| 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... |
|
| Comment by Nelson |
| By Nelson on 2012-08-12 21:20:50 |
|
Samsung is lucky to have you on their counsel, with your expert analysis and careful presentation of case law, presenting this as prior art, and overcomeing the nuances that are involved in patent invalidation. Slam dunk, Apple loses. Why didn't they hire you sooner? |
 - Score: -6 |
| Can it be used? |
| By jessesmith on 2012-08-12 21:27:51 |
| I'm curious, if the Star7 never went to market, can it be used as prior art? I would think someone would have to demonstrate a product already on the market to show prior art in a patent case. Anyone know what the law says about inventions that never reach the public being used as evidence in patent cases? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Can it be used? |
| By Praxis on 2012-08-12 21:34:16 |
| your product doesn't have to make it to market to claim a patent on it, why would something need to make it to market to be prior art. In some cases even books and movies could be sources of prior art. Its just showing that you were not the first to have the idea. |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE: Can it be used? |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-08-12 21:35:14 |
|
It can, at least, be used to argue obviousness. The product not being released to the public does not mean it wasn't known by the public in a legal sense. This is clearly a presentation, so for all we know, the product may have been shown around Silicon Valley or at trade shows. That's for lawyers to argue. |
| - Score: 4 |
| Comment by Fergy |
| By Fergy on 2012-08-12 22:12:07 |
|
This article made me wonder: Should you be punished for suing because of a patent if you could have known it was invalid? If you could have known that a patent has prior art but still sued should you get a fine that is so large that it would no longer be profitable to just sue everybody? |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Can it be used? |
| By cjosc99 on 2012-08-12 22:19:04 |
| 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. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Can it be used? |
| By riha on 2012-08-12 22:26:54 |
|
I think that is only the case if it was patented by someone else, if apple have patent, then they owe the patent. Might be wrong. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Comment by Fergy |
| By Brendan on 2012-08-12 22:34:35 |
|
> Should you be punished for suing because of a patent if you could have known it was invalid? If you could have known that a patent has prior art but still sued should you get a fine that is so large that it would no longer be profitable to just sue everybody? In my opinion; the patent office that granted the patent is responsible for checking for prior art, and if prior art is found in a patent infringement case then the patent office should invalidate the patent, should have to pay all court costs for both the patent owner and the defendant, and should have to reimburse both the patent owner and the defendant a fair amount (not a deliberately exaggerated amount) for anything and everything (cost of lawyers, time, effect on reputation, effect on market position, personal stress, whatever). Then, after that has happened; if the patent office that granted the patent can show that the patent holder knew about the prior art when they applied for the patent (not after); the patent office should be able to sue the patent holder for all of the above costs. I have no idea what actually does happen though.. ;) - Brendan |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Comment by Nelson |
| By red_devel on 2012-08-12 23:14:20 |
|
Hey, Mr. Snarky, this isn't really that complicated. If a concept a) is pretty obvious to begin with and b)has already been done by others over a decade before, you shouldn't be able to patent said concept and wield it like a weapon to stifle the innovation of competitors. At best, what you're arguing is that Apple may end up winning by the letter of the law thanks to a bunch of greedy, overpaid lawyer-types. Whoopy do. All that proves is the law is overly complicated, not caught up with the 21st century, and no longer functioning within the spirit of the patent system (which was intended to FOSTER innovation). To any reasonable-minded person, this video, the LG Prada, and downright common sense tells you that Apple should not be able to patent inertial scrolling. *Edit: typo Edited 2012-08-12 23:15 UTC |
| - Score: 9 |
| RE[2]: Comment by Nelson |
| By Nelson on 2012-08-12 23:22:35 |
|
When you try to use the law (which is exactly what the prior art defense is) it couldn't hurt to understand the complexities in mounting such a defense. Too many people wildly shout prior art and obviousness without understanding that its often not that simple. Unfortunately, Samsung must operate and defend itself using the law, and not your subjective moral code. Therefore it is more productive to spend time analyzing defenses they can realistically use. So snarky? Sure. But it gave this article some much needed realism. |
| - Score: 0 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |