| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Sun demonstrated touchscreen inertial scrolling - in 1992 |
| By Thom Holwerda, submitted by Torbjorn Vik Lunde on 2012-08-12 21:15:18 |
| One of the major patents being discussed in the Apple vs. Samsung cases all around the world is inertia scrolling. Apple claims to have invented it, but in fact, Sun was working on a PDA in the early '90s called the Star7, which had inertia scrolling. In a demonstration posted to YouTube, you can see this device in action, including the touch screen inertial scrolling. James Gosling (yup, that one), the narrator of the video, even mentions it specifically. This looks like a case of prior art for this patent, and serves to demonstrate that, no, despite all these grandiose claims, Apple did not invent this at all, which further illustrates the complete and utter lunacy of the patent system in the software world. The Star7's interface is reminiscent of Microsoft Bob, and makes me want to forcefully introduce my head to my recently-painted walls. Still, it's an interesting device; 1992 is when the first fully touchscreen PDA was released (the Tandy Zoomer, by what would eventually become Palm), and a year before the Newton arrived on the scene. Luckily for us, the Star7 never made it to market. That interface gives me nightmares... |
|
| RE[3]: Can it be used? |
| By flypig on 2012-08-12 23:47:28 |
|
I'm no lawyer, and certainly this may differ depending on the country, but certainly in the UK previous disclosure can invalidate a patent, independent of who patented it first. Basically, if the information is made public before being patented, it can't then be patented by anyone. This is actually really important, since part of the point of a patent is to act as an incentive to publicly document your invention (for the benefit of society). If an idea is already public, there's no need for the government to provide this incentive. That's why NDAs are so common: they protect companies against an idea being made public and therefore becoming unpatentable. I think the law in the US is slightly different in that there's a one-year window after public disclosure within which you're still able to patent something, although the spirit is similar. As I said, I'm not a lawyer though. |
 - Score: 5 |
| RE[2]: Comment by Fergy |
| By flypig on 2012-08-12 23:53:04 |
|
As I said in a previous comment, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the patent office doesn't have a responsibility here. The patent office does cursory checks, but having a patent granted isn't intended to imply legitimacy, since this is just too hard to figure out (there's no way the patent office can know the sum total of all things that have been previously invented, since many of them won't have been patented). That's why these things often go to court, and might also be why so many patents are granted (since the really deep checks don't happen when a patent is granted, but rather when someone challenges it). |
| - Score: 4 |
| Cygnus editor |
| By olafg on 2012-08-12 23:53:59 |
| The 1988 Cygnus editor on the Amiga had soft scrolling. |
| - Score: 3 |
| Not just the inertia but also the bounce |
| By flypig on 2012-08-13 00:14:59 |
|
This is an interesting video, and it's really amazing to see some of the great work that went on in computing, but which never really made it into people's lives. I'm not convinced this demonstrates prior art on the Apple patent though. As I understand it, the Apple patent wasn't just about inertial scrolling, but also about the 'bounce' part that happens when you reach the end of a list. I didn't see this demonstrated or discussed in the video. [Edited for typos] Edited 2012-08-13 00:18 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Comment by Fergy |
| By shmerl on 2012-08-13 00:32:12 |
|
> Should you be punished for suing because of a patent if you could have known it was invalid? Logic dictates that the aggressor should be punished in such case. This will discourage litigation without proper research of prior art. The punishment should be in invalidating of the patent, and in requirement to cover all the related legal expenses of the other side. This will really make aggressors think many times before using their patents to deter competition. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Very interesting |
| By flypig on 2012-08-13 01:27:47 |
|
Independent of the Apple vs. Samsung case, it seems a bit curious to suggest Samsung haven't invented anything. After all, they apparently spent over $9 billion on R&D last year. I'm not claiming this matches Apple's R&D budget, but it would be a bit surprising if this hadn't generated any new inventions. A quick search of Samsung and invention threw up quite a number of interesting results. There's just a few below (although I didn't check the validity of any of these articles). The fact is, large companies like Samsung and Apple are in the lucky position of being rich enough to buy inventions. There are start-ups generating brilliant ideas that are bought by other companies all the time, and I'd be really surprised if Samsung wasn't in the business of doing this too. Transparent LCD: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2... Graphene-based transistors: http://www.intomobile.com/2012/0... Super PLS display: http://www.mobilewhack.com/samsu... Flexible AMOLED display: http://www.gottabemobile.com/201... Edited 2012-08-13 01:30 UTC |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE[2]: Very interesting |
| By Windows Sucks on 2012-08-13 01:40:55 |
|
All that is great but not a useable device does any of that make. Companies invented tires but tires don't make a car. |
| - Score: -1 |
| RE[3]: Very interesting |
| By flypig on 2012-08-13 01:54:00 |
|
True, but the article you linked claims Samsung needs to "move from replication to innovation. To take their place as not only a market leader but an industry leader. To stop copying the present and claim a role in shaping the future." The car and the tire are symbiotic inventions. Similarly, the individual inventions that make up a phone are also important. Inventing the processes needed to manufacture graphene-based transistors or flexible displays certainly does have the potential to shape the future, and I'm sure Samsung's previous inventions (or the inventions of the companies they've bought) have done too. This isn't intended to diminish Apple's inventiveness. There's room in the world for them both to be inventive (just not in the area of phone styling, it would seem!). |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[3]: Comment by Nelson |
| By allanregistos on 2012-08-13 02:28:39 |
|
> Unfortunately, Samsung must operate and defend itself using the law, and not your subjective moral code. So we need to fix(law). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: Very interesting |
| By flypig on 2012-08-13 02:34:41 |
|
This seems like a strange distinction to make. Both Apple and Samsung invent parts: for example Apple has patents related to processors. I don't see this as a dilemma. The original article you linked didn't seem to make this distinction as far as I could tell. Instead, it just ignored all of the interesting technology areas that Samsung have contributed to. Just to be clear: I'm not defending Samsung in this particular patent case. It's just the article you linked seemed to look just at this case and then extrapolate to everything Samsung does, which didn't seem particularly valid. |
| - Score: 3 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |