4 ms·

Also see this article (it has some screens and images so a little easier to skim through) http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_portable_dev

Also see this article (it has some screens and images so a little easier to skim through) http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_portable_device_ui_scroll_bar_patent.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_por... Every time I hear Apple and patent in the same sentence, Gargamel kills a baby smurf. This one is just ridiculous and clearly does not have any kind of an inventive step. Also, from filing the application, it only took 4 months to being awarded. FOUR MONTHS?! March 5, 2012 was the filing date... The USPTO couldn't load up Apple's legal-Bazooka fast enough if they tried.. To be honest, you would naive to think that this wasn't pushed through anyway. It will almost surely be used immediately to defend Apple's initiative it shows by coming up with such "worthy" patents. Edit: (As pointed out below, the March 2012 date is a continuation.. not the initial filing date. My mistake.)

pwg 14y ago
> This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/969,819, filed Jan. 4, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,130,205, entitled "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Lists and Documents," which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 60/947,386, "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Documents and Lists," filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/937,993, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/879,469, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 8, 2007; and 60/879,253, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 7, 2007. All of these applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. It actually dates back to Jan. 7, 2007. This latest "continuation" was what was just filed March 5, 2012.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Yes, it has the signature of a submarine patent, one of those that keeps getting amended and amended based on what is going on in the industry, only goes to 'issue' when the owner needs it to put the smack down on someone. I wonder though if it will work against Apple. Reading through it, the claims seem to reflect a lot of what folks 'skilled in the art' might equally have done. Since it will no doubt be brought to the frontlines right away and put into the battle we should be able to see how well it holds up.
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    As I understand it, actual submarine patents come from organizations who haven't been doing publicly visible work in the area of the patent. A patent like this was pretty foreseeable, given that Apple's had the described technology on the market for five years. Nobody's going to be taken by surprise here.
pkulak 14y ago
My understanding is that patents are pretty much awarded without any kind of real validation step and it's up to future litigation to decide what's valid and what isn't.
- maratd 14y ago
  > My understanding is that patents are pretty much awarded without any kind of real validation step and it's up to future litigation to decide what's valid and what isn't. Your understanding is correct. This doesn't mean squat. It just means they filed their application correctly and it passed the most minimal levels required. If this stands up in court, that would be a different and truly unfortunate matter.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    The problem with letting things in this easily is that humans unfamiliar with the patent system fallacious assumed that since a patent was granted then there must be some merit to a patent infringement lawsuit. If the average American began with the axiom "patents are merely forms that have been filed correctly" instead of "patents are something only granted when someone has invented something truly novel and reduced it to practice" then patents wouldn't be nearly as dangerous. The problem is typically trial by jury in an east Texas courtroom where the jurors assume that patents are granted by a clerk with expertise in the area the patent was filed. Patents are one area where a trial by jury fails badly because the average person is far more likely than practitioners to think a patent is non-obvious. Instead we should have trials by qualified juries, where the jurors are peers in the area in which the patent was filed. i.e. a software patent should be reviewed by a jury composed of software developers since they are the only ones competent enough to rule on obviousness.
    - click170 14y ago
      While I wholeheartedly agree that the current system is awful and needs improvement, and I do think this would be an improvement, I also think one of the problems with having a trial by qualified juries as you suggested is hindsight bias. The problem is, merely presenting the patent and asking "Is this obvious" will lead to many affirmatives due to hindsight bias. It could be done differently though. Before presenting the jury with the patent itself, ask them to imagine ways of solving the problem. If many come up with the same answer, then it's very likely the obvious solution.
monochromatic 14y ago
> 4 months If you're talking about the `134 patent, it was in the USPTO's Track One program for expedited processing. Basically you pay a fee and get a much quicker examination.
- malandrew 14y ago
  A more just solution for fast tracking would be to commit to a FIFO approach requiring the filing entity to pay to fast tracking every patent in line ahead of their patent, so that patent clerks can get to their patent faster.
  - thwarted 14y ago
    Does fast tracking change the "first to file" order?
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      If you mean "does it allow your application to be examined before earlier-filed applications" then the answer is yes. ("First to file" is a term that has a lot of baggage, so I wanted to be clear.)
      - thwarted 14y ago
        Well, yeah it changes the order they are examined in, but does it allow one to pay to beat someone else who may have a competing patent in such a way that the payer can be the originator of the invention in question? Agreed, there is a lot of baggage around this, making it hard to talk about. Does "first to file" really mean "first to have examined"?
tzs 14y ago
> This one is just ridiculous and clearly does not have any kind of an inventive step. How did you get through a 30k word patent in 30 minutes in order to determine that? That rate is two or three times faster than I can do something easy, like light fiction.
- Raphael 14y ago
  It doesn't matter how verbose they made the description of what is an obvious visual interface.

pwg 14y ago

> This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/969,819, filed Jan. 4, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,130,205, entitled "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Lists and Documents," which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 60/947,386, "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Documents and Lists," filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/937,993, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/879,469, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 8, 2007; and 60/879,253, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 7, 2007. All of these applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. It actually dates back to Jan. 7, 2007. This latest "continuation" was what was just filed March 5, 2012.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Yes, it has the signature of a submarine patent, one of those that keeps getting amended and amended based on what is going on in the industry, only goes to 'issue' when the owner needs it to put the smack down on someone. I wonder though if it will work against Apple. Reading through it, the claims seem to reflect a lot of what folks 'skilled in the art' might equally have done. Since it will no doubt be brought to the frontlines right away and put into the battle we should be able to see how well it holds up.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  As I understand it, actual submarine patents come from organizations who haven't been doing publicly visible work in the area of the patent. A patent like this was pretty foreseeable, given that Apple's had the described technology on the market for five years. Nobody's going to be taken by surprise here.

pkulak 14y ago

My understanding is that patents are pretty much awarded without any kind of real validation step and it's up to future litigation to decide what's valid and what isn't.

maratd 14y ago
> My understanding is that patents are pretty much awarded without any kind of real validation step and it's up to future litigation to decide what's valid and what isn't. Your understanding is correct. This doesn't mean squat. It just means they filed their application correctly and it passed the most minimal levels required. If this stands up in court, that would be a different and truly unfortunate matter.
- malandrew 14y ago
  The problem with letting things in this easily is that humans unfamiliar with the patent system fallacious assumed that since a patent was granted then there must be some merit to a patent infringement lawsuit. If the average American began with the axiom "patents are merely forms that have been filed correctly" instead of "patents are something only granted when someone has invented something truly novel and reduced it to practice" then patents wouldn't be nearly as dangerous. The problem is typically trial by jury in an east Texas courtroom where the jurors assume that patents are granted by a clerk with expertise in the area the patent was filed. Patents are one area where a trial by jury fails badly because the average person is far more likely than practitioners to think a patent is non-obvious. Instead we should have trials by qualified juries, where the jurors are peers in the area in which the patent was filed. i.e. a software patent should be reviewed by a jury composed of software developers since they are the only ones competent enough to rule on obviousness.
  - click170 14y ago
    While I wholeheartedly agree that the current system is awful and needs improvement, and I do think this would be an improvement, I also think one of the problems with having a trial by qualified juries as you suggested is hindsight bias. The problem is, merely presenting the patent and asking "Is this obvious" will lead to many affirmatives due to hindsight bias. It could be done differently though. Before presenting the jury with the patent itself, ask them to imagine ways of solving the problem. If many come up with the same answer, then it's very likely the obvious solution.

monochromatic 14y ago

> 4 months If you're talking about the `134 patent, it was in the USPTO's Track One program for expedited processing. Basically you pay a fee and get a much quicker examination.

malandrew 14y ago
A more just solution for fast tracking would be to commit to a FIFO approach requiring the filing entity to pay to fast tracking every patent in line ahead of their patent, so that patent clerks can get to their patent faster.
- thwarted 14y ago
  Does fast tracking change the "first to file" order?
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    If you mean "does it allow your application to be examined before earlier-filed applications" then the answer is yes. ("First to file" is a term that has a lot of baggage, so I wanted to be clear.)
    - thwarted 14y ago
      Well, yeah it changes the order they are examined in, but does it allow one to pay to beat someone else who may have a competing patent in such a way that the payer can be the originator of the invention in question? Agreed, there is a lot of baggage around this, making it hard to talk about. Does "first to file" really mean "first to have examined"?

tzs 14y ago

> This one is just ridiculous and clearly does not have any kind of an inventive step. How did you get through a 30k word patent in 30 minutes in order to determine that? That rate is two or three times faster than I can do something easy, like light fiction.

Raphael 14y ago
It doesn't matter how verbose they made the description of what is an obvious visual interface.