USPTO Calls Apple's "Rubber Banding" Patent Invalid

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bloob

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2012
632
0
18,980
0
Things like this should not be patentable!
I could see one implementation of it being patentable, but the idea itself certainly should not be.
 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]house70[/nom]A ray of light through the iCloud...[/citation]

The lands are darkening, and a shadow is growing in the East. There is evil in Mordor that does not sleep... Oh wait, that's West. Must be the iCloud. =]
 

murzar

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2012
164
0
18,680
0
From what I read.. most of Apple's case revolved around this and the rounded corners design.

The more I read about this case, the more angry I get.
 

svdb

Distinguished
Apr 24, 2009
182
0
18,680
0
In some European countries software (features) cannot be patented because it is believed that otherwise a competitor would not be able to propose a similar feature that is implemented better. They only allow the source code to be protected by copy-right to prevent straight theft.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
this whole lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous in itself and for once i have to agree with apple, the whole bounce thing, vs microsofts stop and androids color flare up.

one thing i am famous for saying it there's a hundred ways to do something and still get the same outcome!
fighting over how the result happens in terminating a page seems as ridiculous as the twix commercial of flow vs cascade as can be seen here.
TWIX - "Ideologies" Commercial - Extended Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr6LkOU6oT4
 

overlandpark4me

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2007
51
0
18,630
0
What I find humorous is how that company goes around and trumpets how green they are, markets to tree huggers, the Aber Fitch crowd, etc. and the like, but ships the jobs to China. Low paying jobs, suicides, and beatings by guards, just to name a few. What they are doing is charging more for a product with the false impression it is better built because it is an "Apple", when in fact is is coming out of the same factories everything else comes out of. For what they charge, they could have had them assembled in the US, garnered some good PR, and moved on. Instead, they are just as full of hypocrisy as everyone else, but charge more. I'm having deja,deja,deja,............................
 

svdb

Distinguished
Apr 24, 2009
182
0
18,680
0
"Even a 'final Office action' is not final at all." Is it because people working in the patent office don't understand English or because they have no sense of logic? :)
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
"Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy process before it may or may not be invalidated," said IP analyst Florian Mueller. "There can be more than one non-final Office action. Even a 'final Office action' is not final at all."
Stop quoting Florian Mueller and his (Anti)FOSSpatents blog. He's not an expert, he's not a lawyer or even paralegal, or analyst of any kind. HE'S A PAID SHILL, WHO ONLY SPREADS FUD.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37
[citation][nom]svdb[/nom]"Even a 'final Office action' is not final at all." Is it because people working in the patent office don't understand English or because they have no sense of logic?[/citation]
Yes....
 
[citation][nom]Bloob[/nom]Things like this should not be patentable!I could see one implementation of it being patentable, but the idea itself certainly should not be.[/citation]
It's called overshoot - a fundamental behavior of a second order linear system. Tune such a system so it's slightly underdamped and you get exactly this behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_%28signal%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Second_order_under-damped_response.svg&page=1

It's blindingly obvious to any engineer who's ever taken a control systems course. There is absolutely no way this patent ever should have been granted. The only reason it hadn't been implemented in UIs before was because we didn't have enough spare CPU/GPU power until recently to splurge on animated frills like it.

Mimicking real-life behaviors on a computer should not be patentable, period. You can patent a way to implement that behavior if it's sufficiently complex or innovative (e.g. Apple's method of quickly creating rounded rectangles on the original Mac), but there is no innovation in simply carrying over an idea from the real world onto a computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS