Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

appleinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#21

Post by jerf »

jonknee wrote: post #20
dodo53 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I like the idea (from someone around here I think) that patent owners should state a value of the patent when filing, and fees should be a percent of that value. Then value of patent limits maximum damage for infringement. So the amount of damages that can be sued for depends on the amount of funded attention at USPTO on checking the patent is valid (and patent owners could have the option of increasing s…

That also completely screws the little guy, which is one of the big reasons the USPTO is said to exist.

We're talking in the context of a court case involving two enormous multinational corporations going at it for over a year and a half with probably another half-year to go, minimum. The "little guy" can't even afford to sit in the bleachers of this fight. If some "little guy" actually had filed these patents he'd have been bankrupt a year ago.

There's probably a patent regime that actually would protect "the little guy" but it's long past time to let the USPTO wear that fig leaf over the current system. (Which is to say, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm more saying, your point is inapplicable. And that's a shame.)

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#23

Post by ankitaggarwal »

Sad. This is not a generic patent. It only seemed obvious now. Its not something that will stop innovation (as people scream about). A scrollbar implemented without rubber-band effect will do just fine. And why was this never implemented before anyways.

There is all this hype that "Apple is Bad because they sued Samsung". But considering everything, they had no other choice legally. They had to make a case on some grounds, and these 5-6 patents were the only patents they can sue on. What would've you done to protect ideas you spent years refining?

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#25

Post by sanxiyn »

chucknelson wrote: post #19
pi18n wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see some sort of punitive damages if a patent you sued over gets invalidated. At a minimum, Apple should need to compensate a portion of Samsung's legal fees.

I don't think that makes sense. It's not Apple's fault that the US patent office granted the patent. Just because they changed their minds doesn't mean Apple is responsible. If anything, the US patent office should compensate both Samsung and Apple for essentially wasted legal fees.

I am not sure about legal fees, but at the very least, I think it's only fair for US patent office to refund patent fees for invalidated patents. Won't happen though.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#26

Post by rayiner »

jerf wrote: post #21
jonknee wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That also completely screws the little guy, which is one of the big reasons the USPTO is said to exist.

We're talking in the context of a court case involving two enormous multinational corporations going at it for over a year and a half with probably another half-year to go, minimum. The "little guy" can't even afford to sit in the bleachers of this fight. If some "little guy" actually had filed these patents he'd have been bankrupt a year ago. There's probably a patent regime that actually would protect "the little g…

I don't think there is any basis for your assertion that patents don't protect the little guy. I worked for two small companies that had, used, and licensed patents on their key technologies. These technologies took us millions of dollars and years to develop, and were our way of competing with companies that could out-manufacture us, but not beat us at the R&D game.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#27

Post by emehrkay »

Shooti wrote: post #2

Good news for Android scrolling if this sticks. This is probably whats keeping Google from implementing the "glass tilt" effect from the stock 4.0/4.1 home screen system wide.

The rubber band effect makes touch scrolling work. The user knows when they've reached the end. And Apple seems to do this thing where you can zoom out and make whatever really small showing you the boundaries that Android doesn't seem to do. Android can definitely benefit from emulating apple in the scrolling/zooming regard.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#28

Post by johsoe »

ankitaggarwal wrote: post #23

Sad. This is not a generic patent. It only seemed obvious now. Its not something that will stop innovation (as people scream about). A scrollbar implemented without rubber-band effect will do just fine. And why was this never implemented before anyways. There is all this hype that "Apple is Bad because they sued Samsung". But considering everything, they had no other choice legally. They had to make a case on some gr…

Years refining this overscroll effect?
Post reply on HN