Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

matttye

macrumors 601
Mar 25, 2009
4,957
32
Lincoln, England
Isnt there something in copyright law that says you cannot copyright things that are "obvious" ? Flick/kinetic scrolling for example is such an obvious UI feature that it wouldn't be copyright protected... however the feature whereby a scrollable region "flicks" back like it's made of elastic when it reaches the end of a list is less obvious.

I could be completely wrong about this, but maybe not :D
 

outphase

macrumors 65816
Jun 13, 2009
1,291
32
Parts Unknown
Isnt there something in copyright law that says you cannot copyright things that are "obvious" ? Flick/kinetic scrolling for example is such an obvious UI feature that it wouldn't be copyright protected... however the feature whereby a scrollable region "flicks" back like it's made of elastic when it reaches the end of a list is less obvious.

I could be completely wrong about this, but maybe not :D

That is patent law, not copyright.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
Isnt there something in copyright law that says you cannot copyright things that are "obvious" ? Flick/kinetic scrolling for example is such an obvious UI feature that it wouldn't be copyright protected... however the feature whereby a scrollable region "flicks" back like it's made of elastic when it reaches the end of a list is less obvious.

I could be completely wrong about this, but maybe not :D

Aside from the fact that it's patent law, not copyright law, yes, you cannot patent something that is "obvious" (35 USC 103). However, obviousness is something that is easy to find with hindsight. Usually obviousness is proven by finding a combination of references (products or publications) that, if a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine when trying to solve a problem, would contain all of the features described in the patent claims.

Whether kinetic scrolling is obvious or not is therefore not a question of whether, sitting here today, we think it's obvious. In fact, courts often use a set of "secondary factors" which indicate a lack of obviousness. One of those factors is commercial success. The iphone did it and was highly successful. If that could be attributed to kinetic scrolling (probably not) it indicates nonobviousness. Another factor is "longfelt need." In other words, if it was so obvious, how come no one else did it up until then? (Assuming they didn't. I dunno.)
 

Aurial

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2008
286
-1
I don't see how Apple could actually get away with patenting 'multi-touch'.

I mean, in the broadest sense of the term surely it means being able to interact with the screen in more than one place at a time, i.e. with more than one finger on the screen?

Since more and more technologies and systems are moving towards touch screen interfaces (on screen keyboards, etc) how could they grant a patent to Apple preventing anyone else from using more than one finger on the screen at any one time? Surely that would mean every other company that developed something with an on screen keyboard would only be able to allow the user to touch one key at a time (unless they licensed the technology from Apple). It's rediculous and would be so prohibitive to any technological advancements.

I don't see that there's any way such a patent could be issued.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
I don't see how Apple could actually get away with patenting 'multi-touch'.

I mean, in the broadest sense of the term surely it means being able to interact with the screen in more than one place at a time, i.e. with more than one finger on the screen?

Since more and more technologies and systems are moving towards touch screen interfaces (on screen keyboards, etc) how could they grant a patent to Apple preventing anyone else from using more than one finger on the screen at any one time? Surely that would mean every other company that developed something with an on screen keyboard would only be able to allow the user to touch one key at a time (unless they licensed the technology from Apple). It's rediculous and would be so prohibitive to any technological advancements.

I don't see that there's any way such a patent could be issued.

Leaving aside that Apple isn't trying to obtain such a broad patent (as they weren't the first to invent touching the screen with multiple fingers), the whole point of patent law is, yes, the patentee has an exclusive monopoly to the technology. No one else can use it without the patentee's permission.

On the one hand, yes, that would seem to foreclose technological innovation. On the other hand, though, it helps technological innovation as companies and inventors are more willing to put in extensive work to develop a technology if they know that at the end they will receive a 20 year monopoly on the technology.

For example, a pharmaceutical company is less likely to spend billions to develop the cure to cancer if, after they spend all that money, everyone is free to copy them.

The trick is to try to set the duration of patent protection, and to set the level of innovation necessary to obtain the patent, to the right levels so as to encourage the progress.

In your example, if, for example, Apple was granted a patent to "multi touch," it is unlikely that their competitors would just give up and go home. They'd research alternatives (gesture-based input, speech input, mind reading, who knows), and perhaps we'd be better off than everyone just simply doing multi touch also.
 

Scooterman1

macrumors 6502a
May 15, 2008
939
12
Houston, Tx
As much as I like Windows, I think the Mobile is going to have to do a lot of catching up. It definitely IS getting closer though. And the thing about them is, it will run on more than one phone!!! That could cause some competition down the line.
 

charliehustle

macrumors 6502
Jul 30, 2009
257
0
i love how at 10:04 the dude is like "rich user experience" while he's trying to scroll down some apps, and the screen doesn't even move..haha

android is the best alternative to iphone os right now.. imo
 

Roofy.

macrumors 6502a
Jan 24, 2009
595
0
wow Microsoft joins the game 2 years later and its still much worse then the original iphone.......
 

Goona

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2009
2,268
0
Yeah by limiting the capabilities of the iphone....amazing indeed :rolleyes: We could see a repeat of the computer OS wars if android gets on more phones...

We've been hearing this for months, when are they going to get on more phones, look how many phones are being announced with Android, but yet we keep hearing wait till Android gets on enough phones, when is it enough already.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.