4 ms·

Or maybe Apple just patented all of it. Assholes. Extremely succinct. Apple's the only company possible that could get a patent for turning a page in a book.

by kick 7y ago

Or maybe Apple just patented all of it. Assholes. Extremely succinct. Apple's the only company possible that could get a patent for turning a page in a book. https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/ https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the...

dylan604 7y ago
This isn't just an Apple thing as this isn't the most ridiculous sounding patent (it is ridiculous) that has been posted here. There are so many patents that take an existing concept but add the phrase "on a computer" or "digitally" or some such. Is it an example of one company being an asshole or yet another example of how the patent system is patently broken?
- kick 7y ago
  Why can't it be both? It's both.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  With company-being-an-asshole complaints, there's also game theory issues to keep in mind: because obviously stupid and invalid patents get approved all the time, not patenting something could mean being issued with patent troll lawsuits from a different company that does. That doesn't necessarily excuse it, but there's definitely more of a motivation than 'because we can' behind what these big companies do, especially considering that most of these patents never get used for anything inherently money-making and so are just cash tossed down the drain in filing fees and time spent.
- threeseed 7y ago
  > There are so many patents that take an existing concept but add the phrase "on a computer" or "digitally" or some such Please show us just one example of this. Because it's a myth that gets perpetuated that this is how patents work. You patent a specific implementation of a concept not the concept itself. If you implement a concept in a different way it won't infringe the patent.
  - comex 7y ago
    > Please show us just one example of this. How about the patents at issue in Alice v. CLS Bank? Or any of the “hundreds” of patents, according to Wikipedia, that have been found invalid by lower courts in decisions citing Alice.
zweep 7y ago
I don’t like when patents get used by big companies against small ones, but I also don’t see why a company of Google’s size should be able to just freeload on Apple’s meticulously designed interactions (that the author praises effusively) instead of designing their own.
- kick 7y ago
  Apple got their start by copying Xerox, so it's only fair that other people should be able to copy Apple without repercussions. Besides, most of the most memorable gestures and interactions of iOS were under the direction of people who were fired after Jobs died.
  - macintux 7y ago
    Apple also paid Xerox for the use of those patents.
    - kick 7y ago
      Because they were sued (and it wasn't patents, as far as I'm aware, because Xerox didn't patent their GUI paradigm): https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xer...
      - nottorp 7y ago
        Paywalled link. Every other history piece I've read said Xerox got a good chunk of Apple shares in exchange for them using their research. Perhaps they decided it isn't enough when they saw Apple was successful and sued for more money?
  - threeseed 7y ago
    Might want to go and read the history books. Apple didn't get their start by copying Xerox. They got their start by building and selling the Apple 1/2/3/Lisa. Xerox only came into the picture during the development of the Mac. And there is this myth that Xerox invented all of the GUI metaphors we know today. But actually about half came from Apple e.g drag & drop file manipulation, multiple file system views, drop down menus, clipboard. Also only one person was fired from Apple and that was Scott Forstall. After whom quite a number of memorable iOS gestures were invented i.e. when the click button disappeared.
egdod 7y ago
That's a design patent, not a utility patent.
threeseed 7y ago
Except that you're completely wrong. It's a design patent. It's for specifically how it looks not for the actual functionality. And they are basically just given out like candy to anyone that applies since they are only useful in situations where companies do an exact 1-1 copy. Otherwise it doesn't infringe. So feel free to create your own iBook clone knowing you won't infringe on this.
- kick 7y ago
  An exact, 1-1 copy shouldn't be prevented. Also, you're either completely wrong or completely misleading, and I can't tell which (maybe both) because of HN's history with completely misinterpreting patent law. They've gotten other software patents before (on things no more based on functionality as the above patent), and utilized them to sue opponents. "Slide to Unlock" comes to mind. https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/2/5676776/samsung-found-to-infringe-apple-patents-for-over-119-million-in https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/2/5676776/samsung-found-to-i...
  - threeseed 7y ago
    Design patents serve a useful purpose though. Companies should be encouraged to innovate on a design and arrive at their own implementation. Otherwise you would see large companies simply duplicate en masse the works of smaller ones. Utility patents like "slide to unlock" are obviously more about protecting an idea by patenting the most common implementation. But again in this case it was trivial to workaround since we've seen many unique phone unlock mechanisms come from the Android ecosystem.
    - ascagnel_ 7y ago
      Design patents are why Apple sued Samsung, and won, over the Fascinate (the Verizon-branded version of the original Galaxy that was pretty naked in its attempt to clone the look & feel of iOS in that era).
neurostimulant 7y ago
I remember when multi-finger gestures were still patented by apple so android couldn't implement despite the hardware capable of doing so [1]. Not sure what happened but the feature eventually land on android 2.x. [1] https://androidcommunity.com/google-axed-android-multitouch-at-apples-request-20090210/ https://androidcommunity.com/google-axed-android-multitouch-...
classified 7y ago
Well, Amazon got a mouse click patented.

by kick 7y ago

dylan604 7y ago

This isn't just an Apple thing as this isn't the most ridiculous sounding patent (it is ridiculous) that has been posted here. There are so many patents that take an existing concept but add the phrase "on a computer" or "digitally" or some such. Is it an example of one company being an asshole or yet another example of how the patent system is patently broken?

kick 7y ago
Why can't it be both? It's both.
crooked-v 7y ago
With company-being-an-asshole complaints, there's also game theory issues to keep in mind: because obviously stupid and invalid patents get approved all the time, not patenting something could mean being issued with patent troll lawsuits from a different company that does. That doesn't necessarily excuse it, but there's definitely more of a motivation than 'because we can' behind what these big companies do, especially considering that most of these patents never get used for anything inherently money-making and so are just cash tossed down the drain in filing fees and time spent.
threeseed 7y ago
> There are so many patents that take an existing concept but add the phrase "on a computer" or "digitally" or some such Please show us just one example of this. Because it's a myth that gets perpetuated that this is how patents work. You patent a specific implementation of a concept not the concept itself. If you implement a concept in a different way it won't infringe the patent.
- comex 7y ago
  > Please show us just one example of this. How about the patents at issue in Alice v. CLS Bank? Or any of the “hundreds” of patents, according to Wikipedia, that have been found invalid by lower courts in decisions citing Alice.

zweep 7y ago

I don’t like when patents get used by big companies against small ones, but I also don’t see why a company of Google’s size should be able to just freeload on Apple’s meticulously designed interactions (that the author praises effusively) instead of designing their own.

kick 7y ago
Apple got their start by copying Xerox, so it's only fair that other people should be able to copy Apple without repercussions. Besides, most of the most memorable gestures and interactions of iOS were under the direction of people who were fired after Jobs died.
- macintux 7y ago
  Apple also paid Xerox for the use of those patents.
  - kick 7y ago
    Because they were sued (and it wasn't patents, as far as I'm aware, because Xerox didn't patent their GUI paradigm): https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xer...
    - nottorp 7y ago
      Paywalled link. Every other history piece I've read said Xerox got a good chunk of Apple shares in exchange for them using their research. Perhaps they decided it isn't enough when they saw Apple was successful and sued for more money?
- threeseed 7y ago
  Might want to go and read the history books. Apple didn't get their start by copying Xerox. They got their start by building and selling the Apple 1/2/3/Lisa. Xerox only came into the picture during the development of the Mac. And there is this myth that Xerox invented all of the GUI metaphors we know today. But actually about half came from Apple e.g drag & drop file manipulation, multiple file system views, drop down menus, clipboard. Also only one person was fired from Apple and that was Scott Forstall. After whom quite a number of memorable iOS gestures were invented i.e. when the click button disappeared.

egdod 7y ago

That's a design patent, not a utility patent.

threeseed 7y ago

Except that you're completely wrong. It's a design patent. It's for specifically how it looks not for the actual functionality. And they are basically just given out like candy to anyone that applies since they are only useful in situations where companies do an exact 1-1 copy. Otherwise it doesn't infringe. So feel free to create your own iBook clone knowing you won't infringe on this.

kick 7y ago
An exact, 1-1 copy shouldn't be prevented. Also, you're either completely wrong or completely misleading, and I can't tell which (maybe both) because of HN's history with completely misinterpreting patent law. They've gotten other software patents before (on things no more based on functionality as the above patent), and utilized them to sue opponents. "Slide to Unlock" comes to mind. https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/2/5676776/samsung-found-to-infringe-apple-patents-for-over-119-million-in https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/2/5676776/samsung-found-to-i...
- threeseed 7y ago
  Design patents serve a useful purpose though. Companies should be encouraged to innovate on a design and arrive at their own implementation. Otherwise you would see large companies simply duplicate en masse the works of smaller ones. Utility patents like "slide to unlock" are obviously more about protecting an idea by patenting the most common implementation. But again in this case it was trivial to workaround since we've seen many unique phone unlock mechanisms come from the Android ecosystem.
  - ascagnel_ 7y ago
    Design patents are why Apple sued Samsung, and won, over the Fascinate (the Verizon-branded version of the original Galaxy that was pretty naked in its attempt to clone the look & feel of iOS in that era).

neurostimulant 7y ago

I remember when multi-finger gestures were still patented by apple so android couldn't implement despite the hardware capable of doing so [1]. Not sure what happened but the feature eventually land on android 2.x. [1] https://androidcommunity.com/google-axed-android-multitouch-at-apples-request-20090210/ https://androidcommunity.com/google-axed-android-multitouch-...

classified 7y ago

Well, Amazon got a mouse click patented.