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?
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
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
It's actually both. Only a broken system would permit this and only a scoundrel would take advantage of it.
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.
It's a design patent. If the other animation that you mention is very similar, then an exact copy of that other animation is not infringing (on Apple's design patent); an exact copy of Apple's animation is infringing, and something that is close would be difficult to judge.
Guys, remember that this is a _design_ patent. And it protects the design of _one_ way to animate turning over a simulated page in an eBook reader. There are gazillions of ways to do such an animation. Some look better, some look less good. One of them is now covered by a design patent, that's all.
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!
Sounds like the author doesn't understand the difference between a design patent and a utility patent.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
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.
Call the help desk.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
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.
Basically prior art has been thrown out by the US patent office in favour of, if it hasn't been patented yet patent it and let them sort it out in court.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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.