Unfortunately, most people here on HN seem think that patents are on ideas, not inventions.
Unfortunately, the Patent Office and the Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the patent court) agree with the people who think patents are on ideas, not inventions.
The PTO and courts actually prefer nothing but an idea in software, semiconductor, and user interface patents. “As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed. * * * Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.” [0]
But that's the state of patent practice in most subject areas now. And plenty of videos like 2001 have been used as prior art against user experience patents, since the patents usually include little or no technological content. Apple's billion dollar slide-to-unlock, rubber band, and various other patents don't describe even the kinetics of behavior in the patents much less the implementation.
Let's be honest now: how often do you see a patent and think to yourself, "Gosh, this patent is really complicated and the text is just not explanatory enough, I really wish I had some code or flowcharts to make it clearer!"
Most patents (software or otherwise) are of a complexity where a person of ordinary skill in the art can re-implement it from scratch with a fair level of fidelity by reading just the abstract. Triviality of implementation is not the same as obviousness. And just because software makes it very easy to go from idea to implementation does not mean it's not an invention.
how often do you see a patent and think to yourself, "Gosh, this patent is really complicated
Never. Software patents are almost always intended to monopolize some trivial and obvious function in such a way as to make the established users of that function pay a grifter who juked the Patent Office. There's no reason to patent anything complicated in software because you could just work around it.
Triviality of implementation is not the same as obviousness.
No, triviality of implementation is a superset of obviousness. There are obvious things that are nontrivial to implement, but there are no non-obvious things that are trivial to implement.
Let me try: First-to-invent vs. First-to-file deals with the specific case where two parties invent the same thing at roughly the same time and then file patents on it. The US was one of the few countries that was "first to invent". What that meant is, if you invent something, and then later somebody else invents the exact same thing independently, but the other party files the patent before you, you would still get the patent. As long as you had solid proof of the date of invention, invention of course.
So, if you invent something today and filed a patent next week, you could still get a patent over somebody else who independently thought of it and filed for a patent tomorrow, as long as you had proof. That's because you were the "first to invent".
Today, however, the other party would get the patent because they were "first to file", even if you have all the proof on the world showing you were first.
Seems unfair? It sort of is, so why the change? Because 1) it's what the rest of the world does, and 2) it happened so very infrequently and the hassle of resolving it was relatively so great, that the US optimized for the common case and got rid of it completely.
Note that prior art is entirely orthogonal to all this. It still applies to all patent applications as before. In this case, if prior art exists that pre-dates both parties' dates of invention / filing, both would end up without patents
Just like there are different ways to implement slide to unlock. Yet, I think Apple was claiming ownership over all the ways to do it (finger moving from one point to another to unlock the device, or something like that).
Again: read the claims. From a quick glance, it seems a single flexible screen is used within a case, and the same screen presents the main display as well as the side display through a window in the side of the case (presumably the flexible display is bent at the sides.) That seems like an interesting approach I have not seen discussed before, and I can see some advantages (fewer components at the cost of potentially wasted screen real estate.)
Also, that should make moot the discussions so far on this thread about fragility of the design and validity of this patent.
Maybe they have something more specific... but haven't we seen stuff like this every January for the past few years or more? I recall at least two major manufacturers demoing this.
When people _need_ a case to protect your product from breaking you have a problem. Until the iPhone 5s I never had a case I rarely dropped my phone. The 5s is like a bar of soap. If I were to use it without the case I doubt I'd get more than a few weeks without a smashed screen. It's a major usability issue imo.
My iPhone 4 would literally slide off slightly uneven tables all on its own given enough time (made a great bar trick). I'm not sure how you could have only started to have problems with the 5S.
Never buying a phone with a glass back ever again.
Honestly I miss plastic. So slandered, but it grips nicely, doesn't tend to shatter, and is really cheap to replace if it does break. It also takes more of the brunt of a fall than metal or glass, saving the glass on the other side more effectively.
I am unfortunately still using a glass backed phone (Nexus 4), though. Wish I'd waited for the Nexus 5.
I think you're missing my point. I've never needed a case for any phone until the 5s. I think the device is just so slippery it's almost unusable without a case. And for a company that prides itself on the design of it's products making it so slippery that a case is necessary is silly. Why spend so much money creating such a nice looking product when your customers have to cover it up?
I think we're talking past each other. There's nothing about the iPhone 5s I find especially slippery, but I need a case for purposes orthogonal to yours.
I use a snap on case so that if I drop the phone or set it on a table the contact/impact surface isn't the glass. If someone put raised rubber bumpers on the 8 corners of a phone it might negate the need for a case for the majority of users and preserve the aesthetics.
As mikepurvis said the phone doesn't come with a case and the one Apple offers is quite expensive. I've never used cases with my phones but the 5s really is so slippery I can't risk it.
I imagine cases will just have more clear portions, like otterbox cases and the like have. It'll definitely make it harder to produce a sufficiently rugged case, though.
Going to the moon was an obvious thing to want to do in the 1700s. That's not relevant to whether a particular type of rocket engine is patentable or not.
Patents cover inventions, not features the inventions are used to create.
And then if you get sued you point at your own prior art. You don't need to patent something to prove you invented it, you just have to publish your invention.
At any rate, historically Apple has been aggressive in its use of patents, so even were that necessary it's unlikely that'd be the main motivator for them.
Comments
Haha cool. They patended a Dribbble trend!
See the 'infinity screen' that was a bit of a thing on Dribbble a while back:
https://dribbble.com/shots/1190633-iPhone-6-Infinity
https://dribbble.com/shots/1188123-Adventurous-Reader-Mobile...
https://dribbble.com/shots/1191226-Iphone-6-Wrap-Around-scre...
https://dribbble.com/shots/1190796-Side-Screen
https://dribbble.com/shots/1192384-Iphone-6-infinity-screen-...
https://dribbble.com/shots/1191824-Translucent-Infinity-scre...
The patent was only recently granted, but it was filed on September 27, 2011 - quite a long time before any of those dribbble concepts.
Edit: link to actual patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...
Even worse, it's not just Photoshop mocks... Actual working hardware solutions were already demonstrated before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTu9omph9U8&feature=youtu.be
That patent is a bit sad, even if I consider the "hate the game not the players" principle.
And yet they can do this because it's first to file now in the U.S., not first to invent.
A picture of an idea or feature is not an invention. This is why the move 2001 is not "prior art".
The methods to bring an idea to fruition are an invention and are patentable.
They're quite different.
Unfortunately, most people here on HN seem think that patents are on ideas, not inventions.
Unfortunately, most people here on HN seem think that patents are on ideas, not inventions.
Unfortunately, the Patent Office and the Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the patent court) agree with the people who think patents are on ideas, not inventions.
The PTO and courts actually prefer nothing but an idea in software, semiconductor, and user interface patents. “As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed. * * * Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.” [0]
But that's the state of patent practice in most subject areas now. And plenty of videos like 2001 have been used as prior art against user experience patents, since the patents usually include little or no technological content. Apple's billion dollar slide-to-unlock, rubber band, and various other patents don't describe even the kinetics of behavior in the patents much less the implementation.
[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1229938.html
Let's be honest now: how often do you see a patent and think to yourself, "Gosh, this patent is really complicated and the text is just not explanatory enough, I really wish I had some code or flowcharts to make it clearer!"
Most patents (software or otherwise) are of a complexity where a person of ordinary skill in the art can re-implement it from scratch with a fair level of fidelity by reading just the abstract. Triviality of implementation is not the same as obviousness. And just because software makes it very easy to go from idea to implementation does not mean it's not an invention.
how often do you see a patent and think to yourself, "Gosh, this patent is really complicated
Never. Software patents are almost always intended to monopolize some trivial and obvious function in such a way as to make the established users of that function pay a grifter who juked the Patent Office. There's no reason to patent anything complicated in software because you could just work around it.
Triviality of implementation is not the same as obviousness.
No, triviality of implementation is a superset of obviousness. There are obvious things that are nontrivial to implement, but there are no non-obvious things that are trivial to implement.
>There are obvious things that are nontrivial to implement, but there are no non-obvious things that are trivial to implement
Diffie Hellman key exchange
RSA
They both have 1 or 2 liners in various languages, google them.
That is not what "first to file" means.
No? Have a link explaining it properly?
Let me try: First-to-invent vs. First-to-file deals with the specific case where two parties invent the same thing at roughly the same time and then file patents on it. The US was one of the few countries that was "first to invent". What that meant is, if you invent something, and then later somebody else invents the exact same thing independently, but the other party files the patent before you, you would still get the patent. As long as you had solid proof of the date of invention, invention of course.
So, if you invent something today and filed a patent next week, you could still get a patent over somebody else who independently thought of it and filed for a patent tomorrow, as long as you had proof. That's because you were the "first to invent".
Today, however, the other party would get the patent because they were "first to file", even if you have all the proof on the world showing you were first.
Seems unfair? It sort of is, so why the change? Because 1) it's what the rest of the world does, and 2) it happened so very infrequently and the hassle of resolving it was relatively so great, that the US optimized for the common case and got rid of it completely.
Note that prior art is entirely orthogonal to all this. It still applies to all patent applications as before. In this case, if prior art exists that pre-dates both parties' dates of invention / filing, both would end up without patents
Like this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Samsung_Youm_C...
The difference between features and inventions should be easy to grasp- there are different ways to implement a feature.
For instance, there are more than one type of internal combustion engine, and each type has been (quite legitimately) patented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine
Just like there are different ways to implement slide to unlock. Yet, I think Apple was claiming ownership over all the ways to do it (finger moving from one point to another to unlock the device, or something like that).
Again: read the claims. From a quick glance, it seems a single flexible screen is used within a case, and the same screen presents the main display as well as the side display through a window in the side of the case (presumably the flexible display is bent at the sides.) That seems like an interesting approach I have not seen discussed before, and I can see some advantages (fewer components at the cost of potentially wasted screen real estate.)
Also, that should make moot the discussions so far on this thread about fragility of the design and validity of this patent.
Maybe they have something more specific... but haven't we seen stuff like this every January for the past few years or more? I recall at least two major manufacturers demoing this.
And now you can break your screen whichever way you drop your phone.
So, basically, any phone case can't be used.
Hopefully the unobtanium glass screens will be in production by then so it won't matter so much.
When people _need_ a case to protect your product from breaking you have a problem. Until the iPhone 5s I never had a case I rarely dropped my phone. The 5s is like a bar of soap. If I were to use it without the case I doubt I'd get more than a few weeks without a smashed screen. It's a major usability issue imo.
My iPhone 4 would literally slide off slightly uneven tables all on its own given enough time (made a great bar trick). I'm not sure how you could have only started to have problems with the 5S.
Never buying a phone with a glass back ever again.
The glass gripped to my hand better than the metal but I did have the uneven table issue.
Honestly I miss plastic. So slandered, but it grips nicely, doesn't tend to shatter, and is really cheap to replace if it does break. It also takes more of the brunt of a fall than metal or glass, saving the glass on the other side more effectively.
I am unfortunately still using a glass backed phone (Nexus 4), though. Wish I'd waited for the Nexus 5.
I didn't need a case for my phone before I had children.
Your use case isn't everyone's.
I think you're missing my point. I've never needed a case for any phone until the 5s. I think the device is just so slippery it's almost unusable without a case. And for a company that prides itself on the design of it's products making it so slippery that a case is necessary is silly. Why spend so much money creating such a nice looking product when your customers have to cover it up?
I think we're talking past each other. There's nothing about the iPhone 5s I find especially slippery, but I need a case for purposes orthogonal to yours.
I got your point - I just don't understand how anyone can not find that device slippery! :)
I don't find it slippery.
Isn't that essentially what bumpers on cars are for? To prevent the product from breaking?
Yeah, but they come with it.
It's not something you have to remember to pick up and install yourself on the way home from the dealership.
I use a snap on case so that if I drop the phone or set it on a table the contact/impact surface isn't the glass. If someone put raised rubber bumpers on the 8 corners of a phone it might negate the need for a case for the majority of users and preserve the aesthetics.
As mikepurvis said the phone doesn't come with a case and the one Apple offers is quite expensive. I've never used cases with my phones but the 5s really is so slippery I can't risk it.
I imagine cases will just have more clear portions, like otterbox cases and the like have. It'll definitely make it harder to produce a sufficiently rugged case, though.
Wrap around screens have been speculated about for a long time, how is putting buttons on it non obvious?
Going to the moon was an obvious thing to want to do in the 1700s. That's not relevant to whether a particular type of rocket engine is patentable or not.
Patents cover inventions, not features the inventions are used to create.
It may be obvious, but the thinking is, surely, that if they don't patent it someone else will.
And then if you get sued you point at your own prior art. You don't need to patent something to prove you invented it, you just have to publish your invention.
At any rate, historically Apple has been aggressive in its use of patents, so even were that necessary it's unlikely that'd be the main motivator for them.
And so the circle is complete. From patenting something because it's not obvious to so things being so obvious we'd better patent them.
I'm not defending the practice, just explaining.
Is there a good reason to assume this would only be used defensively?
Is there a good reason to assume this would only be used defensively?
It's Apple, so no.