Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995? • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#91

Post by veemjeem » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 4:34 AM UTC

devcpp wrote: post #66

timr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less." The patent system does not grant patents "willy nilly". Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is a (rather lengthy) review process, and it was followed. And if the ver…

The player is playing the kind of game where everybody loses. But there is a way to make everyone win: act like Google has been acting up to now. Every big actor should build up a protective pile of abusive patents (it's so easy nowadays) and threaten anyone that might sue them of counter-suing. It's just like the Cold war: nuclear weapons were a reality, so everyone got lots of it and mutual assured destruction ensu…

I think it's only disgusting because it's a very visible case, and affects consumers directly. There are probably hundreds of patent wars that happen in the enterprise space that nobody reads about because nobody would understand even if they read it. Those wars would be equally disgusting wouldn't it? I feel like we're only allowed to hate the game if the game provides everyone with the same tools.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#92

Post by veemjeem » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 4:45 AM UTC

MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #22

otterley wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you honestly contending that if anything depicted in a sci-fi movie cannot qualify as patentable subject matter when actually implemented? E.g., if someone invents a matter transporter as depicted in Star Trek, the inventor cannot patent it?

Of course not, and it bears repeating that this patent doesn't cover any of the underlying technology that makes the iPhone actually work as a phone, it merely covers part of the appearance of the UI, an appearance that any competent programmer can replicate on a whim. I am contending that you can't patent a user interface you see in a sci-fi movie, which is what Apple did here. What they patented is no different fro…

You can patent icons and fonts, why would a user interface be different here? We could revoke the ability to patent icons & fonts, but then there would be no financial motivation for companies to design fonts to sell.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#93

Post by option_greek » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 4:47 AM UTC

bmuon wrote: post #74

cheald wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be really pedantic about it, it's arguable that they are inventions (someone had to be the first to put four rocks in a row), but it's such a blindly obvious "invention" that it's insanely laughable to afford it any kind of protections at all.

And that's because design, when done right, is obvious.

Which is the reason design should not enjoy patent protection. No one says transistor when done right is obvious.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#94

Post by veemjeem » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 4:58 AM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #60

The sad fact is that UI patents are even more bullshit than software patents. Does Apple have the legal high ground here? Yes, they have a patent on rubberbanding scrolling (among others). Arguments about 'prior art' and blah blah are pointless because they have been granted a patent on a UI design -- an idea , not an implementation, and not an invention. Yes, that's not what a patent is supposed to be, but that's wh…

I guess you need to google "design patents". I feel like 95% of the people on HN don't know the difference between the two. FWIW, philip morris patented rounded corners on their cigarette boxes. If you think that's crazy, you should see the ones filed by Gucci. Maybe design patents should be renamed since everyone confuses them with utility patents.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#95

Post by dougmccune » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 4:59 AM UTC

lines wrote: post #83

dougmccune wrote: post #34

Can someone explain to me (like I'm 5) exactly what, besides the general concept of list scrolling with bounce-back to indicate end of list reached, it was that Samsung copied from the 7,469,381 patent? The Apple fans here get pissed when someone argues that Apple is trying to patent an obvious "idea" and they claim that the general idea of bounce-back scrolling isn't patented, but instead it's a very specific implem…

When reading patents, only the claims matter. In this case, anything that matches claim 19, which is anything that does bounce-back scrolling the way iOS does it, is infringing.

I get that the claims of patents are supposedly very specific, and what I'm asking is if someone can actually explain why and how this particular patent has anything non-obvious in its claims (without all the ridiculous patent jargon).

I've just read claim 19 about 5 times. I also studied Figure 5, which seems to lay out the process in a way that's a little easier to understand.

I have absolutely no idea how what is described in claim 19 is not the "idea" of inertial/bounce-back scrolling.

As far as I can understand, the layperson's explanation of claim 19 goes something like this: drag some content on a touchscreen at the speed that the dragging finger is moving, once you hit the end of the scrollable range, start slowing down the speed at which the item moves, and show a different background to make it clear you've reached the end of the list, once the finger releases move the list back into place.

I'm trying sentence by sentence to translate the words in the patent claim to english that I can understand. And it sounds to me like this is the general idea of this method of scrolling. There are no specifics, no specific easing algorithms, no specific method of tracking the finger's movement, no method of actually implementing this at all.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#96

Post by WildUtah » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 5:09 AM UTC

veemjeem wrote: post #88

doktrin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad to see someone highlight the fact that design patents are inherently illogical, and in fact run altogether counter to the purpose of the patent system. Too often this is obscured, and/or all patents are lumped together as being generally awful. I personally do not ascribe to the notion that all patents should be outright abolished. Design patents, however, should simply not exist. Rounded corners, rectangles…

What types of protection do you suggest a country implement to protect design/form? Trademark, copyright, and trade dress protection will not cover "design objects". If Louis Vuitton were to come out with a new fall handbag, what would they use to protect Gucci from duplicating their design and selling it under Gucci's brand?

Fashion items, along with things like recipes and the plots of novels, are categorically excluded from patent protection, including design patents. You can copy that handbag all you want, as long as you don't violate the trademark on the label.

Software, being a fundamentally creative enterprise, should be included. It doesn't fit into the patent system for the same reason that granting a monopoly on a plot twist makes no sense.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#97

Post by glhaynes » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 3:36 PM UTC

dougmccune wrote: post #95

lines wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When reading patents, only the claims matter. In this case, anything that matches claim 19, which is anything that does bounce-back scrolling the way iOS does it, is infringing.

I get that the claims of patents are supposedly very specific, and what I'm asking is if someone can actually explain why and how this particular patent has anything non-obvious in its claims (without all the ridiculous patent jargon). I've just read claim 19 about 5 times. I also studied Figure 5, which seems to lay out the process in a way that's a little easier to understand. I have absolutely no idea how what is…

The first time I ever saw bounce-back scrolling, I was … taken aback. It seemed ugly for an instant [at least], I think because it so often showed the non-content zone so visibly. And maybe also because it was so very odd and unintuitive in relation to how computers tended to "feel" before then. (It seems obviously a great invention now.)

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#98

Post by Evbn » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 5:04 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #47

doktrin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad to see someone highlight the fact that design patents are inherently illogical, and in fact run altogether counter to the purpose of the patent system. Too often this is obscured, and/or all patents are lumped together as being generally awful. I personally do not ascribe to the notion that all patents should be outright abolished. Design patents, however, should simply not exist. Rounded corners, rectangles…

To be really pedantic about it, it's arguable that they are inventions (someone had to be the first to put four rocks in a row), but it's such a blindly obvious "invention" that it's insanely laughable to afford it any kind of protections at all.

Design patents aren't for inventions. They are like trademarks, ornamental figures that are protected from impersonation, sort of like a policemans uniform. Anything functional is expressly out of scope for a design patent.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#99

Post by Evbn » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #62

martythemaniak wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less. I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped…

"The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less." The patent system does not grant patents "willy nilly". Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is a (rather lengthy) review process, and it was followed. And if the ver…

The patent office explicitly leans upon the court system to validate its decisions. It doesn't do thorough content and substance reviews, it does procedural reviews. For a jury to trust blindly in a patent decision is fallacy, just as much trusting blindly in one sides lawyer.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#100

Post by ta12121 » Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 5:28 PM UTC

mratzloff wrote: post #67

ta12121 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many breakthroughs are invented multiple times before they stick. The patent doesn't belong to the one who made it popular, but the one who made it first.

If that applies here, please point to a piece of software that did that prior to the iPhone. I would be genuinely curious to find out about it.

MaxwellKennerly above provided references to prior art.

You disputed said references by claiming that other products copied Apple.

I pointed out that just because it was Apple who made these features popular, leading to other products copying them, doesn't mean that the features could not have been independently invented prior to Apple. I refer you to the original comment for the prior-art examples.