4 ms·

The point of a patent isn't that it wouldn't have been invented eventually (because that's impossibly hard to demonstrate) but that someone was first to come up

The point of a patent isn't that it wouldn't have been invented eventually (because that's impossibly hard to demonstrate) but that someone was first to come up with it and it is novel.

codeka 14y ago
But Apple weren't the first to come up with it (see other examples in the comments here).
- georgespencer 14y ago
  I don't disagree. The point I was refuting was the misconception that "this would have happened eventually" being grounds to reject a patent.
arn 14y ago
What's interesting actually is iBooks came after Classics App for iPhone which was basically the same. Bookshelf interface, page flipping: http://classicsapp.com http://classicsapp.com Apple was certainly aware of it. Very popular app, and was in an Apple tv commercial too. Edit: Here's the Apple ad with it: http://youtu.be/HhGnS4YvWKA?t=14s http://youtu.be/HhGnS4YvWKA?t=14s
- georgespencer 14y ago
  I don't disagree. The point I was refuting was the misconception that "this would have happened eventually" being grounds to reject a patent.
knightni 14y ago
> Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would, not simply could, have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the teaching of the prior art, not just the teaching of the closest prior art], thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves? > If the skilled person would have been prompted to modify the closest prior art in such a way as to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claims, then the invention does not involve an inventive step. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn... ) It needs to be more than novel, it needs to be a reasonable leap over the existing state of the art. You shouldn't grant someone a 20+ year monopoly over an idea just because they were first to encounter a particular problem and come up with an obvious solution.

The point of a patent isn't that it wouldn't have been invented eventually (because that's impossibly hard to demonstrate) but that someone was first to come up with it and it is novel.

codeka 14y ago

But Apple weren't the first to come up with it (see other examples in the comments here).

georgespencer 14y ago
I don't disagree. The point I was refuting was the misconception that "this would have happened eventually" being grounds to reject a patent.

arn 14y ago

What's interesting actually is iBooks came after Classics App for iPhone which was basically the same. Bookshelf interface, page flipping: http://classicsapp.com http://classicsapp.com Apple was certainly aware of it. Very popular app, and was in an Apple tv commercial too. Edit: Here's the Apple ad with it: http://youtu.be/HhGnS4YvWKA?t=14s http://youtu.be/HhGnS4YvWKA?t=14s

georgespencer 14y ago
I don't disagree. The point I was refuting was the misconception that "this would have happened eventually" being grounds to reject a patent.

knightni 14y ago

> Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would, not simply could, have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the teaching of the prior art, not just the teaching of the closest prior art], thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves? > If the skilled person would have been prompted to modify the closest prior art in such a way as to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claims, then the invention does not involve an inventive step. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn... ) It needs to be more than novel, it needs to be a reasonable leap over the existing state of the art. You shouldn't grant someone a 20+ year monopoly over an idea just because they were first to encounter a particular problem and come up with an obvious solution.