8 ms·

The pull-to-refresh patent

146 points by beggi 15y ago

dominik 15y ago
Worth noting that the inventor has said that he won't enforce this patent. https://twitter.com/#!/lorenb/status/21684045608 https://twitter.com/#!/lorenb/status/21684045608 (That said, as commenters below correctly point out, Twitter, not Loren, owns the patent and gets to decide whom to enforce it against).
- dcurtis 15y ago
  Interestingly, as he no longer works at Twitter, he no longer owns or controls the patent.
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    Assuming the patent is Twitter's and not Loren's personal property.
    - masklinn 15y ago
      The patent is ATEBITS LLC's, and I understand Atebits is now a subsidiary of Twitter. So the patent would indeed be Twitter's, Loren is listed as the inventor but is not the assignee.
      - ceejayoz 15y ago
        He probably shouldn't have been promising not to use a patent he didn't own anymore, then. Not cool, unless there's a private agreement requiring his consent for patent usage.
        iamdave 15y ago
        Either this, or negotiated/set a better expectation that he isn't going to bring certain inventions with him to Twitter. Granted, this probably would have made it harder for an agreement on terms regarding his place at Twitter to come into existence.
- noonespecial 15y ago
  Patents are like the toxic waste of innovation. You promise yourself to keep them safely contained, but its hard to do in the real world and once they spill, they contaminate everything around them, making the ground uninhabitable for 20 odd years.
- natesm 15y ago
  The correct way to do that would have been to just release it without patenting it, no? He was the first one to do it, so his prior art would invalidate any future patents, and we'd all be free to use it without any fear.
  - mcherm 15y ago
    I really wish patents worked that way. Unfortunately, they don't. If something is patented, then no one else can patent it -- that's pretty clear and the patent office enforces it fairly well. If something is "obvious" (to one of ordinary skill) or if something has already been done, then it SHOULD not be patentable... but it is quite common for such things to be patented anyway. To be fair, it is unreasonable for the patent office to know about every thing which has ever been done, but still these things get patented. Once a patent is issued, there is a presumption by the courts that it is valid. You can contest this, and use prior art to invalidate the patent but it will require litigation and will be VERY EXPENSIVE. You can "use it without fear" as long as you don't mind paying a trivial $100,000 or more in litigation costs. I would be very pleased if someone knowledgeable about the practice of patent law would write in to correct me -- I really wish it didn't work like this -- but from what I have seen I believe that there IS a real danger that things which have been "released" wind up patented later.
    - noonespecial 15y ago
      If something is patented, then no one else can patent it I wish that were also true. In reality patents overlap hugely, and a line of trolls can form for the same feature. You have to spend the same 100k to show that another patent, issued earlier, also covered this idea, even if that patent was yours.
    - wmf 15y ago
      One solution to this problem is a defensive publication: basically you write a patent application, send it to the patent office (so they can use it as prior art), but don't ask for it to be patented. Unfortunately, writing the application has a nontrivial cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registratio...
- philip1209 15y ago
  He said that he wasn't planning on it - that's non-binding and ambiguous.
- mattezell 15y ago
  Yeah, I have seen this in use for some time in high profile applications - seemingly indicating that it is not being enforced. The Android Facebook app has this pull-to-refresh on its news feed - has for the last handful of updates. Pulse News also has used this same behavior for quite some time... It would seem that either these (and others) have been overlooked or the patent is indeed not being enforced at this time.
beggi 15y ago
The relationship between Apple and Twitter seems very good to me, so I think the reason Apple doesn't use pull-to-refresh is that they want to be conservative in their UI rather than they are afraid of a patent lawsuit from Twitter.
- kenshi 15y ago
  I think that's a very optimistic take on the situation. Given the amount of VC money sunk into Twitter, and the amount of cash Apple has, I think it's a prudent move on Apple's part to stay well clear of infringement.
  - dubya 15y ago
    Gmail's mobile version has had pull to refresh for a while. Google's pockets are probably deep enough.
  - rdl 15y ago
    Apple could presumably license it under favorable terms from Twitter, if they're in fact that friendly.
- Sos_Oganessian 15y ago
  I feel that replacing the word Twitter with the word Google and moving the clock back to 2007 would make that statement just as valid... and just as dangerous.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
huggyface 15y ago
This is fairly ridiculous and serves as a showcase for the need of software patent reform. Software patents deter innovation in general and are a scourge, however I think it's odd that of all the trivial patents that are being enforced, this is the one chosen for ridicule. It is clearly a novel implementation. People want to copy it, and want to see it copied, because it has value. Isn't that the purpose of patents? I would compare it with multitasking gestures in iOS. I love them on the iPad. Yet I could trivialize them and say that they should also be on my Android tablet because it's just doing things with your finger so why not?
- anonymoushn 15y ago
  Is it novel? How many sites had infinite scroll that worked in essentially the same way when this patent was filed?
  - huggyface 15y ago
    https://www.google.ca/search?q=pull+to+refresh https://www.google.ca/search?q=pull+to+refresh That isn't infinite scroll, and it's pretty clear that the sudden awareness of this interface technique rose quite quickly.
    - anonymoushn 15y ago
      Infinite scroll allows you to scroll past the bottom to see older content. Pull to refresh allows you to scroll past the top to see newer content. I'm having a hard time finding the non-obvious aspect of the invention. After looking around a bit, it seems like the non-obvious use people are employing is applying the concept even where the content isn't a list which will expand at the top when you refresh, but rather some other form of content that will be replaced with the up-to-date version when you refresh.
      - politician 15y ago
        This is a silly patent. Imagine that you're looking at the months view of any calendar app in existence. Scroll, tap, swipe left? Older months. Scroll, tap, swipe right? Newer months. Rotate 90 degrees and this concept is novel? Egads.
btucker 15y ago
It strikes me that Loren's "pull to refresh" really was an invention of a new UI concept. Do we see no place for patents in true UI innovation? On a side-note, is it ironic that this post is from a guy who was recently upset when someone else appropriated his own innovative UI?
- zbuc 15y ago
  > Do we see no place for patents in true UI innovation? I don't know. Do you? I personally don't. If your software's differentiating factors are your UI innovations you might feel differently. If it was appropriated into a competitive application I can understand being upset, but as long as the app the UI innovation is used in isn't competing with your app, who cares? You came up with a good paradigm and people liked it and used it elsewhere. Isn't that enough?
  - btucker 15y ago
    Perhaps the real question is does allowing the patenting of UI innovation encourage greater innovation, or stifle it?
    - bksenior 15y ago
      Can an architect patent design features when building a house?
      - zbuc 15y ago
        Great question! Apparently, yes. http://www.archdaily.com/197061/architectural-patents-on-what-grounds/ http://www.archdaily.com/197061/architectural-patents-on-wha...
    - gcb 15y ago
      I'm all for patents (bye karma. but keep reading). that's what allow us humans to invent new things and improve our way of life. now... about patent enforcement today that's another issue. Main goal of patents WAS to promote innovation. it started in a time when everyone had trade secrets. So if you wanted to fix your fridge yourself, thought luck. it's a trade secret. you could even go to jail if you are found with schematics to fix it. instead, patents. you publish your trade secret, everyone can read and learn from it. Then if someone want to use it for making money, they pay you a fee to cover your research and move on to invent new things what happen today? patents crush hobbyists. everyone spend 10x R&D to invent the same thing in a way not covered by some patent. companies avoid useful stuff because they are afraid of being hostage of the patent holder (as is the case here, apple could pay a license fee to twitter, it's not the royalties that are game here). Today you release something open source that is covered in a patent you never saw (hey, it's so obvious monkeys could came up with the same solution) you go to jail, just the sort of thing patents were supposed to PREVENT! anyway, patents good. way it's enforced bad.
dubya 15y ago
This seems like it really depends on the way Apple implemented scrolling, where you can pull past the end and then have it spring back. I don't know if this was new with Apple though.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  I don't know whether it is new or not, but Apple has patented it. It is one of the patents Apple has been pummeling Samsung with in Europe, since they implemented spring-back scrolling in a few places. I remember the photo gallery, but I think there might have been another patent involved there. This patent is also the reason that stock Android (and most non-Samsung skins, I believe) flash a light when you hit a scrolling boundary instead of springing back. Twitter presumably has some sort of license (via the iOS SDK or whatever) to use spring-back scrolling in the iOS Twitter app. However, there is also spring-back scrolling in the Android Twitter app. I wonder if Twitter has a license for that or if Apple is merely letting it go because of their current friendly relations.
  - madeofpalk 15y ago
    That 'rubber band' scrolling is present in many other environments, such as Windows Phone 7
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      Microsoft and Apple have a relatively broad cross-licensing agreement, so I suspect that case has been covered.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
andybak 15y ago
The value of a UX convention is mostly destroyed if it doesn't become an accepted convention. Consider this. Company X develops an interaction. They use it in all their software which commands 30% of the market and they prevent others using using the threat of patent litigation. The rest of the industry settles on an alternative which is patent-free. Which is the better interaction? You can argue that it's the second one simply by virtue of being used in 70% of cases. Even if it is initially less familiar or in general less efficient - it's eventual familiarity outweighs both concerns.
cwe 15y ago
I am having a hard time figuring out where Apple would ever implement this. They don't have any news apps or readers or anything that could really benefit from this. The only app I can really see is Mail, since it does have a refresh button that could be replaced, but Apple doesn't really like to depend on gestures.
dominik 15y ago
Looking at the prosecution history on the USPTO's PAIR, the patent was granted on the first try -- the Examiner didn't cite any reference against it and granted it right away. That's pretty rare (and weighs toward there being novelty here). Also, note this is a utility patent, not a design patent -- so 20 years of a right-to-exclude from the filing date. The filing date (and priority date in this case) is April 8, 2010. i.e. that's the date someone would need to find prior art that reads on the claims of the patent. (Unless Twitter can establish an earlier invention date -- which would likely occur in the course of an actual lawsuit about the patent; e.g. a Git checkin of the first implementation, or a drawing in a notebook with a date on it). As for the claims, the two independent claims are: A method claim: 1. A method, comprising: displaying a content area; receiving input associated with a first command, the first command including a request to scroll the content area; and based on the first command, performing a second command, the second command being independent of the first command. And a device claim: 20. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method, comprising: displaying a scrollable list of content items, the scrollable list of content items including a plurality of discrete content items arranged chronologically; receiving input associated with a scroll command, the input representing touch-based user input; based on the scroll command, displaying a scrollable refresh trigger configured to scroll with the scrollable list of content items; in response to determining that the scrollable refresh trigger is fully displayed, providing an instruction associated with activating the scrollable refresh trigger; in response to determining that the scroll command was completed while the scrollable refresh trigger was fully displayed, refreshing the scrollable list of content items; and in response to determining that the scrollable list of content items has been refreshed, automatically scrolling the scrollable list of content items such that the scrollable refresh trigger is not displayed.
- notatoad 15y ago
  prior art should be too hard to find, the whole concept of scrolling up to refresh is exactly the same concept as infinite-scrolling. if you scroll below the bottom of a list, it finds the next n older items. if you scroll above the top of a list, it finds the next n newer items. what's the difference?
mayoff 15y ago
After the stink dcurtis raised about svbtle vs. obtvse, it seems inconsistent to me that he's opposed to legal protection for novel design ideas.
recursive 15y ago
Somewhat off-topic, but this site slowed my browser to a crawl.
mrich 15y ago
How ironic would it be if Apple couldn't implement something because of a ridiculous patent?
- slantyyz 15y ago
  It shouldn't be a big deal. They paid Amazon for 1 click buy.
phil 15y ago
I'm more sympathetic than usual to the part of the patent he screenshotted. At least pull to refresh is novel. But this broad construction? It attempts to patent any interaction where you start out scrolling then trigger something else: http://cl.ly/0U3t391I3n1O2p2g0r2a http://cl.ly/0U3t391I3n1O2p2g0r2a
jklp 15y ago
Contrary to what people are saying I actually believe that a patent should be granted for the "pull to refresh" feature. The inventor obviously thought very deeply about the problem, and implemented an elegant, intuitive solution to solve it. What I don't agree with is that the patent is valid FOR 14 YEARS. Patents are meant to reward inventors for the behaviour I outlined above, but 14 years is a lifetime for a software patent. If the patent period was reduced to 1 or maybe 2 years, that should be more than enough time to capitalize on a novel refresh method.
lukeredpath 15y ago
I'm sure if Apple really wanted to incorporate this into their apps they would either a) license the patent or b) just do it anyway.
- madeofpalk 15y ago
  Apple already uses 'pull to refresh' in loads of their internal iOS apps.
  - alexfringes 15y ago
    True. Surprisingly enough, they also use the Android style connect-the-dots unlocking UI for some of them.
    - cpeterso 15y ago
      And iOS 4 copied Android's "window shade" style notifications.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
This isn't a ridiculous patent. Lots of really awesome innovations seem like no brainers once they're out in the wild but if it was so obvious and trivial why wasn't it implemented on ios from the start? This isn't an example for why we need patent reform, I see it as making a case for why patents can be useful. Now that some have the fear of being sued for using this technique hopefully we'll see more, even more innovative ways implementing refresh behavior. Constraints breed innovation while lack of constraints breeds a lot of copycat technology. Now, if you want to talk about how long the patent lasts then that's a different story but I see no reason for this patent not to exist.
- guelo 15y ago
  How does it benefit society that nobody besides Twitter can implement this fewature in any touch UI for the next 20 years?
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    It's a double edged sword. It may suck if you want to implement it yourself but it benefits society by creating a constraint. That constraint will force people to work around it to possibly create new and better implementations of the refresh behavior. Also, I wasn't aware that the patent expires in 20 years. That does seem like a long time but compared to the perpetual copyright we have it's not as bad. I'll agree that the term patents are given is too long but I'm one of the few around here that is in favor of them. Not absolutely but to a reasonable degree. The patent system has flaws (major ones) but the idea of patents is something I support. I truly believe that it really does foster innovation. It's an incentive to innovate. If Twitter let's others use it and collects royalties then it's not like Twitter alone is able to implement it and when the patent expires others can for free. Facebook on iOS has had this behavior for a while now. I think people much like yourself are thinking of patents in absolute terms like they're all good or all bad. It's more complicated than that. They're a good thing that can be abused like prescription medication or guns. If we could just be sane about what gets to be patented, how long, and just generally use patents sanely we'd have no problem. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
- 15y ago
cletus 15y ago
Reading some of the comments on this thread it astounds me how many people still buy into lie that patents foster innovation, particularly as it applies to software. Read Ben Franklin [1] on the subject. Everyone should familiarize with the nascent days of the aviation industry when the Wright brothers' patent on the three-axis control method used in planes left the United States completely unable to produce planes when it entered World War One [2], ultimately forcing Congress to intervene [3]. "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron. [1]: http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/ http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patent... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#The_patent_pool_solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#...
- baddox 15y ago
  The idea of "intellectual property" has been so ingrained in many people that they simply cannot or will not recognize any difference between copying/distributing an idea (or a digital work) and stealing physical property. Generally, their (faulty) logic is that putting time and effort into creating something necessarily gives you absolute ownership of that thing, even if it's just an idea or a string of bytes.
  - btucker 15y ago
    I don't think you're giving the modern population enough credit. I'd argue that most people understand that there are cases where you can take something, and the original owner still has it. What's ingrained, rather, is a respect for the inventors, creators, originators of the world. We look to them with awe and, rightly or not, feel some low-level need to recognize and uphold that they came first with their creation.
    - whackedspinach 15y ago
      As someone who has tried to argue against the idea of "intellectual property", this is the response I usually receive. Unfortunately, creating something and enforcing property rights on the ideas to "reward" the author doesn't make the system any better. There's that idea in software development that it doesn't matter who came up with the idea first, but who executed it better. I actually think this is how the world should work. Who cares if you came up with an idea if you never acted on it? Why should you have the right to hold up innovation in that field? Just get rid of "intellectual property" (at least patents) and let the people decide with their wallets.
linuxhansl 15y ago
I did this scroll bar thing 8 years ago at a job. It's quite an obvious strategy. You don't load all the data, but only what the user can actually see, with a bit of buffer space in both directions. When the user moves the scrollbar you go and fetch more data. Not surprised that (1) somebody filed a patent on it and (2) it actually got accepted. Also maybe someone can show me where this "apparatus" cited in the in patent is to be found.
jordanekay 15y ago
I can’t think of any Apple iOS apps that are appropriate for pull-to-refresh. Can you?
justinsb 15y ago
This is not a patent; this is a patent application. Anyone can write anything they like and file it as an application, and that is a good thing. If a patent is ever granted from this application, I guarantee you those claims will be nowhere near as broad as they are now.
scottmp10 15y ago
First, I am a little surprised at the number of people that laud this UX. The only time I have encountered it was in the Facebook for Android app and I found it not to be intuitive. Even once I understood the behavior, it is not always obvious what will happen when you drag down since there is no indication that you are at the top of the stream. You essentially have overloaded the pull-down action. As to when this is patent worthy, I would argue no. Pull-down is as basic an action as you can do. The patent is equivalent to patenting the concept (as opposed to the engineering implementation) of selecting an item on a screen that a user points to with their hand. Or the concept of performing an action when you click on an item on your desktop (since clicking is as basic on a mouse as swiping is on a touch screen). To be fair, it is difficult to argue where to draw the line for patents and some people would probably argue that my examples should be patentable (regardless of whether they are - I don't actually know). It just strikes me that rewarding people for these "innovations" does exactly nothing to increase people's effort to figure out a good UX for their product.
sherwin 15y ago
The Google Voice app on iOS has a pull-to-refresh feature. Is this patent infringement then?
- rplnt 15y ago
  In USA, maybe. Depends on the implementation. I think there is a room to copy the functionality without breaking the patent (I haven't see the app). There's also a possibility that the Google has some sort of agreement and can use that patent.
_seininn 15y ago
I hate patents. I see them as a reason why true innovation slowed down. I think ALL patents should be thrown out. However, claiming that this patent is ridiculous is ridiculous, at least if you take a look at how it is similar to patents in other fields. This patent is every bit as valid as the patent that describes a water sprinkler that uses water flow as a timer.
dominik 15y ago
This is not a patent. This is a patent application. It has not been granted. It hasn't even been reviewed by an Examiner yet. All that's happened thus far is that the application has been submitted to the Patent Office and published. That's it.

146 points by beggi 15y ago

Worth noting that the inventor has said that he won't enforce this patent. https://twitter.com/#!/lorenb/status/21684045608 https://twitter.com/#!/lorenb/status/21684045608 (That said, as commenters below correctly point out, Twitter, not Loren, owns the patent and gets to decide whom to enforce it against).

dcurtis 15y ago
Interestingly, as he no longer works at Twitter, he no longer owns or controls the patent.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  Assuming the patent is Twitter's and not Loren's personal property.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    The patent is ATEBITS LLC's, and I understand Atebits is now a subsidiary of Twitter. So the patent would indeed be Twitter's, Loren is listed as the inventor but is not the assignee.
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      He probably shouldn't have been promising not to use a patent he didn't own anymore, then. Not cool, unless there's a private agreement requiring his consent for patent usage.
      - iamdave 15y ago
        Either this, or negotiated/set a better expectation that he isn't going to bring certain inventions with him to Twitter. Granted, this probably would have made it harder for an agreement on terms regarding his place at Twitter to come into existence.
noonespecial 15y ago
Patents are like the toxic waste of innovation. You promise yourself to keep them safely contained, but its hard to do in the real world and once they spill, they contaminate everything around them, making the ground uninhabitable for 20 odd years.
natesm 15y ago
The correct way to do that would have been to just release it without patenting it, no? He was the first one to do it, so his prior art would invalidate any future patents, and we'd all be free to use it without any fear.
- mcherm 15y ago
  I really wish patents worked that way. Unfortunately, they don't. If something is patented, then no one else can patent it -- that's pretty clear and the patent office enforces it fairly well. If something is "obvious" (to one of ordinary skill) or if something has already been done, then it SHOULD not be patentable... but it is quite common for such things to be patented anyway. To be fair, it is unreasonable for the patent office to know about every thing which has ever been done, but still these things get patented. Once a patent is issued, there is a presumption by the courts that it is valid. You can contest this, and use prior art to invalidate the patent but it will require litigation and will be VERY EXPENSIVE. You can "use it without fear" as long as you don't mind paying a trivial $100,000 or more in litigation costs. I would be very pleased if someone knowledgeable about the practice of patent law would write in to correct me -- I really wish it didn't work like this -- but from what I have seen I believe that there IS a real danger that things which have been "released" wind up patented later.
  - noonespecial 15y ago
    If something is patented, then no one else can patent it I wish that were also true. In reality patents overlap hugely, and a line of trolls can form for the same feature. You have to spend the same 100k to show that another patent, issued earlier, also covered this idea, even if that patent was yours.
  - wmf 15y ago
    One solution to this problem is a defensive publication: basically you write a patent application, send it to the patent office (so they can use it as prior art), but don't ask for it to be patented. Unfortunately, writing the application has a nontrivial cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registratio...
philip1209 15y ago
He said that he wasn't planning on it - that's non-binding and ambiguous.
mattezell 15y ago
Yeah, I have seen this in use for some time in high profile applications - seemingly indicating that it is not being enforced. The Android Facebook app has this pull-to-refresh on its news feed - has for the last handful of updates. Pulse News also has used this same behavior for quite some time... It would seem that either these (and others) have been overlooked or the patent is indeed not being enforced at this time.

beggi 15y ago

The relationship between Apple and Twitter seems very good to me, so I think the reason Apple doesn't use pull-to-refresh is that they want to be conservative in their UI rather than they are afraid of a patent lawsuit from Twitter.

kenshi 15y ago
I think that's a very optimistic take on the situation. Given the amount of VC money sunk into Twitter, and the amount of cash Apple has, I think it's a prudent move on Apple's part to stay well clear of infringement.
- dubya 15y ago
  Gmail's mobile version has had pull to refresh for a while. Google's pockets are probably deep enough.
- rdl 15y ago
  Apple could presumably license it under favorable terms from Twitter, if they're in fact that friendly.
Sos_Oganessian 15y ago
I feel that replacing the word Twitter with the word Google and moving the clock back to 2007 would make that statement just as valid... and just as dangerous.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

huggyface 15y ago

This is fairly ridiculous and serves as a showcase for the need of software patent reform. Software patents deter innovation in general and are a scourge, however I think it's odd that of all the trivial patents that are being enforced, this is the one chosen for ridicule. It is clearly a novel implementation. People want to copy it, and want to see it copied, because it has value. Isn't that the purpose of patents? I would compare it with multitasking gestures in iOS. I love them on the iPad. Yet I could trivialize them and say that they should also be on my Android tablet because it's just doing things with your finger so why not?

anonymoushn 15y ago
Is it novel? How many sites had infinite scroll that worked in essentially the same way when this patent was filed?
- huggyface 15y ago
  https://www.google.ca/search?q=pull+to+refresh https://www.google.ca/search?q=pull+to+refresh That isn't infinite scroll, and it's pretty clear that the sudden awareness of this interface technique rose quite quickly.
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    Infinite scroll allows you to scroll past the bottom to see older content. Pull to refresh allows you to scroll past the top to see newer content. I'm having a hard time finding the non-obvious aspect of the invention. After looking around a bit, it seems like the non-obvious use people are employing is applying the concept even where the content isn't a list which will expand at the top when you refresh, but rather some other form of content that will be replaced with the up-to-date version when you refresh.
    - politician 15y ago
      This is a silly patent. Imagine that you're looking at the months view of any calendar app in existence. Scroll, tap, swipe left? Older months. Scroll, tap, swipe right? Newer months. Rotate 90 degrees and this concept is novel? Egads.

btucker 15y ago

It strikes me that Loren's "pull to refresh" really was an invention of a new UI concept. Do we see no place for patents in true UI innovation? On a side-note, is it ironic that this post is from a guy who was recently upset when someone else appropriated his own innovative UI?

zbuc 15y ago
> Do we see no place for patents in true UI innovation? I don't know. Do you? I personally don't. If your software's differentiating factors are your UI innovations you might feel differently. If it was appropriated into a competitive application I can understand being upset, but as long as the app the UI innovation is used in isn't competing with your app, who cares? You came up with a good paradigm and people liked it and used it elsewhere. Isn't that enough?
- btucker 15y ago
  Perhaps the real question is does allowing the patenting of UI innovation encourage greater innovation, or stifle it?
  - bksenior 15y ago
    Can an architect patent design features when building a house?
    - zbuc 15y ago
      Great question! Apparently, yes. http://www.archdaily.com/197061/architectural-patents-on-what-grounds/ http://www.archdaily.com/197061/architectural-patents-on-wha...
  - gcb 15y ago
    I'm all for patents (bye karma. but keep reading). that's what allow us humans to invent new things and improve our way of life. now... about patent enforcement today that's another issue. Main goal of patents WAS to promote innovation. it started in a time when everyone had trade secrets. So if you wanted to fix your fridge yourself, thought luck. it's a trade secret. you could even go to jail if you are found with schematics to fix it. instead, patents. you publish your trade secret, everyone can read and learn from it. Then if someone want to use it for making money, they pay you a fee to cover your research and move on to invent new things what happen today? patents crush hobbyists. everyone spend 10x R&D to invent the same thing in a way not covered by some patent. companies avoid useful stuff because they are afraid of being hostage of the patent holder (as is the case here, apple could pay a license fee to twitter, it's not the royalties that are game here). Today you release something open source that is covered in a patent you never saw (hey, it's so obvious monkeys could came up with the same solution) you go to jail, just the sort of thing patents were supposed to PREVENT! anyway, patents good. way it's enforced bad.

dubya 15y ago

This seems like it really depends on the way Apple implemented scrolling, where you can pull past the end and then have it spring back. I don't know if this was new with Apple though.

fpgeek 15y ago
I don't know whether it is new or not, but Apple has patented it. It is one of the patents Apple has been pummeling Samsung with in Europe, since they implemented spring-back scrolling in a few places. I remember the photo gallery, but I think there might have been another patent involved there. This patent is also the reason that stock Android (and most non-Samsung skins, I believe) flash a light when you hit a scrolling boundary instead of springing back. Twitter presumably has some sort of license (via the iOS SDK or whatever) to use spring-back scrolling in the iOS Twitter app. However, there is also spring-back scrolling in the Android Twitter app. I wonder if Twitter has a license for that or if Apple is merely letting it go because of their current friendly relations.
- madeofpalk 15y ago
  That 'rubber band' scrolling is present in many other environments, such as Windows Phone 7
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    Microsoft and Apple have a relatively broad cross-licensing agreement, so I suspect that case has been covered.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

andybak 15y ago

The value of a UX convention is mostly destroyed if it doesn't become an accepted convention. Consider this. Company X develops an interaction. They use it in all their software which commands 30% of the market and they prevent others using using the threat of patent litigation. The rest of the industry settles on an alternative which is patent-free. Which is the better interaction? You can argue that it's the second one simply by virtue of being used in 70% of cases. Even if it is initially less familiar or in general less efficient - it's eventual familiarity outweighs both concerns.

cwe 15y ago

I am having a hard time figuring out where Apple would ever implement this. They don't have any news apps or readers or anything that could really benefit from this. The only app I can really see is Mail, since it does have a refresh button that could be replaced, but Apple doesn't really like to depend on gestures.

dominik 15y ago

Looking at the prosecution history on the USPTO's PAIR, the patent was granted on the first try -- the Examiner didn't cite any reference against it and granted it right away. That's pretty rare (and weighs toward there being novelty here). Also, note this is a utility patent, not a design patent -- so 20 years of a right-to-exclude from the filing date. The filing date (and priority date in this case) is April 8, 2010. i.e. that's the date someone would need to find prior art that reads on the claims of the patent. (Unless Twitter can establish an earlier invention date -- which would likely occur in the course of an actual lawsuit about the patent; e.g. a Git checkin of the first implementation, or a drawing in a notebook with a date on it). As for the claims, the two independent claims are: A method claim: 1. A method, comprising: displaying a content area; receiving input associated with a first command, the first command including a request to scroll the content area; and based on the first command, performing a second command, the second command being independent of the first command. And a device claim: 20. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method, comprising: displaying a scrollable list of content items, the scrollable list of content items including a plurality of discrete content items arranged chronologically; receiving input associated with a scroll command, the input representing touch-based user input; based on the scroll command, displaying a scrollable refresh trigger configured to scroll with the scrollable list of content items; in response to determining that the scrollable refresh trigger is fully displayed, providing an instruction associated with activating the scrollable refresh trigger; in response to determining that the scroll command was completed while the scrollable refresh trigger was fully displayed, refreshing the scrollable list of content items; and in response to determining that the scrollable list of content items has been refreshed, automatically scrolling the scrollable list of content items such that the scrollable refresh trigger is not displayed.

notatoad 15y ago
prior art should be too hard to find, the whole concept of scrolling up to refresh is exactly the same concept as infinite-scrolling. if you scroll below the bottom of a list, it finds the next n older items. if you scroll above the top of a list, it finds the next n newer items. what's the difference?

mayoff 15y ago

After the stink dcurtis raised about svbtle vs. obtvse, it seems inconsistent to me that he's opposed to legal protection for novel design ideas.

recursive 15y ago

Somewhat off-topic, but this site slowed my browser to a crawl.

mrich 15y ago

How ironic would it be if Apple couldn't implement something because of a ridiculous patent?

slantyyz 15y ago
It shouldn't be a big deal. They paid Amazon for 1 click buy.

phil 15y ago

I'm more sympathetic than usual to the part of the patent he screenshotted. At least pull to refresh is novel. But this broad construction? It attempts to patent any interaction where you start out scrolling then trigger something else: http://cl.ly/0U3t391I3n1O2p2g0r2a http://cl.ly/0U3t391I3n1O2p2g0r2a

jklp 15y ago

Contrary to what people are saying I actually believe that a patent should be granted for the "pull to refresh" feature. The inventor obviously thought very deeply about the problem, and implemented an elegant, intuitive solution to solve it. What I don't agree with is that the patent is valid FOR 14 YEARS. Patents are meant to reward inventors for the behaviour I outlined above, but 14 years is a lifetime for a software patent. If the patent period was reduced to 1 or maybe 2 years, that should be more than enough time to capitalize on a novel refresh method.

lukeredpath 15y ago

I'm sure if Apple really wanted to incorporate this into their apps they would either a) license the patent or b) just do it anyway.

madeofpalk 15y ago
Apple already uses 'pull to refresh' in loads of their internal iOS apps.
- alexfringes 15y ago
  True. Surprisingly enough, they also use the Android style connect-the-dots unlocking UI for some of them.
  - cpeterso 15y ago
    And iOS 4 copied Android's "window shade" style notifications.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

This isn't a ridiculous patent. Lots of really awesome innovations seem like no brainers once they're out in the wild but if it was so obvious and trivial why wasn't it implemented on ios from the start? This isn't an example for why we need patent reform, I see it as making a case for why patents can be useful. Now that some have the fear of being sued for using this technique hopefully we'll see more, even more innovative ways implementing refresh behavior. Constraints breed innovation while lack of constraints breeds a lot of copycat technology. Now, if you want to talk about how long the patent lasts then that's a different story but I see no reason for this patent not to exist.

guelo 15y ago
How does it benefit society that nobody besides Twitter can implement this fewature in any touch UI for the next 20 years?
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  It's a double edged sword. It may suck if you want to implement it yourself but it benefits society by creating a constraint. That constraint will force people to work around it to possibly create new and better implementations of the refresh behavior. Also, I wasn't aware that the patent expires in 20 years. That does seem like a long time but compared to the perpetual copyright we have it's not as bad. I'll agree that the term patents are given is too long but I'm one of the few around here that is in favor of them. Not absolutely but to a reasonable degree. The patent system has flaws (major ones) but the idea of patents is something I support. I truly believe that it really does foster innovation. It's an incentive to innovate. If Twitter let's others use it and collects royalties then it's not like Twitter alone is able to implement it and when the patent expires others can for free. Facebook on iOS has had this behavior for a while now. I think people much like yourself are thinking of patents in absolute terms like they're all good or all bad. It's more complicated than that. They're a good thing that can be abused like prescription medication or guns. If we could just be sane about what gets to be patented, how long, and just generally use patents sanely we'd have no problem. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
15y ago

cletus 15y ago

Reading some of the comments on this thread it astounds me how many people still buy into lie that patents foster innovation, particularly as it applies to software. Read Ben Franklin [1] on the subject. Everyone should familiarize with the nascent days of the aviation industry when the Wright brothers' patent on the three-axis control method used in planes left the United States completely unable to produce planes when it entered World War One [2], ultimately forcing Congress to intervene [3]. "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron. [1]: http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/ http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patent... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#The_patent_pool_solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#...

baddox 15y ago
The idea of "intellectual property" has been so ingrained in many people that they simply cannot or will not recognize any difference between copying/distributing an idea (or a digital work) and stealing physical property. Generally, their (faulty) logic is that putting time and effort into creating something necessarily gives you absolute ownership of that thing, even if it's just an idea or a string of bytes.
- btucker 15y ago
  I don't think you're giving the modern population enough credit. I'd argue that most people understand that there are cases where you can take something, and the original owner still has it. What's ingrained, rather, is a respect for the inventors, creators, originators of the world. We look to them with awe and, rightly or not, feel some low-level need to recognize and uphold that they came first with their creation.
  - whackedspinach 15y ago
    As someone who has tried to argue against the idea of "intellectual property", this is the response I usually receive. Unfortunately, creating something and enforcing property rights on the ideas to "reward" the author doesn't make the system any better. There's that idea in software development that it doesn't matter who came up with the idea first, but who executed it better. I actually think this is how the world should work. Who cares if you came up with an idea if you never acted on it? Why should you have the right to hold up innovation in that field? Just get rid of "intellectual property" (at least patents) and let the people decide with their wallets.

linuxhansl 15y ago

I did this scroll bar thing 8 years ago at a job. It's quite an obvious strategy. You don't load all the data, but only what the user can actually see, with a bit of buffer space in both directions. When the user moves the scrollbar you go and fetch more data. Not surprised that (1) somebody filed a patent on it and (2) it actually got accepted. Also maybe someone can show me where this "apparatus" cited in the in patent is to be found.

jordanekay 15y ago

I can’t think of any Apple iOS apps that are appropriate for pull-to-refresh. Can you?

justinsb 15y ago

This is not a patent; this is a patent application. Anyone can write anything they like and file it as an application, and that is a good thing. If a patent is ever granted from this application, I guarantee you those claims will be nowhere near as broad as they are now.

scottmp10 15y ago

First, I am a little surprised at the number of people that laud this UX. The only time I have encountered it was in the Facebook for Android app and I found it not to be intuitive. Even once I understood the behavior, it is not always obvious what will happen when you drag down since there is no indication that you are at the top of the stream. You essentially have overloaded the pull-down action. As to when this is patent worthy, I would argue no. Pull-down is as basic an action as you can do. The patent is equivalent to patenting the concept (as opposed to the engineering implementation) of selecting an item on a screen that a user points to with their hand. Or the concept of performing an action when you click on an item on your desktop (since clicking is as basic on a mouse as swiping is on a touch screen). To be fair, it is difficult to argue where to draw the line for patents and some people would probably argue that my examples should be patentable (regardless of whether they are - I don't actually know). It just strikes me that rewarding people for these "innovations" does exactly nothing to increase people's effort to figure out a good UX for their product.

sherwin 15y ago

The Google Voice app on iOS has a pull-to-refresh feature. Is this patent infringement then?

rplnt 15y ago
In USA, maybe. Depends on the implementation. I think there is a room to copy the functionality without breaking the patent (I haven't see the app). There's also a possibility that the Google has some sort of agreement and can use that patent.

_seininn 15y ago

I hate patents. I see them as a reason why true innovation slowed down. I think ALL patents should be thrown out. However, claiming that this patent is ridiculous is ridiculous, at least if you take a look at how it is similar to patents in other fields. This patent is every bit as valid as the patent that describes a water sprinkler that uses water flow as a timer.

dominik 15y ago

This is not a patent. This is a patent application. It has not been granted. It hasn't even been reviewed by an Examiner yet. All that's happened thus far is that the application has been submitted to the Patent Office and published. That's it.