It seems like maybe they should have looked at this before when the issued the patent, or maybe just maybe before the Apple Vs. Samsung lawsuit about this patent….
USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
31–40 of 90 posts
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#32So, one of the patents that was claimed to invalidate this patent is another patent from Apple; does that patent not have any of the same ramifications? (I guess the key claim was #19, and that was also invalidated by the other prior patent?)
> ...U.S. Patent No. 7,786,975 on a "continuous scrolling list with acceleration," with named inventors Bas Ording, Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, Stephen O. Lemay and Imran Chaudhri.
Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA) Filed: December 23, 2005
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#33What if when prior art was found for a patent, the real inventor got the patent, free, starting from the date of the invention, not the filing. This would both reward and protect the innovator and punish the copy cat.
NOTE: Let us assume a patent is not obvious and too general, which many seem to be.
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The USPTO does not receive any funding from general taxation sources. Rather, the agency is fully funded by the fees paid by patent applicants and patent owners. This is probably a big part of why the USPTO sucks. If they had the resources to hire dozens and dozens of industry experts, and pay them aggressively competitive wages, they could probably fix most of the problems most of us have with the system as a whol…
Or we could just let them keep all the money they collect in fees, and let them set the fees at a level that would let them afford to do a good job.
No, that won't work - the USPTO is already a profit center, so why aren't they doing a better job right now?
Being paid more to approve more patents is a perverse incentive so egregious it's incredible the system was setup like it was.
No matter what the fees are, decreasing the percentage of patents granted will effectively cut the budget of the agency. Even upper management that is sympathetic to the cause of increasing patent quality is going to find raising standards very painful.
Their budget needs to be completely decoupled from their revenue.
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#35Sad. 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…
The affect is simply mimicking the physical world. Think slot machines and wheel of fortune type games of chance, which have similar user interfaces and exhibit this same behavior.
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they could just do their own thing.
I'd argue that Apple is the one needing to do its own thing now. Their patent is being invalidated, that means that what they though it was original is not.
The prior art is also an Apple patent. The judge found that there was no "inventive step" between the prior patent and the new one. That doesn't mean Apple didn't "do its own thing", just that its incremental improvement was not worthy of a new patent.
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that Apple is the one needing to do its own thing now. Their patent is being invalidated, that means that what they though it was original is not.
The prior art is also an Apple patent. The judge found that there was no "inventive step" between the prior patent and the new one. That doesn't mean Apple didn't "do its own thing", just that its incremental improvement was not worthy of a new patent.
Oh yes, i read that now. I (kinda) apologize to the parent post.
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The USPTO does not receive any funding from general taxation sources. Rather, the agency is fully funded by the fees paid by patent applicants and patent owners. This is probably a big part of why the USPTO sucks. If they had the resources to hire dozens and dozens of industry experts, and pay them aggressively competitive wages, they could probably fix most of the problems most of us have with the system as a whol…
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…
Are you referring to this comment of mine?
"So I had an idea the other day for a patent reform: property tax on patents.
As long as a company wants to keep the monopoly rights over a patented invention, they are taxed a percentage of the patent's market value each year. They can choose either to pay that tax or sell the patent to someone else.
The government would offer to buy any patent for its market value, using tax revenue gathered from other patents, in doing so putting the invention into the public domain.
This would discourage companies from building large 'defensive' patent portfolios, since they'd be expensive to maintain. It works for the 'lone inventor' scenario too, since the market value of a new, untried invention would be low.
Once a patent's value is proven by developing the patent, its value will rise. At some point, the benefit derived from the patent's monopoly rights will no longer be worth the cost, and the rational thing to do is sell the invention."
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#39Sad. 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…
The affect is simply mimicking the physical world. Think slot machines and wheel of fortune type games of chance, which have similar user interfaces and exhibit this same behavior.
Bingo. Apple is essentially the world's most successful design company.
Because they've done it electronically, they've unfortunately been granted patents to design principles that are quite ancient. If this is allowed it sets a bad precedent.
Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The USPTO does not receive any funding from general taxation sources. Rather, the agency is fully funded by the fees paid by patent applicants and patent owners. This is probably a big part of why the USPTO sucks. If they had the resources to hire dozens and dozens of industry experts, and pay them aggressively competitive wages, they could probably fix most of the problems most of us have with the system as a whol…
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 patent owners should state a value of the patent when filing, and fees should be a percent of that value.
In that system, only huge corporations will be able to afford to file patents that are worth anything. Everyone else gets screwed.