The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release.
Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff) and the claims (which describe what is protected). Here is what this patent is actually about:
1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display: displaying a portion of an electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical position in the electronic document; displaying a vertical bar on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document, the vertical bar displayed proximate to a vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein: the vertical bar has a vertical position on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document that corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed portion of the electronic document; and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar; detecting a movement of an object in a direction on the displayed portion of the electronic document; in response to detecting the movement: scrolling the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in the direction of movement of the object so that a new portion of the electronic document is displayed, moving the vertical bar to a new vertical position such that the new vertical position corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed new portion of the electronic document, and maintaining the vertical bar proximate to the vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document; and in response to a predetermined condition being met, ceasing to display the vertical bar while continuing to display the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical extent that is less than a vertical extent of the electronic document.
Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it.
If I were Google, though, I wouldn't care about this patent. Why not? Because of the words "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply.
I am annoyed by patents as much as the next guy - more, even, because I deal with them every day - but this kind of breathlessness helps absolutely no one.
IANAL, but I believe that prior art can still kill a patent. The patented stuff is still supposed to be the inventor's original work. (The patent office may not be terribly diligent about searching for prior art, and establishing prior art can still be a massively expensive pain in the ass... but that's another rant.)
What first-to-file certainly did change is what happens when two claimants try to file a patent on something that wasn't prior art. It used to be that the patent office looked through the inventors' records to try to establish who was the first to invent the non-public technology; now, it's just the one who was first with the patent office paperwork.
First-to-file != prior art. It just means if there is a dispute between two parties A and B, A invented the technique first but B filed it first, the law now states that B owns the patent.
This does not mean that I can now go and claim that using electricity to create logical meaning thus creating a computing machine is patentable (even if nobody patented it before)
> Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it.
Or, anyone who has used the default Nokia S60 browser (such as on the E7x series devices).
Today a lot of mainstream media published articles along the same line on how Apple's new patents will kill competition; which makes me think, they do it to push the aapl share price higher in the lack of any major apple product announcements in the current quarter.
“the lack of any major apple product announcements in the current quarter.”
Apple fourth fiscal quarter of 2012 started in the last week of June and will conclude in the last week of September.
WWDC usually falls in FQ3, one month a go Apple released new notebooks during the event. That was good timing, it means Apple will be able to keep up with demand when the Back to School crowd starts shopping.
Mountain Lion will be released within the next two weeks, which will also boost Mac sales.
The next hardware announcement will be no earlier than September (new iPhone), but that will probably still be in FQ4.
They do it because hyperventilating articles get clicks. Just look at this submission -- how many of us clicked it just to see what astonishing, competition-destroying patent Apple was granted?
Oh, a scrollbar that disappears. Okay...
Of course they piss away credibility doing that, but credibility seems to hold little value these days.
> "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply.
Interesting to note that on OS/X Lion, the indicator DOES function as a scrollbar. And when it doesn't on IOS, it bugs me (try flicking through a very long document with the non-grabable indicator on iOS). Sounds like Apple has been granted a patent for a less-usable variant of an existing technology.
Also of note is that most disappearing scroll indicators in Android are scroll bars; if you can drag on the indicator before it disappears, you can use it to quickly scroll large distances in a big document or list.
FFS I was hoping VanL's comment was here. The article starts of with a "the world is fucking burning, motherfucker, build your nuklear shelter in the woods! NOW!"
Honestly, is this patent any different than shit we've seen over the last 5 years from many different companies?
Oh boy, more litigation, more fees, etc, etc. I just want google to get pissed enough to start suing for map-reduce.
Now having said all that "and the vertical bar does not act as a scroll bar" -- that is a obvious improvement, you cannot claim that it took years of research to figure this shit out. This will not hold up in court. It will, however, cost lots of $$$$.
Comments
The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release.
Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff) and the claims (which describe what is protected). Here is what this patent is actually about:
1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display: displaying a portion of an electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical position in the electronic document; displaying a vertical bar on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document, the vertical bar displayed proximate to a vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein: the vertical bar has a vertical position on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document that corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed portion of the electronic document; and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar; detecting a movement of an object in a direction on the displayed portion of the electronic document; in response to detecting the movement: scrolling the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in the direction of movement of the object so that a new portion of the electronic document is displayed, moving the vertical bar to a new vertical position such that the new vertical position corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed new portion of the electronic document, and maintaining the vertical bar proximate to the vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document; and in response to a predetermined condition being met, ceasing to display the vertical bar while continuing to display the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical extent that is less than a vertical extent of the electronic document.
Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it.
If I were Google, though, I wouldn't care about this patent. Why not? Because of the words "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply.
I am annoyed by patents as much as the next guy - more, even, because I deal with them every day - but this kind of breathlessness helps absolutely no one.
It will probably be invalidated anyway since there is prior art. I had a document reader on my old Zaurus that did exactly this.
But didn't the US government just change patent law to first-to-file?
Prior art still applies, with two exceptions if the inventor discloses the information and then seeks a patent within one year.
http://ocpatentlawyer.com/patent-act-first-to-file-and-its-e...
I believe you are correct, but it only applies to patents that are filed after 3/16/13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_inve...
IANAL, but I believe that prior art can still kill a patent. The patented stuff is still supposed to be the inventor's original work. (The patent office may not be terribly diligent about searching for prior art, and establishing prior art can still be a massively expensive pain in the ass... but that's another rant.)
What first-to-file certainly did change is what happens when two claimants try to file a patent on something that wasn't prior art. It used to be that the patent office looked through the inventors' records to try to establish who was the first to invent the non-public technology; now, it's just the one who was first with the patent office paperwork.
First-to-file != prior art. It just means if there is a dispute between two parties A and B, A invented the technique first but B filed it first, the law now states that B owns the patent.
This does not mean that I can now go and claim that using electricity to create logical meaning thus creating a computing machine is patentable (even if nobody patented it before)
> Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it.
Or, anyone who has used the default Nokia S60 browser (such as on the E7x series devices).
Probably. I approach patents with the default position that any given patent is either invalid or irrelevant. 99.5% of the time I am right.
Today a lot of mainstream media published articles along the same line on how Apple's new patents will kill competition; which makes me think, they do it to push the aapl share price higher in the lack of any major apple product announcements in the current quarter.
“the lack of any major apple product announcements in the current quarter.”
Apple fourth fiscal quarter of 2012 started in the last week of June and will conclude in the last week of September.
WWDC usually falls in FQ3, one month a go Apple released new notebooks during the event. That was good timing, it means Apple will be able to keep up with demand when the Back to School crowd starts shopping.
Mountain Lion will be released within the next two weeks, which will also boost Mac sales.
The next hardware announcement will be no earlier than September (new iPhone), but that will probably still be in FQ4.
They do it because hyperventilating articles get clicks. Just look at this submission -- how many of us clicked it just to see what astonishing, competition-destroying patent Apple was granted?
Oh, a scrollbar that disappears. Okay...
Of course they piss away credibility doing that, but credibility seems to hold little value these days.
> "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply.
Interesting to note that on OS/X Lion, the indicator DOES function as a scrollbar. And when it doesn't on IOS, it bugs me (try flicking through a very long document with the non-grabable indicator on iOS). Sounds like Apple has been granted a patent for a less-usable variant of an existing technology.
Also of note is that most disappearing scroll indicators in Android are scroll bars; if you can drag on the indicator before it disappears, you can use it to quickly scroll large distances in a big document or list.
I was thinking the same thing. But my current phone does not do that any more. I liked that feature. Maybe now Google will be forced to bring it. :)
How can you possible be granted a patent for the removal of a function from an existing idea?
Can I take away the headlights from a car and patent it as something new?
headlights of a headlights-less car probably qualify.
FFS I was hoping VanL's comment was here. The article starts of with a "the world is fucking burning, motherfucker, build your nuklear shelter in the woods! NOW!"
Honestly, is this patent any different than shit we've seen over the last 5 years from many different companies?
Oh boy, more litigation, more fees, etc, etc. I just want google to get pissed enough to start suing for map-reduce.
Now having said all that "and the vertical bar does not act as a scroll bar" -- that is a obvious improvement, you cannot claim that it took years of research to figure this shit out. This will not hold up in court. It will, however, cost lots of $$$$.