Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Move Over Apple - Samsung Files For a Patent On Page Turn

Posted by samzenpus on from the here-I-am-on-the-road-again-there-I-am-up-on-the-stage dept.

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."

83 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Next patent application ... by stevez67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... 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.

    1. Re:Next patent application ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sad thing is i wouldnt doubt someone wanting to do that and attempting it

    2. Re:Next patent application ... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Books do not have an on button, so this must be innovative!

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Next patent application ... by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      No one has turned a page.

      Reminds me of this (subtitled) clip from Norway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  2. If I were by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:If I were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

      It's a case of dumb and dumber really. In the end though, I'm not so worried about the one writing up this junk, I'm more worried about those approving it. Who's dumber really, the one who made the fail, or the one who fully endorses it?

    2. Re:If I were by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Except there are patent lawsuits everyday, about the dumbest of things between companies large and small, from patent trolls versus small and big businesses to big giants fighting each other.

      Trying to argue it's not in the news everyday is a terrible example, and you know it, because news only cares about getting money, so whatever is the most interesting gets aired.

    3. Re:If I were by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AC's response is kinda messed up.

      I don't entirely agree with you, but it has been pointed out that some "rights holders" have bought up patents as a defense against being sued by patent trolls. So yeah, it makes sense, in a way, to file for trivial patents as a defense against other trivial patents.

      It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce, get together, and lobby for patent reform - along with copyright reform.

      The system is most definitely broken. I don't think that Samsung is taking the "best" approach to fixing the real problem - not by a long shot.

      We need an analogy here, I think. A housing developer built on some low lying land, in a "classy" area of town. All the in-crowd bought his houses - that is, the "rights holders bought homes in the subdivision. The city's sewer system backs up onto these properties. Samsung's "fix" here, is to add three inches of topsoil to their own property to keep the sewerage from running onto their own property. Of course, that does nothing about the sewerage running in the streets, or on their neighbor's yards. The whole neighborhood still stinks to high heaven, and it's an unhealthy place to live.

      It's time for the subdivision to partner with government, and get the damned sewer system fixed, and get the crap out of everyone's neighborhoods!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:If I were by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that was actually the point, or did you stop reading after the first 9 words? it needs reform, it needs to be there, but it needs major reform

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:If I were by FunkyLich · · Score: 1

      We need an analogy here, I think. A housing developer built on some low lying land, in a "classy" area of town.

      Oh yea? You forget you're on /. punk! Explain to us with the one and only, the Car Analogy! Yeah! ... you're free to go this time.

    6. Re:If I were by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Alright - you've driven your car into the city's sewer plant, and the roof is six inches under the surface of one of the ponds. You and all the other "rights holders" are hoping to use some jumper cables to get the car started again, so that you can drive it out of the pond.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:If I were by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      IMNSHO anything that is an obvious idea, and can be trivially implemented by one skilled in said craft should not be patentable... This includes any [simulation of real-world activity] on a [generic computing interface]. I really with the US-PTO would get a clue already.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    8. Re:If I were by kawabago · · Score: 1

      The patent system doesn't need work. It needs to be out of work!

    9. Re:If I were by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce, get together, and lobby for patent reform - along with copyright reform.

      There's a saying of "be careful what you wish for" because you can bet Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung would love to do this. But the patent reform they want would ensure that no one else can enter the market.

      Ditto copyright - they're going to ensure that the big companies can take copyright with a token payment and anyone else can't.

    10. Re:If I were by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      sure it needs work since stupid patents get granted. the system grants patents because the system gets money based on how many patents were granted. the millions of patents being granted being a fine example of that, while novel ideas being patented is at an all time low.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:If I were by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all.

      There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations. The PTO grants a massive amount of patents that should be invalid, as proven time again in the courts. The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds. They don't take responsibility and readily put forth the fact the standard for granting a patent is far below the stated requirements, so the courts are weary to just invalidate a patent -- believing that the patent office is actually doing it's job well, when in reality they'll let you patent essentially anything: If you want a weak patent that won't hold up in court, they're cool with that so long as you pay your fees, cross your t's, dot your i's, and replace all the terms such that the application won't generate any hits when searched in their patent database. First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art. Yes, it would take longer and be more expensive to grant patents, but just make those filing for the patents pay the bills; This would bring the cost of patents up closer to their actual cost -- No, instead it's basically a government subsidy for legal warheads.

      Furthermore: Patents are not required to spurn innovation. Demand for innovation exists regardless of patents, and will generate drive for innovation by basic market forces regardless of granting monopolies. Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design. Patents and Copyright merely enforce artificial scarcity, when the artists and researchers could just as easily make their money without patents: Simply withhold their labor unless agreement to be payed for it is ensured (like car mechanics and home builders do, it's a proven system). If there are those who would not invest without monopoly assurances afterwards then those who will invest in research regardless will out compete them -- As proven by stagnant companies doing poorly in the automotive and fashion design industries compared to those who innovate without promise of monopoly. Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale. We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing. It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code).

      We have NO EVIDENCE that the patent system is fulfilling its goals. We don't know if it's harmful or not, but there are indications that point to it being harmful (frivolous patent lawsuits and bogus patents), and there are at least two data points that indicate patents are not required at all. The real problem with the patent system is that we did not do a test to see if it was beneficial. Everyone just assumes it is without ANY evidence to support their claims. We need to do the experiment and abolish patents to see if they were harmful or helpful. We can re-institute the laws if we need to later. Continuing to operate the world's economy on assumptions of untested hypothesis is egregiously intellectually and economically negligent. That patents exist at all with no proof they're beneficial is the problem. That problem can not be fixed until we've abolished patents.

      If you assert that there are no problems with the patent system then I must point out: Ignorant people like you, who operate based merely on assumptions without any evidence to back their claims, are the problem.

    12. Re:If I were by Cenan · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all. Saying that is as stupid as saying "Oh that little boy killed his sister on accident with a gun. Its the guns fault!" or "Violent video games made my sun kill those people!" no the video games didn't make him kill anyone he killed those people, no it isn't the guns fault because its the parents fault much like when there are stupid patent lawsuits it isn't the systems fault, its the company who files the suits fault.

      Guns? That's so obviously an attempted strawman it's not even funny. And you're even wrong on that one too - the parent is to blame. Nobody else could have put the gun within reach, nobody else could have neglected to teach the kid about gun safety, nobody else could have been stupid enough to keep ammunition around with the gun. If you really want to shift blame around like an idiot, you could blame gun producers. Or sellers. Or anyone along the chain that ends with putting a gun in the hand of a child. I'd still vote that the parent is to blame, there are even legalese words for it: criminal negligence.

      So what are you saying? That we should just sit back and watch these morons rip each other off? And what happens in your utopia when precedence is set for massive payouts for ridiculous lawsuits? Oh that's right, there are also words for that: patent trolling. So your solution is to do nothing and point at statistics 'oh, but it's not so bad cause most patents aren't ever used in this way'.

      Right, let me strawman that up for you: we should hand out guns to everyone age 18 or over, because only a very few of those people are going to shoot some schmuck in the face with it, so it's not so bad. It certainly can't be the law that's wrong.

      If you have a system that allows undesirable lawsuits, the system is wrong not the lawsuit.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    13. Re:If I were by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

      So if you want to blame something for a problem them blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea.

      By your own logic Samsung and Apple can not be blamed. They are only "filling for horribly dumb lawsuits" because they are "a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations" -- They are artificial amoral corporate entities, and they must act the way they do because the rules say they must do so or be held accountable by their shareholders: Profit by any means is why they do this.

      So, why don't you heed your own advice and "blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea" of corporate personhood?

      You're the kind of guy who cries "Cheater!" and blames the AI for following the rules of the game.

    14. Re:If I were by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce

      They did try that but Apple and a bunch of random patent trolls wouldn't play ball. In Apple's case it is because they don't have any valuable technology patents, only daft design patents on rounded corners and the like. Even if there was a truce Apple would still need to license tech patents under FRAND terms, but no-one needs their patent on page curling.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:If I were by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I don't entirely agree with you, but it has been pointed out that some "rights holders" have bought up patents as a defense against being sued by patent trolls. So yeah, it makes sense, in a way, to file for trivial patents as a defense against other trivial patents.

      Obviously Samsung, being Samsung, will use this patent purely defensively. Most probably to defend sales if HTC, LG and others wake up and spend some more money on marketing their phones :-) I mean they are such an outstanding company with only the best of motives, several convictions in 2012 for price fixing, a CEO who was convicted for tax evasion, people getting cancer in their factories from chemical poisoning. And let's not forget their patents on rounded corners (which are strangely never mentioned, but Samsung has design patents that include rounded corners).

    16. Re:If I were by FunkyLich · · Score: 1

      IMNSHO anything that is an obvious idea, and can be trivially implemented by one skilled in said craft should not be patentable... This includes any [simulation of real-world activity] on a [generic computing interface]. I really with the US-PTO would get a clue already.

      There could be a lot of people agreeing with this. I also envision them rubbing their palms in excitement because there is now a lot to do for them: When does an idea stop being obvious? Is it related to the skill of the practitioner? Does that mean that if I am an average skill worker and have an idea that clashes with a patent then this idea is patentable and I am a violator, while at the same time some very high skill worker can come up with the same idea and in that case he is OK because the idea can be trivial to implement for him?

    17. Re:If I were by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations.

      There's a difference between "there is no test for obviousness" and "I don't know what the test for obviousness is," and they should not be used interchangeably when you mean the latter. The Examiner can make a prima facie case that a claimed invention is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element in the claim. So, if a claim recites A+B+C and the Examiner can show one piece of prior art that teaches A+B and another that teaches C, and they can be combined without undue experimentation or changing their functions, then the claim is obvious. If, on the other hand, the Examiner can't find anything that teaches C anywhere, then the claim is not obvious.

      Happy to help clarify that for you.

      Now, to clear up a few other things you say:

      The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds.

      It costs about $25k to file and prosecute a patent to issue, not "hundreds". And they can be invalidated for just a few hundred via post grant review.

      First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art.

      That doesn't change anything, as all patent applications were published under the first-to-invent system, too, and the public could protest by submitting prior art to the Examiner.

      Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design.

      Here are tens of thousands of design patents in the automotive industry. And here are thousands of design patents on dresses. A search for design patents on "jeans" will turn up a similar number, as will socks, shoes, etc. Your premise is demonstrably false.

      Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale.

      Yes, but without patents, there would be more efforts to protect trade secrets - like you wouldn't actually ever own a physical microchip to strip it apart. You'd merely be renting it under a lease agreement, with massive liquidated damages if you do damage it. Do you really want to have to have a subscription to use your computer? I don't.

      We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing.

      Actually, the generics market exists because of patent disclosures and the FDA orange book. Would you buy a "generic" reverse engineered version of a brand new medicine that the FDA hadn't approved, much less tested?

      It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code).

      Watch out, Slashdot, we've got a badass over here.

    18. Re:If I were by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      So it's awful when Apple does it, but when Samsung does the exact same thing, it's a completely justified defensive measure.

      Nope, you're not wearing any blinders at all.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    19. Re:If I were by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, patents, like guns, are not to blame. Both are just tools.
      However, even if guns are OK, there are laws to prevent people using them to harm other people. In fact crimes involving guns are taken very seriously and often result in the most severe sentences.
      In Apple vs Samsung cases, bullshit patents are cleary used as weapon to harm the other party. And they keep firing at each other, western style, and there is no sheriff with sufficient authority to make them stop. Here lies the problem with patent laws.

    20. Re: If I were by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      As to when an idea is obvious, that would be a car by case basis... However, stimulating a real world activity an a computer is always an obvious idea... As is doing something that one device does on another device... As to trivial to someone... If it has been implemented before, in this case the pieces of page turn animation and responding to touch input, then yes it is trivial. For the most part, anything that is written as a program is both obvious and trivial to implement, and as such not deserving of a patent.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  3. OBVIOUS! by chromaexcursion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

    1. Re:OBVIOUS! by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Money.

    2. Re:OBVIOUS! by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      Sadly, too true

    3. Re:OBVIOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought rejecting a patent application would be a better incentive for money. After all if they send in another application for the same innovation/invention they have to pay the fee again, but then I thought, no the corporations would just stop applying for patents of stupid stuff.

      Maybe patent clerks salaries' should be tied for the number of applictions they reject for a valid reason. A QA system would be in set so up where other clerks would check their. If a decision is overturned than they lose points. Of course, this could cause friction in the workplace so it should be anonymous.

    4. Re:OBVIOUS! by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      It stamps the Patent on the line, or else it can't see the $ sign.

    5. Re:OBVIOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The most accurate approach would be to have people with limited power granting patents. There should be very few patents getting granted. Getting a patent is something that you should earn by producing something genuinely novel that advances our society and can net you money. Patents for snowballs should be ignored. Patents for a real innovation (I have not seen one in my life time) that is truly unique. Maybe. Rockets were not even a unique innovation. Going to the moon was just the appropriate application of science. Science shouldn't be the focus of patents.

      Maybe a specific process. Such as the specific details around Imax. But it should still be relatively easy for someone to produce Vmax and slightly change the process or specifications. Shits just still not novel enough in my opinion to deserve epic rewards footed by society as a whole. Heck society owes no one anything.

    6. Re:OBVIOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See, that's the problem. It's hard to judge what's truly innovative because all work is based on previous work and if we only granted say 1 patent every 30 years it seems pretty ridiculous to have patents anyway. At that point, you would be better off abolishing patents and (here's my idea) rewarding the inventor or group with lots of money. Oh wait, apparently "my" idea has already been proposed according to wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents. Funny how that works, and funny how many discoveries and inventions were made around the same time. The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other. Now there are definitely things that were discovered by an individual before others recognized it one them being the work of Mendel and another the general theory of relativity. Rambling aside, it's hard to agree on a definition of innovation or invention which is patent-worthy.

      Now just my 2 cents, but I think the easiest test: would a particular field or society be held back by the length of the patent term if the invention, innovation, or whatever had not been disclosed? In industries in which their is strong competition, low costs, and where it's easy to see that progress moves whether there are patents or not, such as the software industry, it's easy to say no. Software patents are flatly stupid. Basically, the cost of research is a good guide into how long patents should be if they should exist at all. I'm not convinced patents should be completely abolished, but it's kind of stupid how IBM patents so many damn things, but I can't remember a recent product that depended on their research. I guess it's not too bad as you could argue that patents are a good way to encourage research even if they turn up dead ends. Kind of like a way their exposing their failures in public. But perhaps the failure would be obvious to someone else so maybe they we're better off for not granting the patent.

    7. Re:OBVIOUS! by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In all fairness, how can they deny Samsung a bullshit patent, when they have granted Apple so many bullshit patents?

    8. Re:OBVIOUS! by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 2

      why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

      Part of the problem is that 'obvious' has gained a special meaning in this context, partly as a result of case law, and that meaning is not the obvious one. Lawyers aren't paid to be reasonable.

    9. Re:OBVIOUS! by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Aren't they paid, or at least rewarded, for patents approved, rather than patents reviewed?

    10. Re:OBVIOUS! by s.petry · · Score: 2, Informative

      The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other.

      Not to be a dick, but you should check your facts before posting. Calculus predates the telephone and theory of relativity by a couple thousand years. If you are referring to infinitesimal calculus, then you are still off by at least a couple hundred years. Here is a reference.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:OBVIOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he was referring to three examples of the same idea being discovered twice at around the same time in each case. E.g. Calculus (Newton and Leibniz), and the telephone (Bell and Swan) are classic examples. I don't know of anybody else working on relativity at the same time as Einstein, but considering the explosion in theoretical physics at the time (e.g. quantum mechanics) it is unlikely that relativity would have remained undiscovered for long.

      The point is an important one: great discoveries would happen anyway, we cannot assume that a patent system makes them more likely.

    12. Re:OBVIOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Patents are written in rambling legalese and are not straightforward to read, especially software patents since they describe an abstract concept rather than a tangible object and quite often the product doesn't even exist. The abstract of a software patent is thus often meaninglessly vague and the examiner must drill down through all the claims to get an idea of what it's really trying to patent.

    13. Re:OBVIOUS! by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      I don't know of anybody else working on relativity at the same time as Einstein, but considering the explosion in theoretical physics at the time (e.g. quantum mechanics) it is unlikely that relativity would have remained undiscovered for long.

      I suspect the GP is referring to the Lorentz transformation.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
  4. thank god by reub2000 · · Score: 1

    Finally, patents are being used for something useful. What an annoying animation.

  5. My theory by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:My theory by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      The problem is patent officers aren't masters in individual fields of study to be able to determine if something is "obvious". A patent officers approval doesn't necessarily mean that the patent isn't obvious or even not already patented. That's a job for the courts and submitter. There is supposed to be a level of restraint on the submitter to not post something obvious in their field and to do diligence in ascertaining whether or not a patent should be granted for their idea or if there are existing patents that cover the idea.

      The sad thing about this is the general mentality these days of the submitter intentionally not doing these duties for deniability reasons so companies can amass more and more patents.

    2. Re:My theory by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:My theory by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      There is supposed to be a level of restraint on the submitter to not post something obvious in their field and to do diligence in ascertaining whether or not a patent should be granted for their idea or if there are existing patents that cover the idea.

      Good point. If I recall correctly from my brief encounters with the patent system, if you don't bring the examiner's attention to what could arguably be considered prior art, it explicitly counts against you should your patent be challenged. It may be that large corporations have realized that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law' definitely applies here, and they can cause a lot of trouble for a competitor even with a shaky patent, for example by dragging things out to the point where it becomes moot, or by using the threat of doing so to get cross-licensing agreements.

    4. Re:My theory by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field.

      I don't think that is entirely the problem. The other issue is that it is far easier for a patent office to say 'yes' to patents because if they refuse an application this sort of thing happens and, if the lawyer is backed by a large multinational you will probably end up with a major legal battle on your hands. It's essentially intimidation with lawyers to approve the application.

    5. Re:My theory by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

      That's a brilliant idea... We could have a classification system wherein patent applications are sorted by area of technology and assigned to patent units with specialized Examiners who are skilled in those fields to apply prior art and test for obviousness. We can call them "art units".

  6. Get a patent on this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I got your patent right here.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Is this a design pattent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  8. "Don't hate the playa, hate the game" by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    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!
    1. Re:"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

      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?

      Remember Apple started playing this game when someone sued THEM for one of those niggling patents on the iPhone. Knowing that their phone was going to be a big ticket item, they really did not have any choice but to play this game... No one, not Samsung, Google, Microsoft, whoever does.

    2. Re:"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Remember Apple started playing this game when someone sued THEM

      Difference is: Apple's patents are pure bullshit, and Apple only sues over their bullshit patents because Apple is scamming the system.

      Not *all* patent lawsuits are scams. Some patents are entirely legitimate. Apple is the master of junk patents, and scam lawsuits.

  9. Re:Flash by unrtst · · Score: 2

    Oh, I remember how the faux page curl seemed so novel for 5 minutes on Flash sites.

    Doesn't matter... that was WAY before Flash worked "on a cell phone".

  10. Re:I laughed by alen · · Score: 1

    samsung is patenting the page turn animation so they can sue amazon and apple

  11. Important distinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  12. Last refuge of the incompetents by Progman3K · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Last refuge of the incompetents by Artea · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid "Simulating applause through an electronic device" is patented, you owe me royalties.

  13. The gun is a killing machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  14. I know, I know by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Informative

    why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

    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

  15. why is this allowed? by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

    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.

  16. Just Apple is to blame by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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.

    1. Re:Just Apple is to blame by schnell · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, only Apple is to blame.

      Well, thank goodness we finally have that sorted out. Has anyone informed the Supreme Court that "walterbyrd" on Slashdot has determined the root of this multinational, multi-claim nest of lawsuits involving hundreds of patents between Google/Motorola, Samsung and Apple is that "only Apple is to blame?" I'm pretty sure we can just put this whole thing to bed now.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  17. Re:Don't you think its wrong though by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > 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.

  18. Just self defense on Samsung's part by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Apple is the one filing all the scam lawsuits.

    1. Re:Just self defense on Samsung's part by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Apple is the one filing all the scam lawsuits.

      Like the one that Google/Motorola is losing right now against Microsoft over h.264. Google asked for four billion dollars per year for you to watch h.264 videos on an Xbox. But in your warped world view that is probably purely defensive.

  19. Wooops! by intellitech · · Score: 1

    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.
  20. Only now? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    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!
    1. Re:Only now? by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      No, not a new revelation. Just finally incensed enough to post about it.

  21. GP is right, you are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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".

    1. Re:GP is right, you are an idiot by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old "I'm so reasonable that people who disagree with me must be getting paid to do so" argument.

  22. and the show WILL reach a new low by deatypoo · · Score: 1

    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.
  23. Prior Art? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Prior Art? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It's also been a transition in Apple's Keynote software since 1.0, way back when.

      Your point?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:Prior Art? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      My point is that I want to be sure any prior art that might be useful for a challenge to the patent is brought out of obsurity, so the challenger's lawyers don't lose when they could have won had they known about it.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  24. Gonna get sued by Apple. by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Informative

    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".

  25. Two simple rules by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    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.
  26. Why do criminal trials take more than 2 seconds? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. How is this not a case or prior art? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    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?

  28. I'll patent them all! by Carnivore24 · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for my entitlement patents to come back for curves, swirls, bends, wraps, rolls, twists, spins, loops, blips, burps, and farts!

  29. Stupid ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Stupid ... by sudo · · Score: 1

      Actually I hope they initially get granted as they are a perfect showcase on how retarded the Patent system is.

  30. Re:Don't you think its wrong though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Rounded corners

  31. Re:Don't you think its wrong though by sudon't · · Score: 1
    Well, let's see...

    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

  32. Re:I laughed by idunham · · Score: 1

    > Or... they're patenting it before Amazon or Apple do so in order to avoid being sued themselves.
    My suspicion is that you're correct--judging by Apple's past behavior, Apple would just add this to their patent on the corner of page curl animation and sue Samsung for "infringing" the patent they worked around.