Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patents Page Turn Animation
An anonymous reader sends this quote from the NY Times Bits blog:
"If you want to know just how broken the patent system is, just look at patent D670,713, filed by Apple and approved this week by the United States Patent Office. This design patent, titled, 'Display screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interface,' gives Apple the exclusive rights to the page turn in an e-reader application. ... Apple argued that its patented page turn was unique in that it had a special type of animation other page-turn applications had been unable to create."
The article doesn't really make it clear, but this is for the UI design of showing a page being turned, not the actual function of moving from one page to another. That said, the patent itself cites similar animations in Flash from 2004.
There are an insufficient number of Picards to adequately supply the amount of facepalm this requires and deserves.
So how does the US patent system actually work? You apply and automatically get a patent then it's up to the courts to decide whether it's legitimate or not latter? Why bother having a patent office at all if they don't knock down crap like this?
Circus Ponies' Notebook.app has had a very similar animation from the beginning and has been continuously available on the NeXT/OSX platform for about twenty years. It was announced for iPad on 2011-08-11, three months before Apple filed.
BeOS had a 3d demo program with this exact functionality in the late 1990's!
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
This one even cheerfully tells us how to think, calling us to see the patent system as broken because of one particular patent. The sensationalism really adds something to Slashdot... It's not like I come here for actual news or anything.
Yeah, it's hard to imagine how a broken patent system, the traditional means by which inventors protected themselves from large businesses' simply taking their idea and adding it to their product line, thus eliminating any monentary incentive for innovation, would be of interest to a site that caters to inventors, tinkerers, engineers, etc. We should probably just drop any discussion about the trend of rising illiteracy, the "brain drain" to other countries, how many entrepreneurs are starting up in China to cut through the exorbinantly high costs of doing business here, all due to legal fees, and how small businesses here often now have to hire more lawyers than engineers. Discussing a pervasive and growing problem in our industry isn't thinking really, it's just repeating dogma, and nothing good has ever come from a group of like-minded citizens getting together to discuss the common problems of their community.
I'll just be over here now, reading the "actual news" then. Things that matter like sex scandals, new hair-styles for this winter, and what ring-tone best fits my personality...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
From TFA:
... gives Apple the exclusive rights to the page turn in an e-reader application. ...
There are real problems with the patent system, but this kind of stupid misleading hyperbole does not help. Apple does not have exclusive rights to page turning, they were granted a patent on a specific algorithm. If you think they shouldn't have been granted that patent, then that actual issue should be addressed, rather than the made up garbage in TFA.
what ring-tone best fits my personality...
Listed here for your convenience.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Something like this is at best worthy of protection via copyright or as some sort of trade dress. Owning a patent on an animation makes absolutely no sense.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
i don't care if it just one way, its been done before, the point is not that they trying to patent book turning, but that they, and the uspto, both think that ANY animation of a page flip should be patent-able.
It's a design patent, not a utility patent. That means it's all about the artistic properties. For example, the BeOS page turning looks very different, so it doesn't apply. Coke has a design patent on the shape of the Coke bottle. It doesn't seem so unreasonable that Apple's artwork is different and distinctive.
can just kiss the fattest part of my ass, both apple and uspto
Sorry, but Apple already owns the patent on asking someone to kiss their ass.
Why, oh why, do coders think it's a good idea to waste time pretending that every computer page is a paper page by making the corner flip up and move over? It's slow and distracting and adds nothing to the user experience except aggravation.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Sorry, but Apple already owns the patent on asking someone to kiss their ass.
Not only that, but it's probably their most frequently used "innovation".
Another brilliant thinker who can't tell cause from effect. The patent system is not broken because of this patent. This patent was approved by the patent office BECAUSE the system is broken.
The article doesn't tell us what to think or how to think. It's just a wake-up for those who are already capable of thinking.
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
As long as they don't patent the star wipe.
I think that value alone makes them worth copyrighting.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Quick! to the time machine! We need to sue Gutenberg!
It's actually both. Only a broken system would permit this and only a scoundrel would take advantage of it.
Didn't this game have page turning animations in it back in '83?
Quite possibly. I don't know it. However, this isn't a "patent on page turning animations". It is a _design patent_ (which is a totally different kind of thing than a _utility patent_), and it covers the design of one specific animation, that means how this specific animation looks. You could even use the exact some algorithm that Apple uses, changing some parameters to make the animation look different, and it wouldn't be covered by this patent. Unless the animation in this game looks _exactly_ the same, it doesn't invalidate this design patent. And if you create a new animation, unless it looks _exactly_ the same, it is not infringing on this design patent. What you are _not_ allowed to do now is to make an exact copy of this animation.
I can't count the number of times that I've thought of a great idea and it turns out it exists already and is patented. The point of the patent system is to prevent copying but in a world of 7 billion people, 300 million in the united states, many ideas are going to overlap and occur independently. Each and every one of us has had great ideas and then looked it up only to find that it already exists; this is proof that the patent system is broken. In order for something to be patented it needs to be truelly original. It is criminal to allow the patent office to issue patents only based on the fact they assume other people are to stupid to think it or haven't filed paperwork to patent it because it is so obvious. Sure the average person might be, but I bet there are literally hundreds of thousands of coders would replicate the same algorithm if they worked on the same problem. So how can they patent something so rediculously easy to create for so many people? Because they assume everyone is average when they approve these patents. The patent office needs to take into account that a patent must be original to experts in the field, not just an average person, which doesn't appear to be the case. If we can make the patent process legitimate in the first place we would not have to worry about these battles over a few lines of code or patenting a 5 cent additional part and claiming it's an original idea. The patent offices need to take into account the value. How valuable is that algorithm? E.G. how much would you ahve to pay an expert before he thinks of it? For something like this, maybe $500, or a week or less worth of work/coding by one person. Could you replicate that process with any other expert? If so, then don't grant that patent. Is it really so valuable of an idea that every person in the US should be banned from implementing it? They should be ashamed to give patents for something so easily replicated and should think much harder about what it means to invent something. Inventing isn't being the first or only one to submit a piece of paper with specific words. Inventing is finding something that not one in the other 300 million people (or 7 billion) could think. If it doesn't pass that test, don't give it a patent!
...they've even referenced the venerable 805678, leave him out of it.
The cheesy page turn animation is a horrible UI flourish. Apple did us all a favor by forcing other tablets to employ less garish page turn effects.
Apple sues all physical book publishers as their devices appear to violate newly granted patent.
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Sounds like the author doesn't understand the difference between a design patent and a utility patent.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
I got your page-turning animation right here!
In the 1980's, Unicorn Software had a program for the Apple ][ that allowed the user to read mythology stories -- complete with animated page turning.
I'd like to propose we swap the people of Gaza with the people of Cupertino. That way the Israelis can do some good, Apple can get what's coming to them and it would at least keep Israel and Gaza as far apart as possible.
Haven't a clue how we'd do it, but it would solve a few issues if we could.
All your page curls be mine!
Come on guys, the ignorance being displayed here is embarassing. Apple has not patented the general concept of turning a page. They've just claimed the rights to their specific page turn animation, that's all.
A lot of people here clearly don't understand what a "design patent" is, and how it differs from a utility patent and copyright. Here's an example of what they all mean:
Copyright: would apply to the code that implements the animation.
Design patent: would apply to the animation itself.
Utility patents: would apply to the general idea of turning of a page in an ebook.
This is the claim from the design patent:
The ornamental design for a display screen or portion thereof with animated-graphical user interface, as shown and described.
Note that it only covers the animation as shown and described. If you use a different animation, you're not infringing.
So calm down everyone. The patent system may be broken, but this is not an example of it.
I do agree that many of the articles on Slashdot use overly sensational wording, usually borderlining on inaccurate in the name of making the story sound more interesting than it is. I don't see why a straightforward summary of the story can't speak for itself. We as readers are perfectly capable of forming our own strong emotions. It's like being a hamburger and having someone else's saliva on it already under the pretense that you can't take care of that digestive process yourself.
"Being a hamburger", hmmm not quite what I intended to type.
United States Patent Application 20080270152, "Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party."
Along with other skeuomorphic crap. E-books do not need stupid animations slowing you down when you turn pages.
Call the help desk.
Have gnu, will travel.
You think this page turning animation is just common sense or something?
I don't have the time to read through the details of the said patent, but ... if my memory serves me correctly, back in the 1980's there was a movie (can't remember which one, but it's kinda scifi related) showing a device (much like a tablet/lcd screen) where people were reading "books" and they turned pages by "flipping" the screen.
And in that movie, when the actor moved their finger across the screen, the "page" of the "textbook" in the screen turned.
Could this be counted as a "Prior Art"?
As I can't recall the title of the movie, if there's anyone here seen that movie, please share with us the name of that movie.
Thank you !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Define '_exactly_'.
Do the back of a Samsung Galaxy S and an iPhone 4 look '_exactly_' the same?
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/samsung_galaxy_s_vs_iphone_back.jpg
The jury certainly believed it did. Yet there's also obvious differences.
So if I make a page turn with obvious differences, but that still looks sort of similar (and let's face it, out of the few reasonable ways a 1-page page turn can be shown that at least somewhat mimics real life page turns, a great many of them will easily end up looking similar), why wouldn't I be faced with a citation of this design patent?
Even if Apple doesn't come after me, who's to say some other entity that holds a design patent on another page turn animation wouldn't?
That's one of the reasons this design patent - and, really, any design patent on page turns by any other company - is lambasted. Not because people want to make an animation that is '_exactly_' like it, but because '_exactly_' is not defined, variants may also be covered by design patents, and eventually you're left with making a page turn animation that actually more closely resembles crumbling the page and setting it on fire at the same time just to evade all the design patents, leaving the end-user wondering just wtf is going on when they turn pages.
THe lock screen page turn on an Acer Liquid MT can be made to look extremely similar to the design patent in question here. It requires a very particular swipe motion (the page curl is dynamically generated based on touch position), but it can be done. Should Acer have to exclude a particular array of (similar) touch positions so as to prevent the end-user from causing infringement?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqK0vLIsHuM#t=130s
imho, once you have a limited animation algorithm (and I'd say a 2-parameter input algorithm is limited), any and all results produced by inputs to that algorithm should never be able to be considered for a design patent.
Of course then the question becomes when an algorithm is considered limited, etc.
What some smart patent attorney needs to do is patent the use of a lower case i at the beginning of a word. This just shows how iDiotic Apple has become.
And I hate that THIS has to be explained repeatedly:
There is no obligation to behave in an unethical, immoral, or even obnoxious manner, legal or not. In theory, a corporate charter must be in the public interest and a corporation DOES have an obligation to see to it that it does operate in the public interest. The public retains (but all too rarely exercises) the right to dissolve the charter if that better serves the public interest. Just following orders is decidedly NOT an excuse.
Yes, but then you have Jury foremen who ignore judges orders and well things just go downhill from there...
Interesting that my sensationalist post gets modded troll, yet we still get the same crappy stories...
This is my sentiment, exactly. I, for example, think the patent system is only mildly broken, in that the benefit of getting a broad patent far outweighs the cost of getting useless ones. Broad method patents and minimal design patents are applied for in bulk at little cost, and the few that are actually granted stand to bring in huge profit over a very long time.
Sure, that's bad, but I think it's bad because I've thought about it and came to my conclusion. I don't need Slashdot's summaries commanding me to follow the hivemind.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I do like to know about the patent system and its troubles, but I'd just prefer stories without the heavy dose of sensational bias dumped on top.
Discussing a pervasive and growing problem in our industry isn't thinking really, it's just repeating dogma, and nothing good has ever come from a group of like-minded citizens getting together to discuss the common problems of their community.
The summary for this article (and so many others like it) doesn't invite discussion. It invites hatred and bandwagon-inspired repetition of the dogma, by espousing one extreme opinion as a starting point. Here's a rewriting, that is far less inflammatory:
An anonymous reader refers us to the NY Times Bits blog. Apple has apparently filed for design patent D670,713, approved this week by the United States Patent Office. Titled 'Display screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interface,' this patent covers the visual appearance of a turning page as used in e-readers. Though Apple argues that its patented page turn was unique in that it had a special type of animation other page-turn applications had been unable to create, but also cites similar animations used in Flash from 2004.
Of course, we could and would still discuss the problems of the patent system, but starting from neutral territory, rather than a heavy bias. Maybe then we as a civilization could get something done to fix our problems, rather than wasting our time on an endless cycle of blame and defense.
As an aside, if I ever care about new hair-styles for the winter (other than the I'm-too-cold-to-go-out-and-get-a-haircut shaggy look), please shoot me.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
They have forgotten there is already a patent 20100175018 serial no 350049, July 8, 2010: VIRTUAL PAGE TURN granted to Microsoft.
If somebody could go out and patent patenting anything that exists in the physical world as digital representations, wouldn't these pointless patents go away?
OTOH, I guess the US Patent Office is doing this on purpose ... if they'd just turn down these stupid patents, all they'd earn would be the original application fees ... ... => Profit! Therefore, the patent employees ensure their jobs' safety!
By approving the patents, they for one attract patent trolls to put on for even more of these type of patents, and also ensure that other companies spend money for them to check and possibly invalidate the patents
But I reckon as long as they don't get any "punishment" for passing junk like this, they'll keep on doing it, even if the patent is about the most trivial, prior-art, or whatever patent ...
That is like saying I should kill you first because else you would kill me. And hey, since you want to kill me, I am justified in killing you. Hell, why not kill everyone and be really sure I am not going to killed by any of you? It is for my own protection.
Even by your logic, by your own nature do you judge others. Clearly apple fears patent trolls because it is one.
And finally, I HATE THAT CRAP, didn't that "software has to look like real things" die with MS Bob?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
On the plus side, this sensational wording borderlining on inaccurate does make your post sound more interesting :)
Patents cost money, the more patents are granted the more money the patent office makes. The less money it needs from government, the lower you can keep taxes (for the rich if you don't spend it straight on politicians).
You get the patent system you paid for. Republicans want it to be self-sufficient so the patent office sells its product, patents, as fast as it can and lets other worry about the cleanup.
Gosh, it is almost as if Republicans care more about money then society. How odd.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is great. The cockroaches know no shame or limits. They just go right on, piling over each other at the patent office patenting every flicker of a UI idea, every shade of a thought of a notion .... and it's all to our long-term good.
If they acted responsibly, if they could manage to even momentarily raise the masks of an adult face over their twisted frothing greed and steroided self-regard as "creators" then they wouldn't be racking up such an egregious track record. Oh, but they can't.
Every patent attorney is like every other. There's change in the air. They can smell it and to them, it stinks. They're going to get theirs while they still can.
Why even Lead Patent Attorneys In Charge of Keeping CEOs In Coke N' Whores of major international businesses have seen fit to get out of their fluffy robes, come in from their party yachts and address the commoners, whom, it appears, are rebelling.
Every time I read something like this, my heart leaps with hope. It means the enemy has drunk it's own Ayn Rand kool-aid and they are structurally incapable of collective action; it's just every patent attorney / client for himself.
The worst possible thing for us would be for them to show some kind of coordinated restraint.
That's right , we're going to shut you down in a Big Way. You are reading the future correctly. Then you'll have to *work* for a living and the clients you represent will have to create value instead of blocking it. Holy shit- the worst of all possible outcomes is descending on you like a bird of prey. It's just a matter of time, so bill those clients while you still can, and don't hold anything back.
Hey man you've got 5 kids between three wives; that's 90 (!) years of pre-k through B.A. private schooling to pay for. Pray for the kids, but bill those hours !
I am very anouyed by these senseless animations. If Apple patents them, dear companies, this is a paten i have no problem if you just accept it.
good, they won't be able to enforce the patent because as they already stated themselves, theirs moves in a way nobody elses has or could.
I read the actual article now, and anyone who read the article, and believed what it said, would rightfully be annoyed with the patent system and with Apple. The problem is not with Slashdot readers. The problem is with the author of the article, one Nick Bolton, who is for all I know one f***ing bloody clueless idiot.
To you, Nick Bolton, you will enjoy reading here that you have the intelligence of a gnat. At most. You should really, really stop blogging anything until you know the difference between a patent and a design patent. It's like the difference between a goldfish and a silverfish. One is a stupid fish, one is a stupid insect. Your article is just idiotic and totally wrong, starting with the headline "Apple now owns the page turn".
Now, Nick Bolton, I'll give you an opportunity to respond. It is obvious to anyone that you are either an idiot, or you are intentionally spreading lies. Please tell us what it is. Looking forward to your reply.
Not to mention that ethical conflicts of interest within the US legal profession and the government -- a major and arguably primary contributor to the problems with the patent system -- is (or should be) a major concern not just to us nerds, but to every thinking person in the USA.
The problems with the patent system form a subset of a much larger set of problems within many different areas of law and government, all sharing the characteristics that a) strong conflicts of interest exist on the part of the people building or maintaining the legal system, b) they cause serious long-term problems for society, and c) they are not being acknowledged by our legal professionals.
This affects programmers, engineers, scientists, and nerds in general in so many ways that go beyond mere patents, but looking at the problems with the patent system may be a good way to start trying to solve the more general problem.
It's a divide and conquer approach, much as we use when writing software or designing other engineering systems.
Look, here's my issue with the intellectually lazy whiners who post and get wound up about these lame anti-IP stories, and this is analogous to what I tell Rush Limbaugh fans who are desperate to discredit the President: Gaia knows that there's plenty to criticize about the patent system. But when you overstate your case, fabricate and spin trivial issues to make them look like something they're not, and do all this with ignorance suffiicient to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about, you just discredit those of us who would like to raise legitimate concerns. Not to stretch the Limbaugh argument too far, but how defensible is the position that anybody who knows what they're talking about is not to be trusted?
The real reason for the existence of patents is the money that people get for approving them and the money that people earn for selling them. There would be no patents, if the government and the bureaucratic system, would not earn from them. There are people who sit in an office and stamp papers or sign letters without reading them. The patent offices do not care, if the patent is real or logical, as long as you pay the fees. It is how government usually works. People get together and sit in a office for collecting fees. I live in Germany, the best German jobs are all in the governmental offices. You do nothing new for your entire life and get paid above average. They say that there is no corruption, but how about the fees that are only existing for the benefits of the people who work for the government. Patents are like Visas, you pay the fee and get a stamp, but no one really checks your identity as long as the boss is not in the room. Look at the best example for hierarchical societies. India is able to finance all of the embassies in the world by stamping the passports with Visas.
~ Best man at your service.
Define '_exactly_'.
No. You want me to play a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. I know enough to explain to some clueless people the difference between a utility patent and a design patent. What you are asking for is the advice of a lawyer.
The important thing to know is: That blogger who started this is a clueless twat, and Apple does not own "turning pages" or even "turning pages on eBooks", they own "one particular animation for turning pages in an eBook", which means any competitor can animate page turns as much as they like, just instead of choosing between a million possible animations, they only have a choice of 999,999 animations.
I don't want you to play a lawyer, and I certainly am not seeking legal advice. I just want you to back up your statement of _exactly_ (emphasis entirely yours) in light of a highly relevant case suggesting that it's not quite as exact as the dictionary definition would have one believe.
Which means that in your new statement of "instead of choosing between 1,000,000 possible animations, they only have a choice of 999,999", we really may very well be looking at "instead of choosing between 1,000,000 possible animations, they only have a choice of 500,000 because the other 500,000 are going to be '_exactly_' like Apple's."
Which in turn leads to the remainder of my questions.
You can't really tell people - and I'm paraphrasing here - it's a design patent, and that one would only be infringing if one were to make an exact copy, when in fact the copy needn't be all that exact and there's every reason to still think the design patent is absurd.