Feeds

back to article 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 the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Thumb Up

Ouch!

8
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Florian Mueller is to law what Jimmy Saville is to child welfare

WTF do idle journalists keep regurgitating what he spoonfeeds them?

6
4
Anonymous Coward

You at the back, Samsung, stop giggling

24
0
Headmaster

Missing info in the article

One of the two reasons the patent was tentativivelly invalidated was because of a prior Apple patent (submitted prior, but granted after this one)

1
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Missing info in the article

Which Apple patent?

The only patent mentioned is WO 03/081458 which belongs to somebody called Luigi Lira.

3
0

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.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Hahaha

Also, Ha!

3
0
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

48
2
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.

28
0
Bronze badge

Re: So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham

Another. They were not allowed to use essential evidence/witnesses to defend themselves or bring up topics when questioning witnesses.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham

You mean the ones that Samsung forgot about and then tried to file late? Gee, whose fault is that one?

1
9
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

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?

3
0
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.

1
0
Vic
Silver badge

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.

3
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: So far we have the following reasons for why the Samsung vs Apple trial was a sham

> I'm sure there are many more, anyone else want to expand the list

4/ The jury found Samsung non-infringing on some issues, then awarded damages against them for that infringement anyway.

Vic.

3
0
g e
Silver badge
Go

Ooops

Perhaps the fruit-mongers have finally drawn far too much attention to themselves and are getting their filings reexamined at last...

5
0
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.

28
1
Silver badge
Stop

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.

4
3
Silver badge

@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?

10
0
Trollface

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.

6
4
FAIL

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?

4
1
Silver badge

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.

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

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.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

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).

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: @Phil This should never have been a problem

Criminal and civil law are hardly comparable, the standard of evidence in the former is far, far higher.

0
0

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

0
0
Silver badge

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.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Yaaaaa Hooooooo!

Hey Apple how does that pencil feel in your eye.

Nice to know the US pat office are not a bunch of complete ass holes after all.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

I believe Apple is getting burned

by that thermonuclear chain reaction they started. Cool down, Apple!

4
0
Thumb Up

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?

3
0
FAIL

Re: I believe Apple is getting burned

"Finally the tides start to shit.."

What was supposed to be shiFt. Really wish we had an edit function for the posts as well as the ability to remove them. ElReg are you listening to this one?

Fail on myself for the typo.

0
0
(Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

Re: Re: I believe Apple is getting burned

Edit post? We're listening and might even do something about it.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

That wasn't a typo James

It was what is known in the trade as a "Freudian slip". A very good example of one too, I might add! ;-)

0
0
Silver badge

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

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Edit post

Leave the old text in with strikethrough.

2
0
Bronze badge

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.

0
1
Silver badge
Trollface

So does that mean the court has to compensate Samsung for lost sales due to the ban ?

Oh I hope it does, plus compensation for damage to their name etc.

They should get oh around 1.2 billion in damages from Apple.....

10
1
Mushroom

I felt a great disturbance...

...as if millions of fanbois suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Seriously though: USPTO - even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Flo Mu? Try Groklaw for a bit better detail

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121023121611827

1
0
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.

2
10
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.

4
0
Silver badge

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.

2
0
Def
Bronze badge

Re: Of course...

"But the whole point here is that bounce back is not an innovation. It is just mimicking real life."

Lots of patents and designs are "just mimicking real life - or nature/physics at least". If bounce back was so obvious though, how come nobody implemented it in the 30+ years of computer user interface design prior to Apple? I mean, you'd think at least one game would have done it in their quest to make things cool. (Maybe one game did implement it - I don't recall ever seeing it though. If someone did, just disclose them as prior art...)

0
3
Silver badge

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.

3
1
Def
Bronze badge
FAIL

@Dazed and Confused

Yes yes, well done. Lots of games have things that bounce. Now think about what we were talking about, which was user interface items bouncing back when the user attempts to scroll beyond the end of the scrollable area, and now try to think of a game where *that* happens. Try not to get distracted with other things bouncing...

0
0
Def
Bronze badge

Re: Of course...

"Bouncing menus on a screen is obvious once any bouncing object exists on a screen."

"...it is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry 'I could have thought of that' is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't..." - Dirk Gently.

That fact that it wasn't obvious, is my point. If it was that obvious it would have been done before. My point about games was that games would have been the ideal candidate to have done this first because they, traditionally, were one of the few genres of application that freely implemented their own UI engines *all the time*, and had a refresh rate high enough to implement proper animation of elements.

I still don't recall any games having implemented this before.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @Dazed and Confused

But my whole point was that if you throw things at the end stop they bounce. That is what happens. You can not claim that this is an invention. Making this happen to a menu instead of a ball is immaterial. Things bounce. You can't invent it.

0
0
Def
Bronze badge

Re: @Dazed and Confused

Yes, bouncing in the real world is a result of simple physics. I'm not disputing that. Applying that same action to objects in games, for example, isn't innovative either, it's merely copying real world behaviour. However, scrollable lists that also mimic that behaviour isn't as obvious as it seems - scrollable lists don't exist in nature, so there's nothing to copy. You can claim that applying real world mechanics to artificial constructs is obvious, and in a lot of instances I'll (probably) agree, as will history with evidence that such things have been done almost as soon as the construct was invented. But if making lists bounce back is such an obvious idea, why wasn't it done sooner?

0
1
Silver badge

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.

0
0
Bronze badge

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.

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.