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."

Comments

Next patent application ...

[stevez67]

... 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

[ganjadude]

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.

Re:If I were

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:If I were

[VortexCortex]

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.

My theory

[ganjadude]

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