5 ms·

Sad. This is not a generic patent. It only seemed obvious now. Its not something that will stop innovation (as people scream about). A scrollbar implemented wit

Sad. This is not a generic patent. It only seemed obvious now. Its not something that will stop innovation (as people scream about). A scrollbar implemented without rubber-band effect will do just fine. And why was this never implemented before anyways. There is all this hype that "Apple is Bad because they sued Samsung". But considering everything, they had no other choice legally. They had to make a case on some grounds, and these 5-6 patents were the only patents they can sue on. What would've you done to protect ideas you spent years refining?

johsoe 14y ago
Years refining this overscroll effect?
- ankitaggarwal 14y ago
  No. But the design of their products. If you followed the trial, they told the entire process on how they reached the final design of iPhone. It took them years to make it perfect. Taking inspiration is different, and we all know what samsung did for staying in market. LEGALLY, apple had no choice but to take these silly looking patent to the courtroom. Now is the time when we will see real innovation. I don't know why people build so much of hate for big corporates. Samsung is no different. If you see number of patents Samsung holds, you will be stunned. And most of them are something they never even implemented in their software remotely.
  - jivatmanx 14y ago
    I don't begrudge having patent nukes for deterrence purposes. I begrudge using them offensively.
    - ankitaggarwal 14y ago
      So basically, apple falls in latter. Right?
  - johsoe 14y ago
    Well that's not what we're talking about here. This is a thing too simple for a patent. I could probably see many things in iOS/the iPhone worth patenting, but this is not one of them. I'm not against Apple, I'm against ALL useless patents like this and probably many of Samsungs'.
SethMurphy 14y ago
The affect is simply mimicking the physical world. Think slot machines and wheel of fortune type games of chance, which have similar user interfaces and exhibit this same behavior.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  Bingo. Apple is essentially the world's most successful design company. Because they've done it electronically, they've unfortunately been granted patents to design principles that are quite ancient. If this is allowed it sets a bad precedent.
ircmaxell 14y ago
> But considering everything, they had no other choice legally. Patents are not Trademarks. Patents are valid and legal even if you don't enforce them (where trademarks become invalid if you don't enforce them). So no, they did have a choice. In fact, they had 3: 1. They could have not gotten the patent at all. This could open them up to legal liability if someone else got it and sued them. 2. They could have kept it for defensive purposes only. Using it if they were sued for patent abuse (and to prevent others from suing on this idea). 3. They could use it offensively. They chose #3. So yes, they did have a choice. Additionally, I love your choice of words for the final sentence: > What would've you done to protect ideas you spent years refining? I think it hits the key point. They didn't invent the vast majority of what they are suing over. They just refined it. They didn't invent multi-touch, they just polished it. Now, whether that polish is worth a patent is one thing, but the concept is not. And that's the absurdity of it all. This is not about protecting invention. This is not about protecting innovation. It's about protecting market position. And if there's a clearer abuse of the patent system than this, I'd love to see it...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ankitaggarwal 14y ago
  Thanks for clearing things up. What I am trying to say is, they had no other choice to send the message across that stop ripping off apple products. The patent they sued samsung over can be considered silly but what choice they had? I bet if this verdict was not given, next galaxy series would've been like iPhone 5. It was not about money, it was more about market position because what samsung was basically doing was placing ripped off versions of apple products in market. And i don't think this is a generic patent. and this is what I call abuse of system. Just look at the patents mentioned in the link. Something that paul or its company was not even remotely associated. http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/27/microsoft-co-founder-paul-allen-sues-apple-google-facebook-ao/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/27/microsoft-co-founder-paul...

johsoe 14y ago

Years refining this overscroll effect?

ankitaggarwal 14y ago
No. But the design of their products. If you followed the trial, they told the entire process on how they reached the final design of iPhone. It took them years to make it perfect. Taking inspiration is different, and we all know what samsung did for staying in market. LEGALLY, apple had no choice but to take these silly looking patent to the courtroom. Now is the time when we will see real innovation. I don't know why people build so much of hate for big corporates. Samsung is no different. If you see number of patents Samsung holds, you will be stunned. And most of them are something they never even implemented in their software remotely.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  I don't begrudge having patent nukes for deterrence purposes. I begrudge using them offensively.
  - ankitaggarwal 14y ago
    So basically, apple falls in latter. Right?
- johsoe 14y ago
  Well that's not what we're talking about here. This is a thing too simple for a patent. I could probably see many things in iOS/the iPhone worth patenting, but this is not one of them. I'm not against Apple, I'm against ALL useless patents like this and probably many of Samsungs'.

SethMurphy 14y ago

The affect is simply mimicking the physical world. Think slot machines and wheel of fortune type games of chance, which have similar user interfaces and exhibit this same behavior.

jivatmanx 14y ago
Bingo. Apple is essentially the world's most successful design company. Because they've done it electronically, they've unfortunately been granted patents to design principles that are quite ancient. If this is allowed it sets a bad precedent.

ircmaxell 14y ago

> But considering everything, they had no other choice legally. Patents are not Trademarks. Patents are valid and legal even if you don't enforce them (where trademarks become invalid if you don't enforce them). So no, they did have a choice. In fact, they had 3: 1. They could have not gotten the patent at all. This could open them up to legal liability if someone else got it and sued them. 2. They could have kept it for defensive purposes only. Using it if they were sued for patent abuse (and to prevent others from suing on this idea). 3. They could use it offensively. They chose #3. So yes, they did have a choice. Additionally, I love your choice of words for the final sentence: > What would've you done to protect ideas you spent years refining? I think it hits the key point. They didn't invent the vast majority of what they are suing over. They just refined it. They didn't invent multi-touch, they just polished it. Now, whether that polish is worth a patent is one thing, but the concept is not. And that's the absurdity of it all. This is not about protecting invention. This is not about protecting innovation. It's about protecting market position. And if there's a clearer abuse of the patent system than this, I'd love to see it...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ankitaggarwal 14y ago
Thanks for clearing things up. What I am trying to say is, they had no other choice to send the message across that stop ripping off apple products. The patent they sued samsung over can be considered silly but what choice they had? I bet if this verdict was not given, next galaxy series would've been like iPhone 5. It was not about money, it was more about market position because what samsung was basically doing was placing ripped off versions of apple products in market. And i don't think this is a generic patent. and this is what I call abuse of system. Just look at the patents mentioned in the link. Something that paul or its company was not even remotely associated. http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/27/microsoft-co-founder-paul-allen-sues-apple-google-facebook-ao/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/27/microsoft-co-founder-paul...