Ouch!
US patent office prepares to kill off Apple's bounce-back patent
The US Patent Office (USPTO) appears to have provisionally invalidated one of the major patents that Apple was using against Samsung... And it's possible that large parts of the case will go “kablooie” as a result. Given that it's not Friday afternoon yet, everyone will remember that the Cupertinians were most insistent that …
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 15:45 GMT chr0m4t1c
Re: Missing info in the article
The linked-to article notes that the patent may be invalidated because of that one (Lira) and U.S. Patent No. 7,786,975 (Ording), which belongs to Apple.
I really have no idea what the legal position is when you have a patent on something and then try to patent something obvious that derives from that. Other than very messy, that is.
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 17:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham
1/ The head juror has a conflict of interest with Segate that he failed to delare.
2/ The head juror mis-interpreted the laws on prior-art for his "eureka moment"
3/ Many of the patents Apple had weren't vaild anyway, but were used by the jury as part of their decision making process.
I'm sure there are many more, anyone else want to expand the list
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 17:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham
I never understand down votes when a post contains facts.. but there you go.
You missed one - the jury chose to ignore prior art on all aspects of their judgements due to the odd interpretation you mentioned in point 2. I suppose its sort of related to point 3 but its an important point to make.
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 04:12 GMT vic 4
Re: So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham
No the ones that they couldn't get through as Apple decided near the closing date to complain about samsung not backing up their email which would have had a huge negative affect. They spent so much time mitigating that issue they failed to file them, baring in mind apple were also slipping in other stuff right at the last minute.
Now, given that Apple also turned out to be guilty of not archiving emails, something that was not found out until afterwards thereby cancelling it out I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that was intentional, add from their point a good move. Then when you throw in the fact Apple where allowed to files numerous things late at various times and Samsung were always refused many observers would get an impression of bias.
Of course, the fact that a jury managed to digest a 100+ page legalese document AND answer 900 questions in such a small space of time that the judge was amazed and you still think it was a fair trial?
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 10:24 GMT Vic
Re: So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham
> the jury chose to ignore prior art on all aspects of their judgements
This is because the jurr foreman apparently told the rest of the jusry that he knew the law, and they believed him. And his definitive statement - that prior art should not be considered so unless the code can run on the exact same platform - is abject nonsense; it is not self-consistent.
the foreman should not have made any of these claims, of course; he had explicitly promised not to. And this will likely worry Apple greatly; any *legitimate* win they might have had, over and above the nonsense stuff has a good chance of being thrown out because of this man's actions.
Vic.
-
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 08:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham
I think another reason is:
The judge failed to explain to the jury that they have to ignore functional features when assessing infringement of a "design patent" (which in other countries is called a "registered design"). So, if rounded corners serve a function (such as to prevent injury) then you must ignore them when assessing infringement.
-
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 17:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
This should never have been a problem
The system is screwed up. No court should be able to decide to ban a product on the assumption that a patent is valid. There should have to be a thorough examination of the patent first and have it declared legally valid before the holder is allowed to bring cases against alleged infringers.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 17:22 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: This should never have been a problem
> the assumption that a patent is valid
It's not an assumption. If the patent office granted the patent then the patent is, by definition valid. If a court can't trust the validity of a patent, and feels it;'s necessary to re-examine it before passing judgement based on it, then the patent office is broken (which it is, we know).
The solution here isn't to change the system, it's to fix the patent office.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 17:35 GMT frank ly
@Phil Re: This should never have been a problem
The patent is part of the evidence of the case brought against the defendant. The defendant surely has the right to question and attempt to disprove the truth or validity of any evidence against them? No?
In a criminal case (notionally far more serious than commercial actions) the defendant can have evidence rejected if it was obtained using faulty procedures (e.g statements made to police officers in the back of a police car with no legal representative present).
So in a commercial case, why shouldn't the defendant be able to question the validity of a patent?
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 20:48 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: @Phil This should never have been a problem
> why shouldn't the defendant be able to question the validity of a patent?
Oh, I don't dispute that a defendant should be able to question the validity of the patent, I just don't think that the court should _automatically_ start by reconsidering if the patent is valid, which is what the original poster seemed to be suggesting. That will just make the lawyers richer. A patent infringement case need not hinge on whether the patent is valid.
-
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 18:21 GMT Marshalltown
Banning...
... and invalidating software patents would definitely be a start. Eliminating patents altogether might not hurt either. Treat what you would once have patented as a trade secret. That would allow anyone trying to decide what hardware to buy or software to use to decide strictly by cost and features, which would be a real shot in the arm for the industry. Competition would increase rather than waster time and treasure battling over patents. More importantly, it would require patent trolls to get a real job.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 20:32 GMT bean520
Re: Banning...
"Eliminating patents altogether might not hurt either"
Yes, lets have this nonsense about protecting actual inventions from being copied. After all, everyone is too trustworthy to reverse-engineer stuff and build almost like-for-like clones. Arent they? oh...
That said, software patents do go too far. What is a piece of programming besides a complex mathematical formula?
-
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 09:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Banning...
"> Treat what you would once have patented as a trade secret
It was precisely because that didn't work that the patent system was created."
No. The patent system was invented as a fund-raising device for the Crown. The Crown may be gone from the US system but the motivation hasn't really changed.
The whole idea of patents is mediaeval and absurd.
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 22:30 GMT asdf
Re: This should never have been a problem
>The solution here isn't to change the system, it's to fix the patent office.
So let me get this straight you want the politicians to spend more money that they work hard to steal from the people to fix it so the patent office brings in even less revenue for them to spend? Yeah good luck with that one. Much like oil and minerals the patent office is one of the few revenue generating parts of the government and as such politicians tend to take a very hands off approach (thus oil and minerals hiring hookers and not watching BP in the gulf).
-
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 06:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: This should never have been a problem
This is a brilliant idea, It could even keep the US patent system alive with only minor changes.
You can file anything you want, but when you want to start an infringment suit you have to pass a 'validaton check' first.
You could wait until the actual infringement suit starts, or you could decide to have any filing validated at the time of filing, or you could systematically validate your filings 'on the quiet' when you seem fit.
What would be the legal hurles ?
I'd upvote you 50 if I could.
Pete
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 21:18 GMT James O'Brien
Re: I believe Apple is getting burned
And this is exactly how Fallout 1 started :P
On a side though I do believe that the USPTO should hire monkeys to check the patents for validity instead of those that they did hire. Surely they would do a better and more through job. Hell they could even throw feces at the ones which they deem invalid and atleast we could make sense out of WHY they are.
Finally the tides start to shit against crApple. I wonder what this will do to their stocks?
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 09:33 GMT Tom 38
Edit post
Please don't, not being able to edit posts prevents whole categories of posts from being made (or seen). If one can edit posts, you no longer see pedants pointing out spelling mistakes with posts containing spelling mistakes or when people make factual boobs in their posts, as they will just edit out their stupidity
-
Thursday 25th October 2012 21:59 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: Edit post
Please don't, not being able to edit posts prevents whole categories of posts from being made (or seen).
Indeed, one of the great charms of post-cancel[1] Usenet is that once a post had been made, it is fixed for the ages. Many a Usenet poster (myself certainly included) has posted in haste and repented at leisure. It encourages a bit of humility (and caution) among the better contributors, and lets the worse sort brand themselves with their own words. Let's not start revising away evidence of our failings.
[1] That is, after the rise of cancelbots, and the consequent configuring of NNTP servers to ignore cancel requests.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 18:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Of course...
.... I'm sure Samsung would have put bounce-back in their apps even if Apple hadn't implemented it on the iPhone. It wasn't just an obscure UI feature until Apple realised its use as a visible way of showing users they'd reached the end of a document.
Neg me all you want, but deep down you know Samsung don't have the creativity to come up with a feature like that.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 19:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Of course...
Maybe they don't, but using the wheel example from the article, let me illustrate my view of it.
If Ford were to be the first company to introduce cars with orange wheels, and the public were to go crazy over it, then Ford couldn't sue Toyota for making cars with orange wheels just because Toyota didn't think of colouring their wheels orange. (Keep in mind that the fact that coloured wheels are obvious is a premise from the article)
So when Apple makes a feature that bounces back when reaching the end of something, then if it's deemed obvious, Samsung can copy that feature all they want.
Whether or not it should be deemed obvious isn't up to me, so I'll just neglect to comment on that further.
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 03:52 GMT Dazed and Confused
Re: Of course...
> Neg me all you want, but deep down you know Samsung don't have the creativity to come up with a feature like that.
I'm not sure why you feel that Korean's can't innovate?
But the whole point here is that bounce back is not an innovation. It is just mimicking real life. Anyone who has ever used a large card indexing system knows that if you pull out the draw quickly is keeps moving under its own momentum and that when it reaches the end it bounces back. That is the way the world works. Newton explains the what was going on here hundreds of years ago.
All the so called bounce back feature is doing is mimicking this normal physical phenomenon. The long menus you have on phones etc are just a computerised implementation of a real world object which is an old as the hills. They aren't an invention and there is no innovation here, they are just a different way of building a card index. Making them bounce back is just a way of making them mimic it a little more faithfully.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 07:53 GMT Dazed and Confused
Re: Of course...
> If bounce back was so obvious though, how come nobody implemented it
They did,
its called Pong
Certainly lots of games make things bounce.
In the same way that making a blue wheel is obvious once black wheels exist. Bouncing menus on a screen is obvious once any bouncing object exists on a screen.
I'm not saying it isn't a neat feature, its just not innovative.
> Lots of patents and designs are "just mimicking real life - or nature/physics at least".
That is one of the problems with software patents, people think that they can patent just about anything, when they shouldn't be allowed to. Using computers to mimic real life is as old as the computer industry, mimicking it is slightly different ways shouldn't be allowed to count.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 25th October 2012 13:34 GMT Dazed and Confused
Re: @Dazed and Confused
Please go back and read my first posting on the subject.
> Anyone who has ever used a large card indexing system knows that if you pull out the draw quickly is keeps moving under its own momentum and that when it reaches the end it bounces back.
I would argue that scrollable lists are just a computerised implementation of a common storage problem. I'll grant that the Apple implementation is nicely polished, their stuff so often is. But I still feel it is just an implementation of something that has existed for many years in the physical world.
As to why no one has done it before, I don't know. I certainly haven't. I spent some years writing GUI SW. I implemented a couple of examples of oversized scrollable drop down menus in Motif back in the early nineties, but I had sufficient real estate to tackle the problem in another way. But I was aware that I was just mimicking something I was used to working with in the real world. GUI's work best, IMHO, when they do. When things just work the way people expect them too, they use them without thought. I still don't think that it counts as inventing things.
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Thursday 25th October 2012 22:06 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: Of course...
I'm not sure why you feel that Korean's can't innovate?
For the same reason he's posting as AC - he's an idiot or a troll. There's little to be gained by arguing with that sort.
All the so called bounce back feature is doing is mimicking this normal physical phenomenon.
And I'll note that modeling GUI effects using simple simulations of mechanical processes is a well-known and longstanding approach. I'm pretty sure that the first version of the CWM window manager for X11 (circa 1988), for example, did its window layout (which was non-overlapping) by modeling a 2D array of springs. The UWM window manager, among others, used the term "gravity" for its window-positioning bias settings; while it didn't actually implement it with a gravitational model (ie, it didn't bother accelerating windows toward a given portion of the screen, just moved them as far as possible in a single calculation), the conceptual model was based on a physical effect. I would not be at all surprised to find "bounce-back" scrolling in some obscure X11 widget set or other less-well-known GUI.
-
-