US Patent Office Invalidates Apple's "Rubber Banding" Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Patent Office Invalidates Apple's "Rubber Banding" Patent

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 23, 2012 @03:58AM from the kill-software-patents dept.

bhagwad writes "The patent that was the cause of so much grief to Samsung in the recently concluded trial with Apple has been tentatively invalidated by the USPTO. The challenge was filed anonymously, but it obviously could have been filed by any smartphone manufacturer. Will this have an effect on further proceedings in the case or perhaps more importantly on the inevitable appeal?"

213 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Finally by RenderSeven · 2012-10-23 04:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Signs of life from the USPTO
1. Re:Finally by jkrise · 2012-10-23 04:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  This is what the rascal Florian Mueller has to say: Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time).
  Apple has many patents in play against Android. It doesn't matter in a strategic sense if some of them, or even many of them, get invalidated. It just needs to enforce enough of them to ensure product differentiation. The '381 patent covers a signature element of the iOS touchscreen user interface, and Apple is going to fight hard to keep it alive. But at the end of the day it's just one of many patents-in-suit.
  Someone needs to whip this scoundrel a 1000 lashes on his bare buttocks until he understands what shit he is spouting as a so-called 'expert' on patents.
  
  --
  If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
2. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is what the rascal Florian Mueller has to say:
  I stopped reading there, anything Florian Mueller has to say is irrelevant.
3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Darn it! I had my bet on finding life on Mars first. Should have figured the USPTO exists to make other people money.
4. Re:Finally by MightyMartian · 2012-10-23 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And rather too late. Apple clearly knows that it's idiotic patents won't hold up in the long run. What counts is that a competitor was hamstrung for some period of time. The object of the game isn't to ban products; Apple knows perfectly well that sooner or later the bulk of its patents are going to be rejected. The point is to cripple competition just long enough to release its own products.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
5. Re:Finally by RenderSeven · 2012-10-23 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  Yes and no. Samsung hasnt been all that hampered and they've both landed a few blows. Until that $1000000000 check clears I wouldnt say Samsung has been actually hampered, and who can say how much all the press has helped (or maybe hurt). Perhaps Apple was foolish to go after Samsung first, rather than a smaller also-ran player just to build up some case law against a less-capable and less-funded legal team?
6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  Damned if you do... damned if you don't.
  If they go after the small fries, it will be years down the road before the will affect their main competitor (Samsung, at this point). During that time S3, Note2, etc will be "stealing" customers from Apple.
  On the flip side, they go after the big-boy first to stop the leak while it's small, but have a bigger fight on their hands.
  I think they saw what happened last time (Mac vs PC), saw weapons they could use (Patents) and went with it. In one respect, it makes sense. All's fair in war after all. In the other sense, it's easy to lose face due to going to the dark side (Lawyers, lack innovation, spending more money on lawyers than new products, etc).
  Personally, I think this will hasten their slide back into mediocrity (further into?). The conflicting needs to 'innovate' (Siri, Maps, Mini) while also protecting their cash cows have affected their ability to do anything of notice. Everything they are doing right now is "me-too"
7. Re:Finally by jbolden · 2012-10-23 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  That would be the strategy if the goal was a slow win of money from Android. Apple genuinely believes Android infringed and their primary goal was to force Android to start forking their look and feel design away from Apple. That's likely been achieved as the systems are forking more and there is less copying.
8. Re:Finally by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-10-23 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is what the rascal Florian Mueller has to say:
  I stopped reading there, anything Florian Mueller has to say is irrelevant.
  Can somebody please offer a cluebat to the BBC, who keep quoting him as though anything he has to say is worthwhile? Thank you.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
9. Re:Finally by Tough+Love · 2012-10-23 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Apple genuinely believes Android infringed...
  Apple does not genuinely believe anything except that it must defend its margins by fair means or foul.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
10. Re:Finally by DragonWriter · 2012-10-23 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps Apple was foolish to go after Samsung first
  Apple actually went after HTC first. They went after Samsung second (but before the HTC case was resolved.)
11. Re:Finally by Zordak · 2012-10-23 06:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Signs of life from the USPTO
  This rejection means nothing. Something like 90% of first office actions are rejections. That's just how the USPTO does business, and it's how they've done business for a long time. Even a "final" rejection isn't final. It just means you have to pay more money to keep arguing with the examiner. And you can keep doing that for as long as you're willing to continue paying the fee to go "one more round."
  This is a very run-of-the-mill rejection. The court will probably just ignore it. Until the patent is for-real-finally rejected by the patent office (meaning it's been more than six months since the examiner issued an office action and Apple hasn't responded), the patent is strongly presumed to be valid.
  This ends the educational portion of today's episode of Slashdot. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled trolling, flame-baiting, karma-whoring, and Microsoft-bashing.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
12. Re:Finally by shugah · 2012-10-23 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  While I generally disregard FloMo as a paid shill, he is right that the patent invalidation process is long and far from predictable. However, I expect that on this particular patent (and additionally on the multi-heuristic search patent) prior art and obviousness will prevail. These are rubbish patents.
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
13. Re:Finally by shugah · 2012-10-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is a 2-way street. I'd imagine Samsung is going after an injunction on the FRAND patents in time to hit the iPhone 5 for the Christmas shopping season.
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
14. Re:Finally by jbolden · 2012-10-23 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Sure because after all, Apple is a well known for being a bland company with no strong opinions that's just interested in quick profits and not a long term strategy.
  Why are you so nuts when it comes to Apple? Apple has clear speeches and policies about why they do things. Their actions are consistent with their claims. So generally one would take what they say at face value. The fact you may disagree with their policies doesn't mean they disagree with their policies.
15. Re:Finally by Tough+Love · 2012-10-23 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  Apple is a morally bankrupt organization. The day it became apparent to all was the day they had their San Jose police friends break down the front door of a journalist. Apple disgusts me. Any further questions?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
16. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  For what it's worth the BBC was for some time heavily accused of bias towards Microsoft and was even investigated over it. It ultimately came to a head when they made iPlayer Windows WMV DRM only meaning it would only work on Windows for a while. The investigations though pertained more to procurement and why they were so quick to buy Microsoft, and why they ignored alternatives without even investigating them.
  Honestly, the only reason the BBC quotes Florian Mueller on anything is because technology is one area that it's most certainly never managed to shake bias. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I suspect the reason they cling on to Florian (who has done much shilling for Microsoft over the years) is because Microsoft still have a non-trivial amount of influence at the BBC- this would similarly explain why they got the odd positive story about Windows Phone and how succesful/potentially succesful it may be whilst everyone else is laughing about the fact it's marketshare is declining before it even broke 5% or whatever.
  Hundreds of people have pointed out the problem with Florian Mueller to the BBC and instead of dropping him, the best they have done is add in the brief mention that he "sometimes does work for Google's competitors" or whatever useless drivel they now stick at the end of their stories.
  I'm a fairly strong supporter of the BBC, but technology is one area it needs a severe kick up the ass. Rory-Cellan Jones needs to fuck back off to politics or whatever the hell it was he did before they dumped him in technology because he was, at the time, the least-useless technology correspondent they could find which tells you about the quality of candidates they had lingering round internally for the role
  They really need to sort it out, but the BBC, for all it's good, is as much part of the UK's institutional clique as politics is. Many well known BBC presenters went to the same schools and were good friends with many of the most prominent names in politics. It's all part of one big elitist circle jerk and THAT is why Rory-Cellan Jones et. al. got given the role, rather than employing someone semi-competent from outside.
17. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  He offers some context as to how this action fits into the full scheme of how to invalidate this patent, which is useful information, and also gives some context as to to how important keeping this patent alive will be for Apple in the long run (hint: not very), but that the short term is what matters in this case because the Samsung trial is ongoing right now, and could theoretically conclude before the patent validity is finally determined, as well as hold Samsung off from implementing competing features, giving Apple that much more lead time over Android regarding this feature which helps differentiate their product in the short term (read: what matters most).
  So, while he gives useful information as to both the patent reexamination and appeals process and the scope of Apple's patent portfolio in the Samsung trial, you give a flippant response that really doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
18. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Signs of evil life, considering how much brutality they still inflict on us. One less act of dominance over society(or rather, not one more) just means they are still responsible for nearly 10,000,000 violent restrictions on production that threatens peaceful producers with harm should they not comply with these mandates.
19. Re:Finally by jbolden · 2012-10-23 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  They disgust you so what? That doesn't change the facts of what they do.
  As for busting down the door of a journalist, Jason Chen had a warrant issued against him by a judge for theft. I happen to agree that the judge never should have issued the warrant against Chen under the Privacy Protection Act . But the party responsible here for violating the law is the state of California. It is not Apple's job to enforce the Privacy Protection Act.
20. Re:Finally by shugah · 2012-10-23 06:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  By refusing to negotiate and pursuing a litigation strategy on the FRAND patents, Apple is leaving themselves open to a far more damaging counter offensive. On the core telecom patents that define the 3G and 4G (LTE) wireless network standards, Samsung is a middle weight contributor of IP. The heavyweights of the LTE IP are LG, Qualcomm, Intel (via InterDigital), Motorola (Google) and Nokia. Additional core telecom IP portfolios are held by Ericsson, RIM, Huawei Corp and HTC.
  
  Qualcomm, Ericsson, RIM, Intel, Huawei and Nokia are unlikely to join any IP counter offensive against Apple because they don't sell smartphone handsets, license technology to both sides or benefit from suppressing Android (Nokia/RIM). But LG, Motorola (Google) and HTC have a vested interest in defending Android and between them have substantial IP portfolios. It's important to note that these companies can not refuse to license their Standard Essential Patents, however Apple has so far refused to negotiate and has pursued a litigation strategy. Apple is not totally without ammunition in the telcomm patents; they were part of the coalition that purchased Nortel's IP, but most of the Nortel portfolio was already cross licensed to other standards contributors so are more useful for defensive purposes. Cross license agreements do not however protect Apple from having to negotiate FRAND license fees with the appropriate patent holders. If they refuse to negotiate, injunctions are in the future.
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
21. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  What he said in this case is mostly correct. At least the first paragraph is pretty much dead on. This patent is many years away from even potentially being invalidated.
22. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why were Apple personnel allowed to participate in the search/raid?
  Frankly I blame Apple AND California.
23. Re:Finally by MrDoh! · 2012-10-23 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Very likely, but will they be in place for 2012 xmas shopping season? These things tend to drag on forever.
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
24. Re:Finally by MightyMartian · 2012-10-23 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Oh give me a break. Apple is a for-profit company. That means it will use whatever tools are its disposal to disadvantage competition. This whole notion that Apple is trying to help the industry be more innovative, that somehow it is being pragmatic in its lawsuits based on very dubious patents that are very unlikely with withstand scrutiny (as is now happening), is total bunk. The very fact that Apple must certainly know how iffy these patents are belies your claim. The whole purpose is to slow adoption of close competitors. As I said, even when Apple loses due to appeal and/or because the patent is reviewed/rejected, they still win, because they have managed to slow or outright halt adoption of competing devices.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
25. Re:Finally by shugah · 2012-10-23 08:46 · Score: 2
  
  Many years is also an exaggeration. If we take Oracle v. Google as an example, Google asked the USPTO to reexamine Oracles asserted patents in February 2011. By April 2012 when the trial started, all but 2 of Oracles claims had been invalidated by the USPTO. 14 months is not many years.
  
  The process is far from over or certain, but as far as we know, we are dealing with a single patent and 2 claims, where Oracle v. Google (by the time the claims has been narrowed) dealt with (I think) 7 different patents and 20 some odd claims.
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
26. Re:Finally by HiThere · 2012-10-23 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  You wrong him. He does understand. He just doesn't care as long as he gets paid.
  P.S.: Most of what it was reported that he said (by the parent) was correct, even though the weighing he gave to the various pieces is readily disputable. I'm sorry that it's unpleasant, but it's true. The USPTO is a *huge* obstacle to anyone who wants to innovate, even if they have deep pockets. If they don't ... when the trolls decide to notice you you've got to either find a buyer with deep pockets or die.
  That said, AFAICT all of the patents being applied against Android are weak and flimsy. But IANAL, and certainly not a patent lawyer. And I also rely on second hand reports, as I refuse to read patents (danger of triple damages). But when he's describing what I interpret as the malignant bias of the US patent system (not just the USPTO), he's pretty much accurate.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
27. Re:Finally by shugah · 2012-10-23 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  This is true, but if the Android handset makers play their cards right, they can hit Apple with serial injunctions. Samsung, then Motorola, then LG, then HTC ...
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
28. Re:Finally by HiThere · 2012-10-23 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  Apple is a corporation. Corporations do not have beliefs. Steve Jobs believed that Android stole their look and feel from Apple. (Or possible he believed that it stole something else, it's hard to be certain.) Apple accomodated Jobs belief. Perhaps the current CEO also believes that. Perhaps he's just being loyal to the memory of Jobs. It's hard to tell.
  Their lawyers probably don't believe that anything was stolen. The engineers probably don't believe that anything was stolen. In these cases though we're talking about a large number of people who probably have varying beliefs. And the lawyers probably don't care. It's their job to fight the battles their client chooses. They don't need to care that their client is being unjust and unfair. In fact, IIUC, their code of ethics says that they are supposed to behave as if the client were in the right whether they believe that he is or not. Which is a real bonus to the wealthy who are unethical, but also to wealthy monomaniacs. It's hard to be sure which is being dealt with here. However, even though the corporation is officially the one paying for their services, they represent the CEO, whether it's in the best interests of the corporation or not. (If it isn't, the board of directors is supposed to replace him, not the lawyers to second-guess him.)
  P.S.: I don't believe that this system is fair, just, honorable, proper, or efficient. But I believe that my descriptions are accurate.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
29. Re:Finally by ngg · 2012-10-23 09:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Jason Chen was also stretching the concept of responsible journalism pretty thin. His methods (extortion and dealing in stolen property) might be defensible for an expose on, e.g., massive government corruption (where the public interest in stopping an ongoing crime vastly outweighs the crime of stealing documents). But let's not forget that the story he was breaking was what the next version of some company's fucking phone was going to look like. I may not agree with Apple's method of retrieving the phone, but let's not get carried away and act like Mr. Chen was some kind of folk hero. There were no angels in the Gawker/Apple saga.
30. Re:Finally by jbolden · 2012-10-23 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Good point.
31. Re:Finally by jbolden · 2012-10-23 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is a corporation. Corporations do not have beliefs
  I disagree. Human societies depend on a tremendous amount of shared culture to function. Corporations are highly organized human societies.
  As for the rest regarding the lawyers. I don't know what council thinks. That being said, behavior changes belief so I'd tend to think that more likely than not having argued this case and thought about it deeply their beliefs have come into alignment with Job's beliefs.
  As for lawyer ethics, I'd like to see greater penalties for lawyers bringing forth frivolous claims. The same way Sarbanes-Oxley made accountants partially responsible for the truth of what they were reporting.
32. Re:Finally by jbolden · 2012-10-23 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  It is not uncommon for the victim of a crime to be allowed to help recover their stolen items.
  For example if you were mugged and the mugger was caught a block down you would be involved in the "that's my watch", "that's my wallet", "no that pen is his".
33. Re:Finally by incer · 2012-10-23 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not all is fair in war, and this is not war
34. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Sure because after all, Apple is a well known for being a bland company with no strong opinions that's just interested in quick profits and not a long term strategy.
  Why are you so nuts when it comes to Apple? Apple has clear speeches and policies about why they do things. Their actions are consistent with their claims. So generally one would take what they say at face value. The fact you may disagree with their policies doesn't mean they disagree with their policies.
  Yeah. They they make clear statements about stuff like how phones shouldn't have 3G, shouldn't do multitasking, etc. Then, they turn around the next day and claim that devices should. I think Apple is suffering from Romnesia.
35. Re:Finally by John+Hasler · 2012-10-23 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > This rejection means nothing.
  It means quite a bit: an invalidated patent cannot be the basis for an injunction.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
36. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  What you said is true of initial examination. However, this case is in reexam. Once the examiner issues a final rejection the applicant can appeal but he cannot pay to continue with the examiner (RCE)
37. Re:Finally by mjwx · 2012-10-23 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Jason Chen was also stretching the concept of responsible journalism pretty thin. His methods (extortion and dealing in stolen property) might be defensible for an expose on, e.g., massive government corruption (where the public interest in stopping an ongoing crime vastly outweighs the crime of stealing documents). But let's not forget that the story he was breaking was what the next version of some company's fucking phone was going to look like. I may not agree with Apple's method of retrieving the phone, but let's not get carried away and act like Mr. Chen was some kind of folk hero. There were no angels in the Gawker/Apple saga.
  2 wrongs != right.
  
  Chen may have been in the wrong and yes, I dont think much of Gawker's standard of journalism but Apple did something far worse. Apple had every right to have Chen charged but had no right to have the police break down his door and seize his equipment. Isn't there something in the US constitution about "unreasonable search and seizure". Even if what Chen was doing was against the law, does he not still have rights?
  
  Just because Chen did wrong, does not make what Apple did right in any way. You should have learned in kindergarten that "but Janie hit me first" is no excuse for punching Janie in the head until she's unconscious.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
38. Re:Finally by mjwx · 2012-10-23 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Qualcomm, Ericsson, RIM, Intel, Huawei and Nokia are unlikely to join any IP counter offensive against Apple because they don't sell smartphone handsets, license technology to both sides or benefit from suppressing Android (Nokia/RIM).
  
  Qualcomm, Intel, Huawei or Ericsson will not benefit from suppressing Android. In fact they will be harmed by it as they all supply parts to Android manufacturers which makes up several times the volume Apple buys (given how vertically integrated Apple is). Also, Huawei sells Android handsets at the low and high end (and cheaper than Samsung/HTC/Moto) so Huawei are firmly on the side of Android. Qualcomm and Intel wont be a part of any Apple or Android offensive unless pushed but if push does come to shove, they will be firmly on the side of Android.
  
  Apple will have very, very few allies, maybe RIM (who is dying) and Microsoft/Nokia (who are quite capricious and enjoy stabbing partners in the back, it would be ironic if they partnered with Apple).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
39. Re:Finally by shugah · 2012-10-23 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  I could be more clear, I left the "either" out of the sentence, but I only singled out Nokia and RIM as benefiting from suppressing Android. Qualcomm and Intel won't likely be joining either side of the dispute because they license and cross license LTE, WiMAX, HSPA, 3G and GSM technology to/from all smartphone manufacturers. They have more to gain from seeing the smartphone market grow, which would undoubtedly be hurt by more litigation. Apple (AFAIK) doesn't make its cellular/broadband chipsets - it purchases them form Intel and Qualcomm. Ericsson sold its stake in the Sony Ericsson JV and appears to be exiting the handset market, so is likely either neutral towards Google/Android/Apple or hostile towards both Apple and Google due to the impact both Android and iPhones had on their Symbian based products. I wasn't aware the Huawei sold handsets, but if this is true it would potentially put them on the Android side, it depends on how much they earn from licensing their RAND IP.
  
  Nokia is now pretty much a Microsoft proxy and as an also ran in the market place, can only benefit from being a spoiler. RIM is less likely to play the spoiler, but more likely to (eventually) sell its smartphone IP to the highest bidder. .
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
40. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Huh?? I work in the profession and, I gotta tell you, I don't see anything factually incorrect -- or, for that matter, even controversial -- in the quoted passage. In fact, the quote is a more accurate representation of the issues at play than most of the rest of the postings here, or even original Slashdot story. Jeez, at least Mueller used the word "reexamination." When I read the original Slashdot story, I had no idea what the author was trying to say -- how does the PTO invalidate an issued patent? At least this Mueller fellow bothered to explain that Apple's claims had been rejected during the initial stages of a reexam -- something that, although not good for Apple, is, as Mueller correctly implies, neither out of the ordinary in such a prosecution, nor much of an indication of Apple's ultimate chance at success. Another embarrassingly dumb Slashdot patent story written by people who have no idea how patent law works.
  Furthermore, Mueller's comment about the importance of this one patent to Apple's overall IP strategy, while clearly his opinion, is also credible. Apple has a huge IP portfolio and, although context gives this one patent special significance, most people with a background in patent law would agree that its invalidation would hardly be a showstopper. You might not like the conclusion, but that doesn't justify shooting the messenger.
  Bottom line is that Slashdot needs fewer valueless comments that arbitrarily characterize, without explanation, more knowledgeable commentators as "so-called experts spouting shit." Is this grade school?
41. Re:Finally by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-10-24 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm allowed to be flippant where Florian's concerned. I used to work with him, and he was an arrogant, self-promoting dickhead back then, too.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
42. Re:Finally by fredthomsen · 2012-10-26 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  I will only consider it a sign of life if they reject the 1-click patent in its entirety.
43. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-26 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  I like amazon (I'm typing this on a Kindle), but agree completely, the one click patent is absurd.
44. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-27 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  Huawei doesn't sell smartphone handsets? And more to the point doesn't sell Android smartphone handsets? Please check your info!
Wooo by WillRobinson · 2012-10-23 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seen this on terminals long ago think they were zerox, while it didnt bounce it did behave like it had weight an friction. Oh I forgot "On a Cell Phone"
1. Re:Wooo by ibsteve2u · 2012-10-23 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Bugs Bunny did it a long time ago, making a hole out of nothing to pop into to get away from Elmer Fudd.
  
  --
  Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
2. Re:Wooo by EdIII · 2012-10-23 05:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It would be fitting to see Looney Tunes referenced in a patent office filing now wouldn't it?
3. Re:Wooo by jd2112 · 2012-10-23 07:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Done. Just filed a patent for "Method for walking on thin air by means of not looking down".
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
4. Re:Wooo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  The clit mouse on thinkpads did this long before the itouch
Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:05 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CsTH9S79qI&feature=player_detailpage#t=267s
I did it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:05 · Score: 0

I filed it.
Because it was stupid.
1. Re:I did it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  I filed it too.
Hate it by StripedCow · 2012-10-23 04:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

The annoying thing about it is, rubber banding works sometimes, but not always.
The rule seems to be that rubber banding is activated only when the display contains scrollable content.
They should make it behave the same way, regardless of whether the content is scrollable.
Geez... it really gets me irritated, such basic UI concept and they can't even get it right.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
1. Re:Hate it by berj · 2012-10-23 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  I'm confused. Why would there be scrolling semantics when there is no scrolling? Do you want to see scroll bars when there's no scrolling content too?
2. Re:Hate it by tomhath · 2012-10-23 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  It's like any other gesture. It works when you know exactly what to do in exactly the right context. But unless you know what to do in what context, forget it.
3. Re:Hate it by SuperMooCow · 2012-10-23 04:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I think what he's saying is that if there was a rubber band effect, it would confirm that the device accepted his scrolling command but also show him that it's not supposed to scroll.
4. Re:Hate it by narcc · 2012-10-23 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  That might not be too bad. How else would you know that there was scrolling content short of an impotent attempt to scroll? (Thinking of those scroll bars that only appear while you're scrolling, but are otherwise not visible.)
  I'm sure that there's a better way. The point is that it's not completely ridiculous.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
5. Re:Hate it by ToastedRhino · 2012-10-23 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't the fact that the content doesn't scroll at all (i.e., that there is no rubber banding effect) provide the exact same information? You'd still have to make an "impotent attempt to scroll" to see the rubber band effect so it really doesn't save any steps, and iOS is generally responsive enough that if it doesn't scroll when you try you know that that's on purpose and not the OS lagging behind input.
6. Re:Hate it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  All true. But Steve Jobs told his followers that in order to be cool they need their display to dance under their fingertips. Simple doing the obvious (not scrolling when it can't be scrolled) isn't cool.
7. Re:Hate it by TheLink · 2012-10-23 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  No because the content not scrolling at all could mean your finger tips are too dry, or you missed etc.
  
  Whereas if the behaviour was consistent and it rubberbands, it means the OS got your input just fine.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
8. Re:Hate it by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-10-23 04:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Doesn't the fact that the content doesn't scroll at all (i.e., that there is no rubber banding effect) provide the exact same information?
  Not really. I've had scrollable content not scroll at all because the iOS was stalled out thinking. Then I've had content that looked like it was supposed to scroll but gave no feedback. Made me wonder if the iOS was stalled out again or if it really wasn't scrollable. At least the MacOS has the beachball on the cursor to let you know when the OS is stuck on itself.
  
  You'd still have to make an "impotent attempt to scroll" to see the rubber band effect so it really doesn't save any steps, and iOS is generally responsive enough that if it doesn't scroll when you try you know that that's on purpose and not the OS lagging behind input.
  The "generally" being in your experience, not in mine nor my associates.
9. Re:Hate it by hack++slash · 2012-10-23 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  FireFox on my Android tablet does this bounce-back thing when I zoom out too far or scroll beyond the edge of the page and then take my finger(s) off the screen. I really hate it. I can't find an option to turn the fucking bounce thing off.
  
  --
  To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
10. Re:Hate it by StripedCow · 2012-10-23 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Correct :)
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
11. Re:Hate it by cstacy · 2012-10-23 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't the fact that the content doesn't scroll at all (i.e., that there is no rubber banding effect) provide the exact same information?
  Not really. I've had scrollable content not scroll at all because the iOS was stalled out thinking. Then I've had content that looked like it was supposed to scroll but gave no feedback.
  
  You'd still have to make an "impotent attempt to scroll" to see the rubber band effect so it really doesn't save any step
  You're both holding it wrong.
12. Re:Hate it by richlv · 2012-10-23 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  never used an iphone, but n9 does it exactly like you want ;)
  
  --
  Rich
13. Re:Hate it by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-10-23 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  A: Associates is plural. It would be "You're all holding it wrong".
  B: Har har.
Faith In Humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:05 · Score: 0

Restored.
Someone's getting fired... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:06 · Score: 0

...doesn't the guy who invalidated the patent know not to upset their #1 customer?
1. Re:Someone's getting fired... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  ...doesn't the guy who invalidated the patent know not to upset their #1 customer?
  Why would that decision upset IBM?
2. Re:Someone's getting fired... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-10-23 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, 'rubber banding' on all mainframes with touchscreen interfaces is still safe...
Same ol' stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why can't this crap happening DURING the trial?
1. Re:Same ol' stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Why can't this crap happening DURING the trial?
  Because it would be far less entertaining.
2. Re:Same ol' stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why can't it happen BEFORE the trial is a much better question.
3. Re:Same ol' stuff by PortHaven · 2012-10-23 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Less drama and headlines for the media.
4. Re:Same ol' stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Because Samsung is evil and should be punished.
5. Re:Same ol' stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  The new rules which took effect last month, will make this more likely.
About time.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:06 · Score: 1, Funny

Could it be that the USPTO is doing something RIGHT for a change?
1. Re:About time.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  Could it be that the USPTO is doing something RIGHT for a change?
  I have no idea, this is pretty much the same concept as buttered bread on the back of a cat or stormtroopers vs red shirts. Two impossible scenarios and one of them has to happen.
  My guess is that USPTO will invalidate the Apple patent but for the wrong reason and then use the support for their descition to motivate the incorrect reasoning in other cases.
2. Re:About time.... by ArhcAngel · 2012-10-23 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I built a sterling engine using a 2 cats and a slice of buttered bread tied together once.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
3. Re:About time.... by gutnor · 2012-10-23 06:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes and No. Selectively discarding a single one in one side of such important case is only confirming to Companies fill thousands of shitty patent every years, that it is a valid strategy, because they get invalidated only in the most extreme condition, and not even consistently.
  Something good would have been for the USPTO to re-evaluate the whole patent portfolio of both Samsung and Apple and invalidate all the obvious one, regardless if they were cited in a lawsuit or not. THAT would have scared patent trolls and other silly patent hoarder (i.e. all the big companies).
4. Re:About time.... by danomac · 2012-10-23 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like doing their job? That should have been done when this patent was filed?
5. Re:About time.... by MrDoh! · 2012-10-23 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  That'd have been amazing, but the cost? Bluergh. At this point, how DOES Samsung get fairly compensated for potential lost sales, accusations in the press, named smeared? Guess monstrous counter litigation to warn off other potential trolls that if they try it, they will be destroyed. Scorched earth. And go after the patent troll backers too. "sorry, the court has found the link goes back to MS/Apple, and thus they will pay the higher penalty"
  
  --
  Waiting for an amusing sig.
they should pay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:06 · Score: 0

Now Apple should be forced to apologize on a full-page ad in some newspapers. Or be forced to wear a tutu in the breakroom over lunch or something.
1. Re:they should pay. by Jintsui · 2012-10-23 04:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm pretty sure some Apply employees already do that..
2. Re:they should pay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Now Apple should be forced to apologize on a full-page ad in some newspapers. Or be forced to wear a tutu in the breakroom over lunch or something.
  No.
  Apple fanbois will be forced to remove their tutus.
  And the eyes they don't get blinded by the overload of pasty-white shininess will bleed - the world over.
stupidest question ever? by sribe · 2012-10-23 04:08 · Score: 1

Will this have an effect on further proceedings in the case or perhaps more importantly on the inevitable appeal?
Yes.
oh dear, uspto..... by P-niiice · 2012-10-23 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why can't the Patent Office do their jobs when reviewing these Bs patents the first time?
1. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-10-23 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because the USPO is paid for by fees.
  
  --
  Fugue for Aaron Swartz
2. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  They get the application fees regardless of whether or not the patent is issued.
3. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-10-23 04:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But isn't that the ideal way to run government? Like a business? Instead of stealing our hard-earned money?
  There are arguments to be made in favor of running certain aspects of government like a business(if our national parks got to set ticket prices according to actual demand, they'd have a lot less trouble with understaffing and overcrowding...); but there are some issues to watch out for:
  1. If you are a business, you have 'customers' and you are beholden(sooner or later) to provide 'customer service'. Be very careful that your 'customers' are the same people that it is your mission to serve and that 'customer service' is the same product that it is your mission to provide. This is a particular problem with government departments that have regulatory functions. In terms of day-to-day interaction, shared professional backgrounds and skill sets, etc. the 'customer' is usually the party who needs to be kept in line; but the mission of the department is the protection of the public(who should be the 'customer'; but who the regulators rarely interact with). In the case of the USPTO, the de-facto 'customer' ends up being the patent applicant, not the vague, voiceless, largely inchoate mass of 'people who don't want inefficiencies introduced by bad patents'. It's natural enough, and likely to progress even faster if the entity is overwhelmed by its caseload, or if there is a revolving door between USPTO examiners and corporate patent attorneys(which, even in the absence of corruption of any kind, the fact that similar skills are required by both jobs tends to mean will happen to some degree).
  (To end on a positive note) The institution of 'Agricultural extension programs', typically associated(in the US) with the research programmes and faculty experts at local Land-Grant Colleges and Universities that operates reasonably successfully as a sort of 'like a business; but in a broad sense' program. Their objective is the improvement of agricultural standards and outcomes in their area, through consultation and expertise on local conditions, pests, etc. along with research made possible in part through access to the data gathered by working with the agricultural population at large, and often offering certain soil testing, analytical, and pest identification services at accessible prices. These aren't "like a business" in the sense that they are run for-profit, and they do have a basic research, R&D, and educational mission; but they are operated as an essentially pragmatic, productivity and profit improving, adjunct to private agriculture in their region.
4. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-23 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But isn't that the ideal way to run government? Like a business? Instead of stealing our hard-earned money?
  ...
  
  I really, really hope that's sarcasm...
  
  If not, I'll make you a deal: I'll get the government to stop "stealing your money," and in return, you stop using the services and infrastructure that "stolen money" pays for.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Blue+Stone · 2012-10-23 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Additionally I remember reading an article where some guy, an 'activist' judge or similar decided that he wanted the USPO to behave in a stamp-and-approve manner and let the courts sort out any fall-out, disputes etc, after the fact. He and others convinced a whole slew of other people and the USPO became the anti-competitive malign tumour in the body of innovation and competition that it is today, feeding lawyers and their families and paying for their second homes and yachts, while legitimate businesses and competition is stifled.
  Bonus points to anyone who can link to that article.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
6. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by jbolden · 2012-10-23 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  There is actually a pretty good way to handle that. You have two agencies that are staffed very differently.
  A is a pro business commerce group that is involved and coordination
  B is an hostile agency that goes after the worst offenders
  For example on environmental regulation of coal
  A is staffed by people from the coal industry and people from West Virginia, Ohio...
  B is staffed by people from wildlife preservation from California, New York....
  That way in terms of regulation A plays good cop and B plays bad cop.
7. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Uhh, hey dumbass tinfoil hatter... You're not going to convince me that a JUDGE would make a ruling that would be beneficial to the legal industry. That is a disgusting conflict of interest and is immoral and unethical. JUDGES don't do that. That's why they're elected or appointed into their position.
  You fucking conspiracy theorists are so naive.
8. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Uhh read this and maybe you wont be so ignorant
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appeals-court-wrecked-the-patent-system/
9. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  " I'll make you a deal: I'll get the government to stop "stealing your money," and in return, you stop using the services and infrastructure that "stolen money" pays for."
  Counter offer... they stop taking my money and I'll pay for the services and infrastructure I use.
10. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Because someday some other person's child might be your doctor, mechanic, etc. and wouldn't you like for them to have had a proper education?
  Paying for services you only use directly makes for short-sighted and crappy infrastructure too. Need to go to the hospital? Enjoy all the toll boths getting there.
  I could go on and on. Don't be so short-sighted.
11. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by cockpitcomp · 2012-10-23 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  And what poor sap paid for your education? I know one person who paid for his own Catholic school (per-voucher era) raising rabbits and tossing newspapers. Everyone else the prior generation or daddy paid for it and with that education they pay it back with social security taxes and the many benefits of living in an educated society. So stop believing you own "self made mad" delusion.
12. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-23 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  you stop using the services and infrastructure that "stolen money" pays for
  Hmmm...I pay some $4000 dollars a year for schools. I don't have kids. Why am I paying for other peoples crotch fruit to be baby sat (and maybe even learn a little) 8 hours a day.
  I'm in the same boat, and I always found it stupid.
  
  OTOH, it gives you an excuse to mandate what the kids are taught, even if you don't have any that attend the school, like this asshole did.
  
  I doubt that situation will change, unless in-district pedophiles start mandating mini-skirt school uniforms for kindergartners, or some equally sick shit.
  
  I'll gladly pay for services I use. Mind you I'd expect complete openness about how that money is being spent. Quarterly reports on what was payed to who for what and the like. Kinda like SOX for the government. When I pay for something from a business I usually have some selections to choose from. Features are detailed and limitations are typically reported on.
  Agreed. Mind you, I wasn't in any way implying the government is (ever) right, or that they (ever) spend our money on the right things, just pointing out how only idiots refer to taxation as theft.
  
  The exceptions are the cases where the government has stepped in to limit things. You know, like patents and copyrights and cellular and internet. In those cases competition is limited by government regulation thus the choices are constrained and the prices are ridiculous. Why does the US, the country that invented the internet (don't bring up Berners-Lee, he came up with one protocol that runs on the internet), have the worst and most expensive cellular and internet service of developed nations?
  Not because patents and copyrights, as concepts, are flawed. Rather, it is the current implementation, heavily influenced by industry giants who pay off legislators to pass laws in their own favor, that is the issue.
  
  Walt Disney deserved a copyright for Mickey, but that copyright should have died with him (or soon thereafter).
  
  Take an e-book for example. It's marginal cost is way less that that of a printed book and primarily due to DRM it's worth is actually less to me yet publishers are able to charge MORE than a paper book costs because of obscene copyright laws.
  "Obscene copyright laws" are not what allows them to charge outrageous amounts for what are, essentially, non-existent goods; market demand does. So long as the majority of people who use ebooks are willing to put up with the bullshit, one-sided aspect of 'ownership,' the publishers and vendors will continue to not give a fuck.
  
  It's a "Thank you sir, may I have another" kinda thing, ya know?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
13. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by immaterial · 2012-10-23 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  You benefit by living in a society where everyone has a reasonable degree of education. Those people are more employable (better for the economy unless you live in an agrarian subsistence society, less chance of turning to crime) and as fellow voters are better able to understand the issues (I know it seems otherwise sometimes, but imagine how much worse it could be if a huge percentage of the population literally were ignoramuses).
14. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  payed
  paid
  
  It's
  Its
  
  it's
  its
  If only you had "stolen money" to pay for your own education...
15. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Who uses the services of the EPA? Or the military? Or the FCC? Who wants to pay for it?
  Grow up.
16. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  No, I'll make you a better deal. We chuck the idea that the government is responsible for every possible service you can imagine, and I'll show you how the private sector can handle it at a fraction of the cost. Yes you'll still have to pay for it, but if you take the money you pay in taxes now, and use it for those services you'll be ahead of the game.
17. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-23 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  And what poor sap paid for your education?
  I went to public school. My upbringing to a certain point should have been my parents responsible. Being born wasn't my idea. Up to a certain point you can't expect a human to be responsible for itself. I worked my ass off and payed for all my education beyond public education. I think that's a big problem with our society. Make parents responsible for their children. Unfortunately in our society parents are pretty much absolved of any responsibility for the children they bring into the world. If parents were held responsible I believe it would resolve a great many of societies ills.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
18. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-23 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Obscene copyright laws" are not what allows them to charge outrageous amounts for what are, essentially, non-existent goods; market demand does.
  No, it's obscene copyright laws which are essentially perpetual. A perpetual government granted monopoly is as anti-market as you can get. They can cherge that price because there is no market.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
19. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-23 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  You benefit by living in a society where everyone has a reasonable degree of education...and as fellow voters are better able to understand the issues
  Have you seen what they teach in public school? A good percentage is more about brain washing then teaching people to think.
  
  but imagine how much worse it could be if a huge percentage of the population literally were ignoramuses
  To a certain extent I can see this argument. My counter argument is that the parents should be held responsible for making their crotch fruit fit for society. Your kid doesn't get a job before he's 30, you pay to feed him not society. You as the parent are responsible for making sure that kid can get a job. Today's society has absolved parents of almost any responsibility for their children. I see that as a huge problem.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
20. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by HiThere · 2012-10-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's not totally true. The USPTO was famous for bad patents even before Regan arranged for them to be a "self supporting" part of the government. And while it's true that there was a quick uptick in nearly anything being patentable, and in people who rejected patent applications getting poor performance evaluations, it wasn't as dramatic as you are implying. There are other reasons. (Like not being specialists in all the areas in which they are required to evaluate patents. As the number and specialization of these areas increase, the quality of the decisions declines.) Also, in areas where a skilled individual would earn more working for industry than as a patent clerk, the clerks with any skill level tend to be either relatively incompetent, or focused on security and conformity. So they make the decisions they believe their superiors would want them to make. Generally this means accept anything they find sort of plausible.
  So it's not just that the patents now pay their salary. In fact, I believe that this has been changed, and while the USPTO is still supposed to be a profit center, it now pays into the general fund rather than into the USPTO budget. But this didn't improve things, because it's still supposed to be a profit center, and clerks are still evaluated on how many patents they ... I'm not sure whether it's accept or process. They may have curbed the worst of the excess, and it may be process rather than accept. But even this means that no patent is given a thorough study, even by those individual clerks who are competent. And, of course, one shouldn't neglect the "corporate culture", which focuses on getting the job done quickly. And superiors can't easily evaluate whether any particular patent should have been accepted or rejected, and if you reject it, it's likely to just be resubmitted with modifications to deal with your reasons for rejecting it, which lowers you count of patents processed.
  Therre's LOTS of reasons why the USPTO so often makes poor decisisons. To focus on one particular reason misses the boatload of others.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
21. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-23 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Who uses the services of the EPA? Or the military? Or the FCC? Who wants to pay for it?
  Strange. I don't see anywhere that I stated I wouldn't pay for a military or any other "common good" services. My only condition there was openness and accountability for how those funds were spent. Neither of those exist and our government is rapidly heading in the direction of keeping more and more secret.
  I don't see supporting other peoples kids as a "common good". You want to have kids, you take responsibility for them. Make parents responsible for their crotch fruit rather than society.
  
  Grow up.
  I AM grown up. I take responsibility for what I do. I don't have a slew of crotch fruit and then expect everyone else to except responsibility for raising and educating them.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
22. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-23 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  "Obscene copyright laws" are not what allows them to charge outrageous amounts for what are, essentially, non-existent goods; market demand does.
  No, it's obscene copyright laws which are essentially perpetual. A perpetual government granted monopoly is as anti-market as you can get. They can cherge that price because there is no market.
  Incorrect; think about this from a base, supply vs demand standpoint: Regardless of draconian copyright laws, If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
  
  Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these parts) for even less than what the online retailers are charging, he'd be a complete moron (IMO) to waste money renting* ebooks from online retailers.
  
  Now, that's not to say that insane copyright duration doesn't play its own role, but to blame the entire pricing scheme on copyright is to exhibit a complete ignorance of basic economics.
  
  * If you pay for something, but the person you paid can take it away from you without giving you a refund, you don't own, you're renting.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
23. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-10-23 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Focusing on the root causes, that there is insufficient funds to do the job correctly, and that the US is using IP to cover over a shortage of production is to be able to solve the problem, to wave your hands at the weeds and vent, is to do nothing effective. It is a great deal easier to fix than you are implying.
  
  --
  Fugue for Aaron Swartz
24. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  There is no way you can actually consider education anything but a "common good". You are either trolling or extremely nearsighted.
25. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-23 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect; think about this from a base, supply vs demand standpoint: Regardless of draconian copyright laws, If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
  You're missing the key point here. Market forces only work where there is a market. Where there is a monopoly source they charge monopoly prices which is whatever they want to. There is no other retailer that can sell the book for $9.99 because the monopoly holding publisher won't let them. I was recently looking for a book. I could get new paper copies for from $9.99 to $12.99 (it's a weird coincidence but the prices exactly corresponded to what you stated) and used copies (another part of market competition that doesn't exist with DRMed digital goods) for around $5.00. The ebook was $12.99 everywhere. Given the marginal cost do you really think every ebook retailer was keeping that price because they wanted to?
  
  Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these parts) for even less than what the online retailers are charging, he'd be a complete moron (IMO) to waste money renting* ebooks from online retailers.
  This is largely true with one big exception. People will pay for convenience. This is how you defeat "piracy". Provide value in the form of convenience. It's a pain in the ass and there is a certain amount of risk with using "pirated" goods. Charge a reasonable price and provide added value in the form of convenience and people will be more than willing to pay for it.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
26. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by fluffernutter · 2012-10-23 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Running a government like a business is a double edged sword. Businesses aren't guided by what's good for their customers, they are guided by what those customers will pay for. You could say goodbye to money hungry efforts that benefit us all such as funding scientific research. The military would have to start wars so they could be productive, that sort of thing.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
27. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-23 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  There is no way you can actually consider education anything but a "common good".
  I don't consider kids as a "common good". You want to have kids you take responsibility for educating them. You pay the taxes to educate them. Too many people is one of the biggest problems in the world today. If you made the people who want to have kids actually take at least some responsibility for them no where near as many people would have them. Stop burdening the rest of society with them.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
28. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  And your point is?
  If the USPTO rejected an application for cause and kept the filing fee, and you wanted to correct your application and refile, they would get paid twice for basically the same application.
29. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  And the counter-argument to that is that if you make parents educate their children, you'll end up with children who are at best no better educated than their parents.
  "Make parents responsible" - yeah right, and when they fail in their responsibility, what then? What sort of enforcement do you have in mind?
  Have you considered that there's a social benefit, that you are currently reaping, to having kids brainwashed to a certain extent? To having them speak (broadly) the same language and understand (broadly) the same assumptions? That's why there's so much fuss about teaching 'intelligent design', from both sides - they both know the value.
30. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  Someday one of the those freeloading kids might be the doctor that saves your life when you are older.
31. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't one pay for the application no matter whether it is eventually accepted or not?
32. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  So you prefer when those kids literally steal from you and others? Without education this will be their only way of survival (that or welfare, which is also much hated by people like you). Education is beneficial for society exactly because it raises chances of raising people which produce more than consume.
33. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-10-23 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  There is 250 million years of evolution on the mammalian sex drive, there is maybe 100,000 years of culture, and 14,000 of settled community living.
  I am going with experience over youth in the conflict between law and evolution, as is most of the smart money.
  
  --
  Fugue for Aaron Swartz
34. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-10-23 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  No you don't, you just externalize the cost on people who can't do anything about it. You are also confusing fixed and variable costs, so you don't even know econ. Stop thumping tea bags.
  
  --
  Fugue for Aaron Swartz
35. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  Now you've done it. Here follows my "Why the PTO is broken by design" rant.
  "Patent Examiner" is not a job anyone seeks out naturally. What happens is this: you get a science degree, and the PTO says "Hey, come examine a few patents for us and we'll pay for law school." This offer is exrtremely attractive to a certain class of people. So they start examining, take night classes, yada yada, and a few years later they realize: I am fucked. It's gong to take me 10 years at this rate to get my law degree. By that time I will have become so specialized that I will be able to tell you that the patents for "Devices for emptying the dregs of one nearly empty ketchup bottle into a second mostly full one" are on the 9th floor of building 17, fifth row of shelves, third column in, 11th shelf from the top, documents #21-35 in the pile. And by the way, my annotations are in green ballpoint ink." My science degree is already useless from lack of practice and now I am stuck here. They are, as a class, the most curmudgeonly bitter employees in the entire Federal system, every last one of them.
  On top of that, you must realize: the Patent Examiner is not your friend. They are not rewarded for skillfully recognizing novelty or prior use or anything actually relevant to the value of patents. They work on a quota. Period. Sure there is guidance and sure they get a lot of stuff right, but at the end of the month/quarter/year it's all about volume. First time submitter with unknown lawyer writing up their application? Spiked in 5 minutes. GE/IBM/Apple/Google patent? Oooh, they sure are lawyered up good, and go USA, I'll make a cursory read and yeah...it's probably good.
  Finally, let's say you are a software genius. Are you gonna join the patent office to review your peers, or are you gonna get out there and code? The quality of software expertise in the PTO is somewhat lacking in all ways. FOr any patent prior to about 1972, the only electronic versions on file are 600dpi TIFFs!
  Unintentional but inevitable bait-and-switch plus hardcore quota system plus no real incentive for specialists to join the ranks = broken by design.
36. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-24 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  No you don't, you just externalize the cost on people who can't do anything about it.
  That makes no sense at all. Are you saying people who have kids "can't do anything about it"? They can not have kids. It's pretty easy to do in this modern world. And don't try to pull out the religion card. If your religion requires you to have kids your religion can pay for them. Please explain how expecting people to actually pay at least some of the cost their having kids burdens society with is my externalizing.
  
  You are also confusing fixed and variable costs, so you don't even know econ.
  Ok. Now you're reaching. Where exactly did I indicate anything was a fixed or variable cost?
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
37. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by greenbird · 2012-10-24 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  There is 250 million years of evolution on the mammalian sex drive, there is maybe 100,000 years of culture, and 14,000 of settled community living.
  250 million years of evolution also says you should be out there slaughtering your next meal. I'm betting you don't spend a significant amount of time hunting your next meal.
  Sex drive has nothing to do with having kids. I can have all the sex I want including the kind that would normally produce kids with very close to a zero probably of any of it resulting in a kid. Make people responsible for there actions and they'll quickly learn to make more responsible decisions.
  
  I am going with experience over youth in the conflict between law and evolution, as is most of the smart money.
  Well there goes any kind of organized society. Pretty much everything we do in the modern world goes against 250 million years of mammalian evolution.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
38. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-24 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Market forces only work where there is a market. Where there is a monopoly source they charge monopoly prices which is whatever they want to. There is no other retailer that can sell the book for $9.99 because the monopoly holding publisher won't let them.
  You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
  
  Having complete control over a certain piece of content you own the right to is not monopolistic; having complete control over a certain type of content does. Take tablets, for example - Apple is the exclusive seller of iPads, but they by no means have a monopoly on the tablet market. Similarly, J.K. Rowling's publisher may have exclusive right to the Harry Potter series, but they do not hold a monopoly over books.
  
  Granted, the way they implement it in ebooks is quite ridiculous, but if publishers were not able to control the distribution of the content they own the rights to, there would be no publishers and thus, no books (well, OK, there'd be books, but they'd all be self-edited, self-published, self-bound, minimally circulated, a general pain-in-the-ass to acquire, and the vast majority wouldn't be worth reading).
  
  I was recently looking for a book. I could get new paper copies for from $9.99 to $12.99 (it's a weird coincidence but the prices exactly corresponded to what you stated) and used copies (another part of market competition that doesn't exist with DRMed digital goods) for around $5.00. The ebook was $12.99 everywhere. Given the marginal cost do you really think every ebook retailer was keeping that price because they wanted to?
  Doesn't matter - they know you'll pay it; supply and demand. As I said before, if people stopped buying $12.99 ebooks, they wouldn't sell, retailers would stop making money, and prices would have to drop. Again, it;s all a matter of supply and demand (mostly demand).
  
  Same goes with DRM - if consumers refused to purchase DRM'd content, no content would have DRM. But people do, which the companies that engage in such anti-consumer practices see and use as ammunition for their next lobby field trip to D.C. "See? Folks will still pay for DRM'd content, even at a premium, so that means everyone who doesn't is a filthy pirate!"
  
  Or something like that.
  
  Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these parts) for even less than what the online retailers are charging, he'd be a complete moron (IMO) to waste money renting* ebooks from online retailers.
  This is largely true with one big exception. People will pay for convenience. This is how you defeat "piracy". Provide value in the form of convenience. It's a pain in the ass and there is a certain amount of risk with using "pirated" goods. Charge a reasonable price and provide added value in the form of convenience and people will be more than willing to pay for it.
  Well, personally, I find a digital copy that I do not technically own, which can be taken away on the arbitrary whims of a faceless corporation, is not nearly as convenient as something solid I can hold in my hand, that can't be taken from me without either a refund or a fight.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
39. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-24 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Running a government like a business is a double edged sword. Businesses aren't guided by what's good for their customers, they are guided by what those customers will pay for. You could say goodbye to money hungry efforts that benefit us all such as funding scientific research. The military would have to start wars so they could be productive, that sort of thing.
  Not to mention, these days corporations are beholden to their stockholders more than anyone else. Which, of course, brings us to the frightening question of, "who are the stockholders in our government?"
  
  Why frightening? Because, guaranteed, the answer isn't "Joe Public."
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
40. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by HiThere · 2012-10-24 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Given the current system, and the current history of legal decisions, the easiest way to fix the system would be to revoke all current authorizing legislation and start from scratch...or maybe from about the 1800 form of the law.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
41. Re:oh dear, uspto..... by Blue+Stone · 2012-10-25 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's the article! Thanks Anonymous Coward!
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
What is it about? by foma84 · 2012-10-23 04:10 · Score: 1

Can someone please translate that shit to plain English?
What does the patented "Rubber Banding" do and how important this single invalidation is?
1. Re:What is it about? by alen · 2012-10-23 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  on iOS there is a cool effect
  say you want to refresh a page. you scroll down just a bit, let your finger off the screen and the data/text bounces back and forth a bit like a rubber band
  pure eye candy and cool
2. Re:What is it about? by Vicarius · 2012-10-23 04:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  What does the patented "Rubber Banding" do...
  Rubber banding happens, when you try to scroll past the content, your screen will scroll a little beyond the content and then bounce back. This gives the user a visual feedback that device is responding to the input (trying to scroll) and that device is not frozen; thus, making the experience less frustrating.
3. Re:What is it about? by Kultiras · 2012-10-23 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  When you scroll past the end of the content in an app, it keeps scrolling until you pick up your finger. The content then visually bounces back to it's original constraints.
4. Re:What is it about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Watch the youtube vid up top, post marked obviously
5. Re:What is it about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  It was a patent on using a rubber band and plastic wrap as a condom.
  You are now free to do so.
6. Re:What is it about? by ToastedRhino · 2012-10-23 04:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You're describing pull to refresh, not rubber banding. It's a different, but I would agree somewhat related, idea than the rubber band effect, and Twitter actually owns the pull to refresh patent, not Apple.
  Rubber banding is when you get to the end of a scroll view, the view continues to scroll a bit past where it's supposed to while showing a generic background (it's now the grey linen on iOS, can't remember what it used to be), then bounces back to the top of the screen. This provides a visual indicator that you've reached the end of the scrollable area.
  I won't argue that this should be a patentable idea, but if it were only "eye candy" and not functional in some way every other smart phone maker wouldn't be trying to/have already implemented (and removed for fear of litigation in the case of Android) it.
7. Re:What is it about? by devent · 2012-10-23 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you have a scroll bar that indicates how many content your can scroll and where in the document you are?
  
  --
  http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
8. Re:What is it about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  How in hell is visual feedback patentable?
  Captcha: looming
9. Re:What is it about? by Gaygirlie · 2012-10-23 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  How in hell is visual feedback patentable?
  Five letters: USPTO. 'Nuff said.
10. Re:What is it about? by narcc · 2012-10-23 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's way too useful.
  Next you'll want to be able to use the scroll bar to quickly and accurately more to a different part of the document.
  Consumer don't want utility, after all, they want to swipe swipe swipe away!
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
11. Re:What is it about? by jbengt · 2012-10-23 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  The scroll "bar" on iPad only shows up while you are scrolling, and you are usually looking at the content, and not the scroll "bar", while scrolling.
12. Re:What is it about? by lonecrow · 2012-10-24 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  But there are so many ways to implement the same functionality, how about a glow at the bottom that quickly fades out, or the text becomes bolder temporarily. The whole put is just for the system to tell the user that it is not ignoring his command to scroll.
  
  Wait! Did I just give billions of dollars of ideas away?
13. Re:What is it about? by WebManWalking · 2012-10-24 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just a behavior, but also a pattern of acceleration and deceleration (known as an "easing function") that reminds the viewer of a rubber band. Easing functions are pathetically easy to do, so there are a ton of them. Bouncing ball effects, wiggles, hop up in the air and bounce, you name it.
  
  The purpose of patents was to encourage inventors to undertake a LOT of work by allowing them to profit from it with exclusivity. Otherwise, who would test thousands of light bulb filaments and bulb contents (vacuums, inert gasses) until finally determining the best one, right? When inventors strive to patent something that's dead easy, it's an affront to the goals of the patent system.
  
  Maybe there was SOMETHING that was hard about rubber banding, but I don't see what it could be.
14. Re:What is it about? by strikethree · 2012-10-25 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  while showing a generic background (it's now the grey linen on iOS, can't remember what it used to be)
  A checkerboard pattern of alternating light grey/dark grey. (gray?)
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
About time by onyxruby · 2012-10-23 04:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

The patent situation has gotten completely out of control. What was once the very capitalist means to inspire and reward creativity is now the very anti-capitalist means to stifle competition and commit lawfare.
The patent system need to be reformed as badly as any government run bureaucracy ever has. It's not just in the US either, these problems are epidemic on a world wide scale. When lawyers become more important in product development than engineers you know the system has reached a crisis point.
1. Re:About time by mspohr · 2012-10-23 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that patents were ever about "inspiring creativity". They were always about protecting your "invention" from competition.
  I really don't think patents serve any socially useful purpose. They are just create monopolies on ideas which are exploited by corporations. The result is that the consumer has less choice and higher costs (and companies higher profits).
  Anything that can be copied just by looking at it is "obvious" by definition and shouldn't be eligible for a patent. Things such as industrial processes which are less obvious and more complex can be (and usually are) considered trade secrets.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
2. Re:About time by Biotech_is_Godzilla · 2012-10-23 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  these problems are epidemic on a world wide scale.
  == these problems are pandemic.
  FTFY like a grammar nazi :P
3. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect to the contrary. I think some people were not happy with USPTO from the very beginning. This is just facts of life kinda things. Those happy with the current state of affairs are quiet, those unhappy are vocal, someone makes some changes and the the two groups stay the same - just membership changes.
4. Re:About time by Rytr23 · 2012-10-23 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  They also protect people from corporations. See the small time inventor that comes up with some novel household product, they put in the work to get it made, work on marketing etc. then they get a meeting with say, Home Depot or Lowes to see if they would sell the object. Home Depot and Lowes look it over carefully, let their designers take a look..then decide, "no thanks, have a nice day" A month later they are selling the exact same thing, killing this persons idea and dream. If that person doesn't have a patent on this invention, they are totally fucked with no recourse. They spent months or years and thousands or tens of thousands of dollars trying to get this product to market, only to have some corporation take it with no repercussions whatsoever. But that's OK right? Everyone should do work for free for fucking multi-billion dollar corporations.
  
  --
  So many injustices..so little time..
5. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  While you are right that patents are not about "inspiring creativity" you are wrong that they were invented for protecting "inventions". They were invented to encourage sharing of information. That is, it was meant for inventions which would otherwise have been kept secret to keep competition out. The deal is "OK, you tell us how your invention works, and in return we legally protect it for a limited time, so you still have protection from your competition, but the information is out on the open, so others can use it afterwards."
  Of course many of today's patents are clearly not about the type of thing patents were originally made for.
6. Re:About time by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-23 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that patents were ever about "inspiring creativity". They were always about protecting your "invention" from competition.
  Unless we're talking about inventions created by the likes of Mother Theresa, those two are often one in the same.
  
  Why should I waste time inventing something, if I can't make money off of it? Nothing wrong with altruism, but I've got a household to feed.
  
  I really don't think patents serve any socially useful purpose. They are just create monopolies on ideas which are exploited by corporations. The result is that the consumer has less choice and higher costs (and companies higher profits).
  Then you don't understand the true purpose of patents (not that I blame you; there's been a lot of intentional obfuscation of that topic over recent years); I'll give an example:
  
  My dad is an inventor. He designs accessories for various types of "toy" trailers (by "toy" I mean ATVs, boats, jetskis, et. al). If he couldn't patent his designs, some massive corporation like Bass Pro Shops could take a quick look at the design, replicate it, and have it in every Bass Pro store in the nation by the end of the week. My dad, the guy who did all the work figuring out what needed to be done and designing the product, gets fucked.
  
  Stuff like the aforementioned are why we have a patent process to begin with. Granted, it's a royally fucked up process at this point, but that doesn't change the fact of its necessity.
  
  Unless, of course, you're of the mentality that mega-corporations should be the only one's who make any money, in which case I know of a particularly short pier you should take a long walk on.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:About time by mspohr · 2012-10-23 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is a nice theory but history has shown that it rarely works this way.
  Usually what happens is that "large corporation" copies the idea and tells the inventor to take a hike. Small inventor doesn't have money to sue so takes a hike.
  The only time you see patent trials are when two large companies are battling it out. Small inventors usually get screwed if they can't sell out to large corporation.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
8. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  The phrase is one and the same, you fucking quasi-literate knothead.
9. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  FALSE!
  Patents are about exclusivity in use not sharing information. In fact, much like software patents that don't require working source code ("the how"), many patents throughout history did not require detailed descriptions:
  
  In France, patents were granted by the monarchy and by other institutions like the "Maison du Roi".[12] The Academy examined novelty.[13] Examinations were generally done in secret with no requirement to publish a description of the invention. Actual use of the invention was deemed adequate disclosure to the public. [JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST!][14] The modern French patent system was created during the Revolution in 1791. Patents were granted without examination since inventor's right was considered as a natural one[15]
  In the United States, during the so-called colonial period and Articles of Confederation years (1778–89), several states adopted patent systems of their own. The U.S. Constitution authorizes the American patent system in Article One, Section 8(8) which states:
  The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
  
  The designs, mechanisms, descriptions (information) is there to provide sufficient information so they know what is protected. Any "secret sauce" details that can be kept secret, are kept secret. If a support bar is needed in the gizmo, the details (size, material, connection) of that support bar will be kept secret. The wheel will be reinvented.
  Patents are about PROTECTION PROTECTION PROTECTION.
10. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  The patent situation has gotten completely out of control. What was once the very capitalist means to inspire and reward creativity is now the very anti-capitalist means to stifle competition and commit lawfare.
  The patent system was never capitalist. If it were, it would be based only on contracts. E.g., when you buy a car, you might have to agree to not reverse engineer the suspension system or use any other knowledge gained from to compete with Ford. You might be required to pass on this restriction to anybody you sell it to.
  Of course, you would have to agree to this and the burden/cost imposed upon this would naturally limit use to most critical and least-obvious discoveries. An auto maker that imposed severe restriction might be undercut by those who imposed none.
  In a "very capitalist" society, the ideas (one-click shopping, rounded corners, microwave generation) are free but the implemenation is what matters. Business is about relationships too. Anybody who thinks the biggest, lowest (unit) cost provider will win and expand indefinitely, is mistaken. Often if they do, it is to the benefit of customers and the detriment of competitors.
  Olive press monopolies rarely happen and rarely have lasting affect aside from the cautionary tales they provide.
11. Re:About time by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-10-23 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  You should make an account so more people will bother to read your contributions.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
12. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  Protect your "invention" from competition for a short, specific time period, then it becomes public domain/property where anyone can use it, build upon it, change it however they want, without paying you a penny, or half-penny even.
USPTO pay for lawyer fees? by CannonballHead · 2012-10-23 04:15 · Score: 1

So, of course, the USPTO is going to pay for Samsung's lawyer fees, right? ....
1. Re:USPTO pay for lawyer fees? by newyorkdude · 2012-10-23 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  USPTO should be sued by both parties for this nonsense. By Samsung for the lost lawyer fees. By Apple for the lost presumed revenue.
2. Re:USPTO pay for lawyer fees? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  USPTO should be sued by both parties for this nonsense. By Samsung for the lost lawyer fees. By Apple for the lost presumed revenue.
  Are you nuts? That would 100% guarantee that none of the patents would ever be overturned as that would expose USPTO to huge liability.
3. Re:USPTO pay for lawyer fees? by hAckz0r · 2012-10-23 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, and you just unknowingly highlighted a major part of the problem. Only while the USPTO is permitted to continue to police itself will it have this corrupt kind of behaviour. History has shown that any organization which has the responsibility to police itself will ultimately become corrupt. Only by having an external branch to govern the "invalidation" process will we ever have relief from this plague. The courts are simply not adequate for this job, because too much damage has been done by the time they are even involved with a patent. So each patent should go through a pre-validation process with a non-biased technical entity, having absolute patent veto power, before it even becomes an actual patent. There must be no control held over this entity by either Congress or the USPTO, similar to the way the judicial system is appointed for life, otherwise it just won't work.
  .
  Why a separate life-long entity? Doing a good job has never been in the self interest of the USPTO, even from day one. Congress loves the USPTO because it derives revenue for all their pet (pork) projects when funding is otherwise scarce. Congress wants the USPTO to patent just as many things as they can to derive even more revenue, and do nothing to curtail that flow of those funds. Should the USPTO actually 'do what is right' then Congress will be very unhappy with them. Why on earth would Congress ever pass a law to make things right? That's not going to happen until Congress is actually forced by voters to face the facts of what the USPTO is actually doing to the general economy, which makes Congressional pork funding problems small by comparison.
4. Re:USPTO pay for lawyer fees? by newyorkdude · 2012-10-23 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Typically, patents are meant to be overturned by courts, and not directly by the USPTO. Suing the USPTO to damnation is one of the only paths to shutting it down. They are clearly guilty here, and require massive reform which is not forthcoming. There is a larger picture than the one you've been looking at.
Uncited Theft from Academia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

Look in HCI this stuff has been done since forever. Academics got really interested in touch technologies in the early 2000s. They've been used spring decay to make "nicer" and more natural interfaces ever since.
Many patents out there are IP theft. They are stealing from public institutions and patenting technology that has been developed in academia.
1. Re:Uncited Theft from Academia by Lieutenant_Dan · 2012-10-23 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Hate the game, not the player. Universities need to get smarter in protecting publically-funded IP.
  
  --
  Wearing pants should always be optional.
2. Re:Uncited Theft from Academia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Exploiting the system isn't the game. Just because an entity can exploit a system doesn't mean it shouldn't be condemned. And the solution isn't to further drain academic resources (which continue to have their public funding cut). At a minimum, those found guilty of exploiting the system should suffer irrevocable punishment; so much so that the entity goes under or couldn't profit from the venture. Corporations needs the equivalent of the death penalty imo.
3. Re:Uncited Theft from Academia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Universities and independent inventors that do not want to patent (and therefore prevent anybody else from implementing) ideas should not be forced to protect anything - it is the entire point of the USPTO to ensure bad patent applications, or patent applications with prior art, etc. are not accepted as valid patents, because they are not. That said, the fact that software patents were allowed for years by the USPTO because they either didn't understand the patent well enough to realize it was obvious to somebody skilled in the art, know about or find the prior art that is supposedly from universities, or be able to use common sense in rejecting patents out of hand as obvious (yes, this was seriously a case that was recently decided by the US Supreme Court) has created the current situation where software patents exist that, had they been applied for today, would have never been accepted. This situation is becoming a problem for the entire industry when players like Apple and Microsoft assert their ill-gotten patents against Android to prevent competition with their own offerings, and is just more evidence that the patent system has not kept up pace with the advances in technology (especially) in recent years.
  If you think anybody needs to protect their publicly disclosed research (read: blogs and websites; public source code repositories like Sourceforge, Freshmeat, Launchpad, et.c.;, papers published in or even submitted to scholarly journals and magazines; working in labs with windows to places/hallways where the general public or anybody who hasn't signed an NDA could freely walk by; having any research done by students or professors who haven't signed NDA's; discussing the potentially patentable material with anybody not under an NDA; etc.) then you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the entire point of the USPTO to begin with.
4. Re:Uncited Theft from Academia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Hate the game, not the player.
  No. I think I'll go on hating both.
5. Re:Uncited Theft from Academia by manaway · 2012-10-23 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Many patents out there are IP theft. They are stealing from public institutions and patenting technology that has been developed in academia.
  Not really IP theft because there is no such thing. Ideas are not property. Instead it's a business method based on a lawful falsehood. Let the public pay the costs of developing new ideas, including in universities. A private business then pays for fictional but legal "ownership" of the idea. Then the private business make the profits. In a fair world, the business would give profits back to the public via taxes. In the US part of the world, businesses spend some of the profits on lobbying for reduced taxes.
Re:First reaction... by ibsteve2u · 2012-10-23 04:22 · Score: 1

Money?

--
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:28 · Score: 0

Was this one of the items that Samsung was said to have copied from Apple? Because if so, it sounds as though that $1bn bill will be shrinking in the near future.
1. Re:Samsung? by PortHaven · 2012-10-23 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yup...
  Samsung just adjusted their next quarterly profit estimates up $500 million.
the HP touchpad does that by Chirs · 2012-10-23 04:28 · Score: 1

In it's web browser...try to scroll on a non-scrollable webpage, and the whole screen shifts up somewhat then snaps back into place when you lift your finger.
The point you're making is really confused by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:29 · Score: 0

by your (mis)use of the word "capitalist". I can't work out what you mean by "capitalist" here and I rather suspect you can't either ...
And at the end of the day ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:31 · Score: 0

how much did both companies just piss away on lawyer's fees ?
1. Re:And at the end of the day ... by MightyMartian · 2012-10-23 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  It's irrelevant. Legal fees are simply the entry fee to the arena. That's the ticket price. The goal of the game is to hamstring your competition. Apple wins even when it loses, because it takes six to nine months for a challenge to a patent to even make a ripple, meanwhile the courts, being forced through lack of meaningful expertise, pretty much give the complainant the power of the state to shut the border to competition until such time as the patent is invalidated.
  The patent system has turned the courts into pimps who sell the state's trade powers like expensive whores.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:And at the end of the day ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Simple solution....ban Apple for the same length of time.
The government is afraid of the implications by PPalmgren · 2012-10-23 04:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

The USPTO, with these bogus patents, is basically creating value out of nothing. I think the reason the gov't won't touch patent reform with a 10 foot pole is that the US economy doesn't produce anything anymore, and the destruction of this bogus value is the destruction of one of the only things the US produces anymore. Its like they think we can hoodwink the world into believing there's a significant value to 1-click and a stupid rubber band GUI effect. Yes, there's some value to these, but right now its grossly inflated by a few orders of magnitude by our broken patent system.
Just because its said loud enough and repeated by policymakers doesn't make it true. The longer this goes on, the more painful the bubble pop is going to be when someone like China stands their ground.
1. Re:The government is afraid of the implications by Shagg · 2012-10-23 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  More like the corporate lobbyists with their truck loads of cash are telling the government not to touch patent reform with a 10 foot pole.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
"anti-capitalist" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 04:55 · Score: 0

Nit picking, but: current patent situation is anti-free-market, not anti-capitalist.
Prior Art from Apple by mkraft · 2012-10-23 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative

What the linked article doesn't mention, but this one does is that one of the prior art patents that invalidates the "rubber band" patent is owned by the same Apple employee that owns the "rubber band" patent.
1. Re:Prior Art from Apple by PortHaven · 2012-10-23 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Look, there are examples done in Macromedia Flash that basically used the same concept. Albeit, maybe reversed. But still, enough of a similar concept to prove that there was NO invention at play.
*tentatively* by mark-t · 2012-10-23 05:07 · Score: 1

That's a key word there...
No point in getting excited about this yet.
Who knows how long it will be, if ever, that they actually follow through with it?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:It means Apple Is a Patent Troll and was caught by Shagg · 2012-10-23 05:19 · Score: 1, Funny

Anyone else care to add to the list of misinformation on things Apple and their fans claim Apple invented?
The rectangle.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:It means Apple Is a Patent Troll and was caught by PortHaven · 2012-10-23 05:24 · Score: 0

The One Button Curse
One button mouse
One button trackpad
One button phone
One button patent
***
In the news, Apple sues Amazon for their One-Click checkout. Amazon says, it's fine, they just have to use a link instead of a button as Apple owns all the rights to "One Button Interfaces"
It at first you are rejected...try again. by DeadCatX2 · 2012-10-23 05:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Chances are that it was rejected the first time. And the second time. And the third time...
You see, when Apple doesn't get a patent approved, they just change a few words and keep trying. Take for example the '604 patent. It was rejected twice in 2007, three times in 2008, once in 2009, twice in 2010 and once in 2011. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all )
Finally it got approved (tenth time is the charm!).

--
:(){ :|:& };:
1. Re:It at first you are rejected...try again. by DragonWriter · 2012-10-23 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Chances are that it was rejected the first time.
  
  Well, actually, it was largely approved the first time, in an earlier patent that Apple filed (which was only granted after this one was filed), that's one of the reasons many of the claims in this patent are being rejected.
2. Re:It at first you are rejected...try again. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is a completely standard practice in every patent application involving anything that may be understood by someone without years of intensive study of the subject matter. If you get the patent on the first shot, you probably broke what should have been an unbreakable law of physics, your 'invention' has no practical applications, or the USPTO cannot actually review it because they have nobody capable of understanding the claim. Everything else goes through this cycle repeatedly before it is accepted.
  At this point it's almost impossible to create something that doesn't copy, conflict with, or expand on an existing patent.
  This cycle is what keeps patent attorneys in business and is why there's pretty much no point in even trying to patent anything that won't make at least 100-200k, since you'll be spending at least that much on attorney fees alone.
real smart strategy there by slashmydots · 2012-10-23 05:38 · Score: 1

So now they get no Google maps renewal guaranteed, no screens from Samsung for any products, no licensing for anything Samsung owns, serious 4G LTE patent problems, everyone else in the entire industry hates them and it actively trying to destroy them, and they don't even get their 1 billion in all likelihood. Wow, great business strategy there, Apple.
1. Re:real smart strategy there by kthreadd · 2012-10-23 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  So now they get no Google maps renewal guaranteed, no screens from Samsung for any products, no licensing for anything Samsung owns, serious 4G LTE patent problems, everyone else in the entire industry hates them and it actively trying to destroy them, and they don't even get their 1 billion in all likelihood. Wow, great business strategy there, Apple.
  Apple is doing just great financially, so yes it is a good business strategy.
  http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm
2. Re:real smart strategy there by admdrew · 2012-10-23 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  Ahhh, you must have posted Apple's 10-K from the future, showing the effect of all the items slashmydots mentioned.
  
  --
  LegendMUD
Clearly Nokia has Prior Art by EmagGeek · 2012-10-23 06:15 · Score: 1

Obviously, Nokia has prior art on anything having to do with cell phones and rubber bands:
http://rtv6blogs.com/rtv6_gm/files/2008/07/cell-phone-rubber-band.jpg
(what was the model number on that phone, anyway? I had one and can't remember)
Re:I may be an AC, but by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 06:21 · Score: 0

I for one care about protecting innovations.
This is a sad day for the american way of life.
Re:First reaction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 08:04 · Score: 0

Perhaps the original developers were thinking the same thing when Apple was granted the patent. Why should people innovate if the megacorps slurp up any patents they can, even if they never create the product.
Re:It means Apple Is a Patent Troll and was caught by theshowmecanuck · 2012-10-23 08:13 · Score: 0

Awwwwwwww.... I offended an Apple fanboy moderator.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:It means Apple Is a Patent Troll and was caught by shugah · 2012-10-23 09:20 · Score: 1

Shhhh. Apple fanboys are easily confused by too many choices or controls. Besides, it makes life much easier for tech support.

Q: So how do I ...

Tech Support: Just press the button.

Q: But what about ...

Tech Support: Press the button.

Q: or ...

Tech Support: Press the button.

Q: Oh crap, now it's shut down and I've lost all my work!

Tech Support: Don't ever press that button!

--
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Who's The Real Evil Ones? by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-10-23 10:08 · Score: 0

Apple used their market force to prevent carriers from screwing with the user experience by installing their own crappy themes and widgets and useless bloatware that would replace the standard iOS apps.
Samsung and other Android vendors, along with Google, let the carriers force their crappy "special experience" themes down users throats, and zillions of people couldn't upgrade to Froyo because $CRAPPY_BACKWATER_CARRIER didn't want Froyo on their network until their in-house programmers could make the buttons pink with purple polkadots.
Apple is not morally bankrupt. Whether you agree with their idea of morality is another matter.
Someone At Apple Is In Big Trouble Because.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 10:19 · Score: 0

...the radar dish pointing at the USPTO that is emitting Apple Reality Distortion Field is losing its strength.
The Emperor will not be pleased.
Oh oh.
Would anyone really miss the rubber band effect by fluffernutter · 2012-10-23 10:24 · Score: 1

.. If Samsung simply removed it? Because I'm using Chrome on Android right now with no effect and I don't miss it. I suspect most things coming from Apple add little value at best.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
1. Re:Would anyone really miss the rubber band effect by Flipao · 2012-10-23 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  Google worked around it by using a tilt effect.
USPTO lacks knowledge to determine prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 10:36 · Score: 0

In a large number of cases USPTO itself does not have the knowledge required to determine prior art.
It is only after much time has passed and much damage has been done (and much ill-gotten gains have been made) that wrongly issued patents are invalidated.
It's wrong but probably profitable to some.
First to file f*cks up public prior disclosure... by girlinatrainingbra · 2012-10-23 10:54 · Score: 1

Universities and independent inventors that do not want to patent (and therefore prevent anybody else from implementing) ideas should not be forced to protect anything
I think you're mistaken. Under the current rules of "first to invent", one may invent but must have filed within one year of the first presentation of that invention/concept in a public forum/journal. Exposing the concept and not having the patent application in place invalidates your patent application if it is not filed within that year. In that case, no one can patent that idea, as it exists as prior art. But since there is not a patent on it, there is no one to enforce that patent and stop people from using that invention.
.
Under the new to be approach in the USA of first to file, being the first to invent and having the log books and documentation to prove that you were the first to invent will have no benefit at all. You have to be the first to file. Thus, if an idiot exposes an idea without getting a patent application in beforehand, too fuckin' bad; someone else can become the first to file and become the official patent holder and patent owner. In this case, a university academic or anyone else who deigns to not want a patent and exposes an idea without patenting it is just a schmuck who didn't take the available money and has put out candy for someone to steal.
.
IADNALNAPA (i am definitely not a lawyer, nor a patent attorney), so anyone with real legal-eagle-ness can correct my misunderstanding of the situation.
Scroll bar when document is smaller than window by tepples · 2012-10-23 15:29 · Score: 1

Do you want to see scroll bars when there's no scrolling content too?
Yes, for two reasons. First, a scroll bar's presence indicates that the content-type is one that can be scrolled should the document become large enough. A persistent vertical scroll bar shows that it is possible to make the document taller than the viewport through ordinary editing actions. Second, the viewport's width shouldn't decrease and cause a reflow if the document's length increases. If a scroll bar steals 1.5em of window width from the viewport when the document is longer than the viewport, I expect it to also occupy 1.5em of the window when the document is shorter than the viewport. I don't expect a wider viewport just because the document is shorter. I seem to remember that classic Mac OS observed this rule: either a particular kind of window always had a scroll bar, or it never did.
Market value of out of print works by tepples · 2012-10-23 15:39 · Score: 1

If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
That depends on to what extent the ebooks that OtherRetailer.com sells can substitute for the ebooks that Amazon sells. For example, if Fifty Shades of Grey by E. L. James is exclusive to Amazon, and all you can find elsewhere is Thirty-Five Shades of Grey by J. D. Lyte, people are more likely to pay more for the real thing. It's called "monopolistic competition".
So let's run with your market-based analysis. What is the market value of copies of a work that the copyright owner refuses to sell, such as the film Song of the South or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea or the English translation of the video game Mother for NES (called "Earthbound Zero" in the pirate scene)?
1. Re:Market value of out of print works by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-24 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
  That depends on to what extent the ebooks that OtherRetailer.com sells can substitute for the ebooks that Amazon sells. For example, if Fifty Shades of Grey by E. L. James is exclusive to Amazon, and all you can find elsewhere is Thirty-Five Shades of Grey by J. D. Lyte, people are more likely to pay more for the real thing. It's called "monopolistic competition".
  That's not monopolistic - you can still go buy a "real" hard copy from any of a dozen book sellers.
  
  So let's run with your market-based analysis. What is the market value of copies of a work that the copyright owner refuses to sell, such as the film Song of the South or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea or the English translation of the video game Mother for NES (called "Earthbound Zero" in the pirate scene)?
  If the copyright owner refuses to sell copies, the effective value is $0, because it's not for sale.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:Market value of out of print works by tepples · 2012-10-24 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  If the copyright owner refuses to sell copies, the effective value is $0, because it's not for sale.
  But wouldn't that lead to an argument that noncommercial distribution of an orphaned or otherwise out-of-print work has zero "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (17 USC 107)?
3. Re:Market value of out of print works by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-24 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  If the copyright owner refuses to sell copies, the effective value is $0, because it's not for sale.
  But wouldn't that lead to an argument that noncommercial distribution of an orphaned or otherwise out-of-print work has zero "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (17 USC 107)?
  Considering that, in certain segments of our society, people get into gun fights over attire pigmentation, I'd have to say yea, that would at least lead to an argument, if not an all out copyright war.
  
  FWIW, a lot of that 'orphaned or otherwise out of print work' falls under the definition of public domain, which is how things are supposed to work (I know, I know, "supposed to" != "is," don't remind me!)
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
pfff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 09:01 · Score: 0

When oil's 1000USD a barrel, this will all look patently bollocks; if it doesn't already.
BBC refers to Florian by hicksw · 2012-10-24 10:36 · Score: 1

The BBC News website appears to be basing its report on Florian.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20040549
Please encourage them to do some fair and balanced reporting.
--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on your internet connection forever.