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.
Steve Jobs iPhone Keynote Invalidates Apple's Rubber-Banding Patent in Germany
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Didn't Apple's patent team know about this before they filed the patent? Obviously not but they should have. Seriously this is what you get when your entire company is based around the US. Apple needs to think more like a multi-national company. They're not a Californian hippy start up anymore.
I agree the American regulation patent system has poor points, and reform would be clearly indicated. But it seems that if apple was the one to present it to the world, they could also patent it. The fact that the judge pointed to apple's very own keynote to refuse to give the patent to apple seems ironic. I can see the value of the European system, but they should not use apple's own keynote to disqualify them from patent. In my opinion.
Indeed. I dozed last evening to his voice awakening just in time to keep my MBA from slipping from my lap.
Steve was an exceptional presenter because he believed in the products. Nothing was forced. His pride in the iPhone was palpable.
It's at 16:24, when he's doing the 'iPod part' of the demo. Was looking for it too, and got so engrossed once again by this man's presence on the stage, that it's hard to stop watching. Maybe a little weekend nostalgia. He looks notably still very healthy, well over 4½ yrs before the ravages of his at that time already diagnosed cancer, took his life.
On topic, this German invalidation of that 'rubber banding' patent, shows how intricate and complicated it is to do business on a global scale. With a myriad of differing business practices, legal requirements, and as we've seen, patent laws, it's almost impossible to keep track of all the minutiae involved in successfully running a large multinational corporation, without an occasional oversight.
And that can sometimes cost financially or in IP.
There is more than one country in Europe...so if the law stands in Europe it applies in other countries too...
----------
Sounds like a good law to me - patent before showing...
No its not, a patent is to protect an idea, showing it first goes against that as you are showing it to the world.
Its atually a lot better system then just make some general BS patent and then let them fight in court as the US has if you want to uphold it.
I read the the article and came away with Apple's Rubber-Banding patent was invalidated in Germany because Apple demonstrated the technology at the keynote in 2007.
I'm not patent savy so I don't understand your claim of having 'thought of something else.' What did you think of that wasn't in the original article?
On the other hand that ought to only concern Apple, not the world. One of the criteria for a patent is that it has to be unique, prior art proves that it's not. I can see why having your own invention count as prior art could be viewed as ridiculous by someone, it's not unreasonable IMO.
As I mentioned before, this is a technicality, it's not really showing prior art in the normal sense of the word.
Last edited:
I've got to admit, I'm no fanboy, but I had goosebumps watching that. Looking back at it now, knowing how significant that moment was, it's amazing. Nothing Steve said was overstating the impact it made.
No think about it , a patent is to protect the effort or idea you had . If you show it to the world without a patent and then only later say . Wait guys you cant use it because we are going to patent this . This for germany isnt correct either you patent it and then show it so pepple know they cant use it or you dont but then other can use it .
In real life:
1) It's a minor patent, with easy workarounds, not worth the millions that Apple has likely spent on its legalities.
It might have been better to immediately license it for a very low rate. At least, that way it would've been revenue instead of an expense.
2) Having it nullified for this reason is better than having it nullified for, say, being obvious, because patent courts around the world tend to look at what others have decided and why.
1) It's a minor patent, with easy workarounds, not worth the millions that Apple has likely spent on its legalities.
It might have been better to immediately license it for a very low rate. At least, that way it would've been revenue instead of an expense.
2) Having it nullified for this reason is better than having it nullified for, say, being obvious, because patent courts around the world tend to look at what others have decided and why.
And in that case you would look at when the patent was granted, if someone else have implemented your idea before you have a patent in place then that's prior art. That's why it falls squarely on Apple, if they chose to reveal this idea to the world before a patent is granted they run the risk of someone else implementing it before they have a valid patent in place to protect them.
On the contrary, it demonstrates how little the present US knows about how the rest of the world works, and most of that world had legal systems in place before the Europeans even discovered the Americas. You need to get out more! And yes, what fools Steve Jobs' advisers were to let him disclose the "invention". I mean, who would disclose to the world to then have them jump on the bandwagon and develop further, when you could keep it entirely secret for a further time period for more inventor development and wait for the patent filing to be published? I'm an Apple devotee of more than 25 years, but they aren't perfect and this should be a wake-up call to them - there are other clever people and companies out there and most are outside the US!
So, not only did Apple invalidate their patent by showing it at the Keynote before applying for the patent (in Germany); they also supplied the evidence against themselves!
That's just wrong. I've read a bunch of books on patenting things; every single one of them talks about the differences between US and other countries and what to watch out for. This isn't naïvety, I'm sure that they know this, not like they have never applied for patents before. This was a mistake, someone wasn't paying attention to the content of the presentation and when the patents were filed. This could have been Steve himself; we don't know.
To say that companies in the US don't know how the rest of the world works is just taking jabs that the US; and a bad one at that. MOST companies within the US have to work with countries outside the US at some point; of course we know there are smart people out there, and the laws are different.
Oh ok. I thought you were pointing out something other than what was in the article. Thank you.
Once I saw the video again it was impossible not to compare Steve's presentations to what Apple is doing now. Schiller on stage talking about his a$$.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen ( :
Samsung, nah Samsung just wanted to win in court....because Apple sued them, that is law in Germany, so if Samsung didn't break the law because of a technicality, their lawyers will find it, and it will be ruled the correct way.
Rubber-banding is awesome. You don't realize just how much of an effect it has until you use an app that does not have it. It makes the UI more playful and much more tactile.
I hope it gets invalidated, I'm in the Apple can when it comes to mobile OS' but I want it to go to Android.
Maybe once Google gets the patent on the Notification Centre they'll trade that with Apple for rubber-banding.
I hope it gets invalidated, I'm in the Apple can when it comes to mobile OS' but I want it to go to Android.
Maybe once Google gets the patent on the Notification Centre they'll trade that with Apple for rubber-banding.
