| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| USPTO invalidates Apple's bounce-scroll patent |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-23 22:39:18 |
| "Samsung's got to be pretty happy right about now, after learning that the US Patent and Trademark Office has filed an initial ruling declaring Apple's rubber-banding patent invalid, as reported by FOSS Patents. The news was good enough that Samsung decided to share it with friends, that is, if US Federal Judge Lucy Koh can be considered a friend. According to the ruling, which Florian Mueller says isn't final, all 20 claims of Apple's patent (No. 7,469,381) are now invalid, including one that the iPhone maker had leveraged against Samsung in their recent legal showdown. The office found that Apple's invention was either anticipated by prior art (from Lira and Ording) or, in some cases, simply obvious." One down, 93485763827563856 to go. |
|
| RE: USPTO |
| By JAlexoid on 2012-10-24 03:58:12 |
|
Not gonna happen. USPTO has to be recreated as an organization that validates inventions for novelty, not an organisation to grant patents. |
 - Score: 6 |
| RE[2]: USPTO |
| By kwan_e on 2012-10-24 04:26:44 |
|
> Not gonna happen. USPTO has to be recreated as an organization that validates inventions for novelty, not an organisation to grant patents. It's strange how you claim my suggestion is "not gonna happen", but propose an even more unlikely alternative. ;) As far as I can tell, encouraging the USPTO to Think Different about obvious patents is much more likely to occur than a complete overhaul, even though both you and I would agree the overhaul is a better alternative (unlikely though it may be). As long as we're suggesting crazy alternatives as a valid logical response to likely suggestions, I propose this: Abolish software and design patents. Abolish the transfer of patents and coyprights. Abolish non-compete employee contracts. Make reverse engineering a guaranteed constitutional right (if it isn't already; I'm not American). Any company that wants to maintain its lead must keep their inventions as trade secrets (with a buttload of cryptography for software "inventions"), and treat their employees well so that they won't sell secrets to future employers. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Not so fast, fanbois |
| By delta0.delta0 on 2012-10-24 05:35:15 |
|
What exactly is a fanbois ? From your own linked article: > The patent office also cited a European patent filed in 2003 by AOL, which relates to detecting the layout of a webpage, comparing the layout to the window it's being displayed in, and reformatting the page to align with the window. From TNW: > The office found that Apple’s invention was either anticipated by prior art (from Lira and Ording) or, in some cases, simply obvious. Not only invalidated by Apple patenting the same thing twice, but also invalidated by AOL patents going back to 2003 and of course lets not forget the fact that the patents are just retarded to begin with, kind of like the word fanbois. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: User interactions .. |
| By Neolander on 2012-10-24 06:30:11 |
|
> should never, ever, qualify to be patentable. No slide-to-unlock, one-click-buy or any gesture. I think this would be the shortest small fix possible to software related patents. As someone else said around here earlier, perhaps no form of language at all should qualify for patent application. |
| - Score: 10 |
| Error |
| By pysiak on 2012-10-24 07:41:43 |
|
Don't get your hopes up. "It can only be attributable to human error." Or the USPTO KPI for invalidated patents shouldn't be zero and they have to invalidate *something* ;-) |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: User interactions .. |
| By acobar on 2012-10-24 13:06:03 |
|
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?... And, just I did not read the entire thread, I apologised upfront had the argument already been used. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: USPTO |
| By JAlexoid on 2012-10-24 13:24:17 |
|
Simply because the whole organisation is structured and designed to grant patents, not validate the inventions. The way that the organisation is structured and the legal background force the examiners to grant patents even if they might not agree with them.(This is not my position, it's the position of PubPat.org. They give good reasoning for me to take that position as well.) Apple's universal search patent was in review stage for years, because it was rejected 6(if memory serves) times by different examiners. |
| - Score: 4 |
| Comment by tupp |
| By tupp on 2012-10-24 20:31:38 |
|
It's funny how all of those Apple supporters who screamed "SAMSUNG COPIED APPLE!" are silent right now. Even more so in light of the additional Dutch ruling. Furthermore, it seems that Apple is now "copying" its competitors with a smaller Ipad. Have a nice day! |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Comment by tupp |
| By Windows Sucks on 2012-10-25 02:04:00 |
|
> It's funny how all of those Apple supporters who screamed "SAMSUNG COPIED APPLE!" are silent right now. Even more so in light of the additional Dutch ruling. Furthermore, it seems that Apple is now "copying" its competitors with a smaller Ipad. Have a nice day! Hummmm, so I guess making 4 different size iPods is a copy, or different size Macs is a copy or different size iMacs is a copy. LOL! Ok. Oh and then BAM! http://www.businessweek.com/news... Guilty again not silent at all! |
| - Score: 1 |
| Apple cored |
| By orfanum on 2012-10-26 01:17:26 |
|
Nothing too remarkable to say really but I am glad the light has been seen in legal quarters, at last. Also, that I am jumping ship next week. Even with an iOS6 upgrade, this iPhone 4 is worth leaving on the basis of performance and lack of gui fluency as such, let alone for reasons of conscience, if I can put it that way. Looks as though the Emperor's clothes were secondhand, after all. Orf |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |