| 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[6]: Very interesting |
| By Windows Sucks on 2012-08-13 02:40:52 |
|
They didn't try to extrapolate to everything Samsung does. The writer was strictly talking about Smart phones and tablets and in that case more then once they have been busted for copying. |
 - Score: -1 |
| RE[7]: Very interesting |
| By flypig on 2012-08-13 02:52:41 |
|
Fair enough. I guess it's just a question of how you read the article, and I'm afraid I got a different impression. It also looks a bit one-sided given that Apple are good at copying too. I'm guessing the best Apple products are those that copy the good parts from others, and leave out the rubbish. The iPod was a great example of this. This isn't a bad thing; it's a tremendously good thing. It only causes problems if it infringes on patents, copyright or trade-dress. There are so many great ideas that I wish companies had been better at copying, since they'd make my daily computing experience so much nicer. Unfortunately lots of these innovations are destined to be lost to the mists of time instead. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[8]: Very interesting |
| By Windows Sucks on 2012-08-13 02:55:52 |
| I guess it's good when you copy but are creative enough to make people think you invented it. Lol. Apples main skill. :-) |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Can it be used? |
| By allanregistos on 2012-08-13 02:56:47 |
|
> Very interesting; one does not have to be a lawyer to know that if apple is using a technology that they did not created the patent it simply not theirs unless they paid for it. If a product never reaches the market or if the product gets to the stores is totally irrelevant. Now the question is; does apple have the rights to use the technology? If that is not the case, they may have to pay for it. The real question my friend, if those lawyers are also tech experts? How can they knew a lot about programming practices without years/decades of real-world experience? A software patent is a technology patent where most lawyers will fall short on knowledge about these things. They didn't even know of what OS is. They knew only the apple and the Windows logo and ignored the penguin. And yes, one does not need a lawyer to understand Apple's claims in court I believe as an IT man myself, but you may need a patent lawyer to argue on your part, not an ordinary lawyer. I think, Apple may have the rights to use a certain the technology in question, especially of those they patented, but they cannot enforce anyone to not use that technology because of a prior art. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[9]: Very interesting |
| By flypig on 2012-08-13 03:03:25 |
| Agreed, Apple does appear to be very good at this. I'm sure this isn't the only thing that's made them so successful though! |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by Nelson |
| By Morgan on 2012-08-13 06:12:28 |
| I'm genuinely curious: Are you a lawyer? I only ask because you often speak with the bearing of someone who knows the law inside and out. The problem is, your take on law and the practice of it seems to vary greatly with the point you are trying to make in a particular thread. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: Comment by shmerl |
| By pgeorgi on 2012-08-13 07:05:33 |
|
> Didn't US recently introduce an update to patent law about "first to file" rather than "first to invent"? I really wonder how it'll affect the whole prior art idea. The main impact is that the PTO doesn't have to investigate who did it first if it gets two competing applications at about the same time. Secondary impact is that there might be money in tracking what others publish and trying to apply for it first - meaning that inventors better _not_ publish their ideas before sending them to the PTO (how's that for "promoting the sciences"?). Everything else (incl. prior art) still remains. There's typically a limit between first publication and elibility for patents. If Sun published that movie in 1992, and the limit is 1 year, first-to-file still means that you better applied for your patent before 1994, or it's still void under a first-to-file regime (if it's actually prior art). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Comment by Nelson |
| By nej_simon on 2012-08-13 08:58:03 |
|
Then perhaps you can enlighten us how the law works? In particular why samsung realistically can't use this example of prior art to invalidate Apple's patent on inertial scrolling. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Can it be used? |
| By Johann Chua on 2012-08-13 09:54:10 |
| The patent for the water bed was denied/invalidated because Robert A. Heinlein's descriptions of a water bed were considered prior art. |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE: Very interesting |
| By Soulbender on 2012-08-13 10:01:04 |
|
Yeah, it's interesting how much they are clutching at straws. Seriously, that is even more lame and desperate than Thom's pro-Samsung links. Are the similarities? Sure, but making your product similar to an existing one isn't illegal (something that Apple should be thankful for). If you come up with a successful design it will be mimicked and even improved by others. Wow, what an earth-shattering revelation. That can't possibly have happened ever before in the history of the world. Next up on news at 11: many products looks kind of the same. |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |