Slashdot Mirror
Move Over Apple - Samsung Files For a Patent On Page Turn
Nate the greatest writes "Remember last year when Apple received a patent on the faux page curl in iBooks? Lots of people laughed at the idea that Apple could patent the page turn, but not Samsung. The gadget maker has just filed for their own page turn patent. The paperwork explains in great detail what the page turn looks like, how the software would work, and what on screen gestures could be used to turn the page."
... the "on" button. Because no one has ever pressed an on button before. No one has turned a page. No one ever thought to make a phone a rectangle with rounded edges. The only ones these ideas are novel to are the nitwit patent attorney's who convince companies to pay them to file this crapola lol. But ... I'm sure there's an app for that.
If I were getting beat up by a competitor for what I consider stupid patents I would start filing stupid patents to fight back as well.
all this does is show once again that the patent system needs work.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.
Finally, patents are being used for something useful. What an annoying animation.
the issue seems to be that the patent officials either
A - dont spend even 1 second and just stamp it if it comes from a known company
or
B - the patent officers dont understand what they are looking at, yet dont want to sound stupid, so they stamp it
at least thats my theor
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
patented. *clicks mouse suggestively* patented.
not at the patent(s) but at slashdot readers that start frothing when they invariably don't understand what's actually being patented.
I got your patent right here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If it is a design pattent, I don't see the problem with this. They may want to ensure that they have a certain look on their ereaders which is not faked by other ereaders.
This is totally acceptable, kinda like round corners are acceptable (with a lot of other rules) to ensure your device is not faked.
If its not a design pattent, its certainly not worth being granted on basis that its not really novel.
And as a personal opinion on the thing, I actually like the kindle approach of just going to the next page and no animation best.
On a device where changing pages is kinda like scrolling, I would like to see when I change pages, but on an ereader with a slow enough screen to already see the change easily, I think an added animation would be stupid.
Oh, I remember how the faux page curl seemed so novel for 5 minutes on Flash sites.
Seriously, with as litigious as everyone is, who WOULDN'T patent every thing they could think of, if only to keep "the other guy" from litigating you to oblivion?
Not that I'm saying Samsung won't exploit such patents. I'm sure they can, and will. But that's how the game is played, so instead of getting riled at Samsung ( or Apple, or anyone else for that matter ) for suing everyone for absurd patents, shouldn't we, instead, be outraged at the system that allows and encourages such behavior?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Apple's patent was a design patent -- design patents cover purely ornamental aspects of a functional device.
Samsung's patent is a utility patent -- utility patents cover functionality only, and are what most people think of when they say "patent" with no specifier.
Not saying this makes one right and the other wrong, just that it's an important distinction which a lot of press coverage, including /.'s own summary, is ignoring.
Now Samsung even copies apple's patenting techniques. I swear if apple made a golden toilet, Samsung would too.
Billions of dollars seems like a lot of money to spend implementing something that a lot of other things have already successfully implemented for much cheaper. Have the shareholders been notified?
When you have nothing left to say and have no innovation, you patent something very obvious.
clap...
clap...
clap...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
At least nobody has filed a patent on 'reading through means of artificial light while laying in bed.' or 'Protecting pages of written text by binding said text between hard layers of cardboard.' So don't worry be happy.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
But the gun is a killing machine, it was made by people, designed to be good at killing people sized things, it is sold by people, billions of dollars were spent by people to ensure the laws are so lax that anyone can buy one. If the gun is the result of all these peoples evil work, then it is to blame.
The patent is to blame, because its the embodiment of all those years of protectionism. All those companies lobbying for special laws to lock themselves into their markets, all those patent officers thinking they're 'creating' innovation by issuing more patents. All those patent lobbyists that wanted patents on business processes, algorithms, and so on. All those politicians thinking they could create 'IP' economies that would simply sell each other the right to make something.
The patent is to blame, because they are to blame, and it's their work.
Because lawyers then write them nasty letters. This was covered a couple of days back - please pay attention - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/29/1216254/lawyer-loses-it-in-letter-to-patent-office
There is no way on earth that a patent system that allows this sort of BS can be successful in forwarding the basic goals of the patent system, none.
> Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here.
No, only Apple is to blame. If somebody punches you in the face, and you hit back, are you to blame?
Samsung is only defending itself against a scummy patent bully.
> Don't you think its wrong though that Apple spends billions of dollars and then have someone else come along and copy it
Like what? What great invention - that Apple spend billions of dollars on - was stolen from Apple? Please be very specific.
Apple is the one filing all the scam lawsuits.
level of restraint on the submitter
Found your problem!
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
There is no way on earth that a patent system that allows this sort of BS can be successful in forwarding the basic goals of the patent system, none.
You're only realizing this now? I knew the patent system had jumped the shark when someone patented swinging sideways on a swing.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
GP is right, he is responding to a comment about the Samsung Apple case, not the root cause of " multinational, multi-claim nest of lawsuits".
You also did it in a dickish way "schnell".
So here we have Apple an American company, Samsung a South-Korean one and the United States Patent also an American entity. Now I don't know as a Canadian who has been observing Americans for a while how much credibility, even with truckloads of facts or legal proof, any American is willing to give to a foreign entity, but I still find it far fetched to believe Samsung has any chance at all to have anything enforced in this one. Apple will change the colours, US patents will say it's OK, new patent, case closed/appeals ensue, jobs preserved.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
For fuck sakes, but you Americans need to solve your absurd software patent problem. The rest of the world is laughing at you.
The net comic The Gods of ArrKelann has used a page-turning interface for years.
I'm not sure whether it was from the start of the run or if it got converted somewhere along the way. But it's pretty clearly a page-turning interface.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Thank god nobody's thought to patent button pressing.
Why do we not patent "the patent troll" and go after all these lawyers using our method and procedures... We will file it vague enough so that ALL patent trolls fall within the wording. Maybe then this shit will stop...
Jesus, I'm glad there are certain countries in EU that dont give a sh*t about such patents ...
Not for infringing the "page turning" patent - for infringing on their patent of "a method to use the US Patent Office for anti-competitive business tactics".
Finally a good patent. It's been years since we last saw one of those.
Now, Samsung, please also get a patent on "method for increasing ad views by splitting a single article over multiple artificial pages" and "method for placing ads on top of text, to make it impossible to read the content without interacting with the ad", and then put all three of them in a safe in a disused lavatory with a sign saying "beware of leopard".
While you're at it, "method for using a security update to install malware on a computer" would be nice to get locked up also, so we can get rid of that stupid Java/Ask thing.
OT bitching: We desperately need a system for cars, including engine management. Flashable onto a box that can run anything.
It just breaks my heart to see these high horsepower gorgeous engines in these modern god awful POS SUVs, etc.
I want to put these incredible and now plentiful motors into other things. boats, old cars, pickups etc.
Breaks my mind to try and use the on board computer systems. Crap.
Our greatest expense, second to housing and every detail is proprietary, with exorbitant replacement costs.
Huge market.
To all of those that think the patent laws don't need to be revised, (and you might think this is ridiculous but under the current state on the law it could be possible because of loopholes in it) if one day you wake yourself and find that a company opened up a web site for personal names and start to charge for the use of a name that they have patented say the name of your future kid or something like it what do you think will happen in the long run (after all a name is just another word, just like an apple)
As soon as augmented reality comes into play, we will see digital representations of physical objects. So once you're looking at what appears to be a book on your desk through your Google Glass display, you will just turn the pages like you normally would.
Now how is anyone going to patent the physical action of turning a page?
This violates my rule 1.
1. A computer simulation of a real-world thing is not, in and of itself, patentable. This is not to say the programming behind it could not be clever enough to be patentable.
2. Doing something wirelessly or on a mobile device already done on desktop computers is also not inherently patentable, though it may already be covered by a desktop patent.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.
Because it's a quasi-judicial decision, and is subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. "Obvious" is a legal conclusion, like "guilty", and must be supported by evidence. No matter how guilty a judge or jury thinks a defendant looks, their conclusion must be supported by evidence, and if there's no evidence, then a conviction of "but we had a gut feeling he was guilty" will be overturned. Similarly, no matter how obvious we feel dreck like this is, that conclusion must be supported by evidence, and if there's no evidence, then a rejection of the patent on "but we had a gut feeling it was obvious" will be overturned.
This reminds me of the patent that was granted (and later revoked) for the method of swinging on a swing. http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
So I'm forced to ask the obvious. How is virtual page turning novel and unique compared to doing it with paper?
I'm still waiting for my entitlement patents to come back for curves, swirls, bends, wraps, rolls, twists, spins, loops, blips, burps, and farts!
This is yet another "patent on a digital analog to a well known physical process" patent. You know, "a system and methodology for doing something we've done for centuries, but on a computer".
People have been turning pages in books for a very long time. It's a well understood process.
I seriously doubt that there's any real technical innovation or invention in using existing touch-screen technology to make it look like you're doing something which is already well known for physical books.
It's a visual metaphor, nothing more. I don't think Apple should have been granted a patent, and I don't think Samsung should.
These kinds of patents are ridiculous.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Rounded corners
Windows was a pretty direct copy of Mac OS. Apple may not have "invented" the GUI, but they put together a pretty nice GUI which MS slavishly copied, down to the drop-down menus.
It seems to me that no one thought another color besides beige or black might look nice on a computer until Apple did.
Did anyone come up with a smart-phone before Apple? I can't remember ever seeing anything like it before the iPhone. The Android GUI is nearly identical.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I, or others, could come up with many more. I don't know if they spent "billions" coming up with, or simply making practical, all these ideas. But there's little doubt they've been copied every step of the way, in ways large and small.
You kids nowadays don't remember what computing was like before Apple. Almost every innovation in personal computing we've seen since the eighties came directly, or indirectly, from Apple. It'd be difficult to overstate Apple's influence on personal computing. Believe me, there's a lot about Apple I don't like, but it makes no sense to deny their impact on every other computer and software maker.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Windows was a pretty direct copy of Mac OS.
After several years in court, Apple's claims against Microsoft were dismissed, primarily due to a license John Sculley had negotiated with Bill Gates for Windows 1.0.
Brief history of smartphones. Some give the Ericsson GS 88 "Penelope" in 1997 as the first smart phone as that is when the term was coined.