That's without regard for what you think of the outcome itself and the effect it may have.

 

[doctor-don]

Only in Germany is this applicable.

 

[tbrinkma]

With regards to patents, though, most software is composed of mathematical algorithms, equations, linear algebra, and several disciplines of calculus, along with graph theory.

Just a minor nit-pick, but software isn't *composed* of mathematical algorithms, equations, etc. Software *is* mathematics. And it's not 'most', it's *ALL*.

Software is nothing *but* mathematics.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

So now Apple has to follow German law in the US? This is wrong no matter how you look at it!

 

[time2ride]

That is a ridiculous ruling. How can your own prior art work against you? But a patent on rubber-banding is pretty ridiculous as well.

Guys you have to wiew it from both sides. This law actually protects you from patent trolls if you use it right (what apple did not do).
Imagine you have a cool product and present it to the public. Now there are a bunch of patent trolls sitting around waiting to pick things out of your presentation and patent them. So in Germany the Patentamt says "sorry you cannot have this Patent because it is already considered prior art because of the presentation" This avoids the difficulties that come with the one year grace period in US where it ist sometimes not easy to proof wo first invented something. So this is clearyl and only a mistake of Apple (besides wanting to patent such trivial stuff what I personally think is ridiculous).

 

[Oletros]

You may think that the outcome is great, but dismissing the patent based on prior art could certainly be viewed as ridiculous since the prior art is Apple's own.

Ridiculous? No, dismissing with your OWN prior art is what the law is about. You can't patent something if you have shown that something before.

Only in Germany is this applicable.

No, almost in any country apart of USA

So now Apple has to follow German law in the US? This is wrong no matter how you look at it!

No, what is wrong no matter how you look at it is your comment.

Is Apple following German law IN Germany

 

[eon.zuurmond]

Demonstration of rubber-banding in video

There's a less subtle reference and demonstration at 16:24 in the video when Steve is scrolling through the contacts and he even refers to "rubber-banding". The link reference in the article (at least on my YouTube) goes to set-of-wallpaper image where there doesn't appear to be any such effect.

 

[Winni]

That is a ridiculous ruling. How can your own prior art work against you? But a patent on rubber-banding is pretty ridiculous as well.

Just for the records, we also do not have software patents in Germany. That "rubber-banding" patent was in a grey zone from the very beginning; you have to claim that a specific software feature is an essential/unique way of interacting with your hardware - which isn't as simple as it sounds.

In any case, this was just another trivial Apple patent, and it's a good thing that it got nuked by the court. Trivial features like this are simply not patent-worthy.

 

[subsonix]

Ridiculous? No, dismissing with your OWN prior art is what the law is about. You can't patent something if you have shown that something before.

Yes, but all I'm doing is leaving room for that interpretation, certainly not that far fetched IMO. The patent was dismissed based on a technicality that isn't really proving prior art in the normal sense of the word. That is, that someone else have already implemented what you claim to be first with when you apply for the patent.

 

[madgick]

Check 16:28

Yeh I seemed to remember Steve mentioning this as well, and u found it At 16:28 he literally scrolls to the top of the iPod list to show it off "rubber banding up"... and then it would seem they tried to patent it the next day.

Thats the rules, so it doesn't matter how stupid many of you think it is. Without strict patent rules, people would not be credited for their innovations

 

[Jynto]

Yep, but doesn't the origional phone an UI look dated.

Bitch please, I'm from the future.

It looked just as dated as the iOS 7 interface did when I saw it in 2019.

 

[fmaxwell]

Sorry - there's something funny about Apple's patent being invalidated by themselves.

No, there is nothing funny about using the words of someone who died tragically young from cancer to invalidate a patent for something that his firm invented. That you would find such a thing funny is a sad comment on your psyche.

 

[samcraig]

No, there is nothing funny about using the words of someone who died tragically young from cancer to invalidate a patent for something that his firm invented. That you would find such a thing funny is a sad comment on your psyche.

Are you serious? Wow.

Clearly says something about the 40 people who upvoted the comment too. It says they don't take every comment about Apple personally and to mean it's about Steve Jobs, his death or cancer.

I would say your reaction is a bit "over"

 

[castlerock]

And you wonder why the Europeans are so backwards. Case and point. It may be the law and Apple should have known and followed. But just because it is the law, doesn't mean it should be the law. What can you do but laugh at the fools.

Yeah, well this is a perfect demonstration of how arcane and non-commonsensical patent laws have become. Publicly showing your "invention" before filing causing it to be invalidated is one thing, allowing software patents on "rubber band effect" (or "swipe to unlock") is another. Seems like two wrongs made a right in this case; so, sorry fanboys and Apple shills, can't muster any outrage about this one.

Und zu meinen deutschen Freunden- entschuldigt diese(n) häßliche(n) Amerikanische(n). Wir sind alle kaum wie er/(sie).