10 ms·
Apple patents the page turn
- bajsejohannes 14y agoI can't say I mind too much. I'll be surprised if the book analogy stays around for much longer.
- warfangle 14y agoIt's an ugly skeuomorph (much like the ugly bookshelf skeuomorph). I won't be sad to see it not implemented by competitors.
- DGCA 14y agoI'd rather people not use it because it's ugly, not because it's patented.
- DigitalBoB12 14y agoIsn't Apple moving away from skeumorphism anyway? Do you think they just patented it for protection from lawsuits if someone else were to be granted the patent?
- warfangle 14y agoRumor has it they are (the designer responsible for it left a little while back). No idea why they would have patented it.
- ImprovedSilence 14y agoI think so, yes, but I think the application was applied for a year or so ago (or maybe two years, too lazy to look it back up.)
- bitcartel 14y agoArticle: "The page-turn patent was filed in December 2011, but was approved this week."
- nsxwolf 14y agoI get that it's a skeuomorph, and that skeuomorphs are the cool thing to hate now, but what's ugly about it? I think it is very beautiful and elegantly done. Are books ugly?
- GuiA 14y agoWhy do we need a metaphor for a physical page on a digital device?
- graeme 14y agoWe don't need one. But they can look nice. Corinthian columns are based on wooden palm tree supports from ancient egypt. They're obviously not necessary now, but they're pretty.
- kennywinker 14y agoIt helps alert the user to how the data they are being shown is changing. There are lots of non-skeuomorphic animations that could serve this purpose... cross-dissolves, flashes, slide-ins, etc. This just happens to be a reasonably nice one, that fits with the "this-is-a-book" metaphor of iBooks. Even the name of iBooks is "skeuomorphic". It would be more accurately called "iMedium-to-long-static-documents-available-for-purchase" but that's a fucking awful title. Everybody has an idea of what a book is, so calling it iBooks means users know that there are book-ish-things contained within. An app called iBooks where the next page trickled down like the title sequence from The Matrix would be tacky as hell and users would ask themselves why their "book thing" was doing this non-book thing.
- chj 14y ago+1. If that means less page turn animation in ebook readers, it is a good thing.
- mogop 14y agodated:2002 http://www.actionscript.org/showMovie.php?id=459 http://www.actionscript.org/showMovie.php?id=459 shout yourself Apple
- kumarm 14y agoTo start with its ugly. Also this has been used in Flash since around 2005. It would be a shame if Apple is granted this patent.
- randomdata 14y agoEven the Classics app did it on iOS before Apple.
- taligent 14y agoDo you have some evidence that Classics had this before Apple ?
- kalleboo 14y agoSee the references on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBooks#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBooks#Controversy "Some have claimed that the iBooks interface is a near exact replica of Classics by Andrew Kaz & Phill Ryu, released over a year prior and even featured in Apple's own TV commercials. Apple has made no acknowledgement of this.[29][30][31]"
- kumarm 14y agoFlexbook has all the features that are mentioned by Apple (and same Design). Example: http://www.rubenswieringa.com/code/as3/flex/Book/ http://www.rubenswieringa.com/code/as3/flex/Book/
- mmanfrin 14y agoI seem to remember Amazon own a patent for just this. edit: It was Microsoft: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20100175018.PGNR.&OS=dn/20100175018&RS=DN/20100175018 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...
- btn 14y agoThat's a patent application, which was rejected earlier this year in light of a prior IBM patent (http://www.google.com/patents/US5463725 http://www.google.com/patents/US5463725) and another of Apple's (http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381).
- Apocryphon 14y agoIt's a design patent, not an utility patent.
- roc 14y agoUnfortunately neither the tech-press, nor the anti-IP-period crowd have a particularly good grasp on just what utility patents cover, nor any apparent interest in learning. So hoping they'll recognize, learn and appreciate the difference between a utility and a design patent seems a bit optimistic.
- belorn 14y agoDesign patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items. Utility patent must be novel, non-obvious, and be useful (legal defined term). Both has requirements that must be fulfilled. non-novel and obvious design can not, should not, would not if the patent system worked, be granted as a design patent.
- charonn0 14y agoIf our Patent laws allow for Patents (of any variety) that are this painfully and blisteringly obvious and come with 1,000+ years of prior art, then the law is more broken than I thought.
- Evbn 14y agoAmazon design patented the original kindle shape and then boasted about using it to prevent others from making kindle-compatible covers, in clear violation of design patent law. Companies are using similar abuses of both patent systems.
- johansch 14y agoThe Register hints at an interesting new development - name and shame the "innovators": http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/apple_page_turn_design_patent/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/apple_page_turn_desi... "This massively complex concept required three inventors to craft it: Elizabeth Caroline Cranfill, Mikio Inose, and Stephen Lemay."
- bitcartel 14y ago"The trio submitted application D/408,904 on December 19, 2011" Yes, shame on them. They filed for a patent on a trivial animation, at a time when it was well-known the system was being abused.
- mbrundle 14y agoIt's not necessarily the inventors who filed it. More likely, it's an Apple patent lawyer. Naming and shaming the inventors is a bit unreasonable as inventors working for large companies may not have much sway over which parts of their work gets filed for patent protection.
- jblow 14y agoI am pretty sure they at least need to sign it, which is why the common (overreaching and abusive) employment contracts include a clause saying that the employee will facilitate the filing of such paperwork. I think naming and shaming is a good tactic. People should not be signing contracts with clauses like that in the first place, and if there is potential for future shame, maybe it'll make them think a bit more about it.
- mbrundle 14y agoI doubt they get much say over what goes into their employment contracts. Added to which, you assume all potential employees are savvy about these issues, which seems like a stretch. I can think of several techies who blank out at the mention of IP and wouldn't appreciate (or care less about) the consequences of such clauses. Particularly not when there's a lucrative dream job at a big firm at stake. If you're going to name-and-shame anyone involved in filing a patent (and I'm still doubtful about what this would achieve, given all they're doing is maximising a flawed system), the lawyers would make more sense (you can find out who they are by examining the filings on the USPTO PAIR database), or the upper management who determines patent policy.
- btn 14y agoI'm a little surprised to see the NY Times perpetuating the hysteria that typically follows patent issues with exaggeration of their scope and claims. This is a design patent, meaning that Apple has protection for this specific animation and not page-turn animations in general. Note that many of the references cited (a good one is the O'Reilly article from 2004) depict page-turn animations, but differ from this specific one.
- cdooh 14y agoAre you saying the US patent system is not broken and completely f*cked up?
- law 14y agoThe system is not "broken and completely f* cked up." Certain aspects are dysfunctional (as one would reasonably expect given the extent to which technological progress exceeds legislative progress), but you cannot impute those specific flaws onto the system as a whole. It's like saying democracy is "broken and completely f* cked up" because one particular elected official was found to be corrupt. Give it a rest already.
- belorn 14y agoIs the design of this animation novel and not obvious for all items, as the requirement for design patent puts it? To me, this patent fails both. Its not novel, as substantially similar (legal term) has existed before in animated film. Its neither non-obvious for all items, ie, its a obvious way to illustrate a turning of a page for any application that want to illustrate a turning of a page.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mmanfrin 14y agoIt's novel only if the book is fiction. :]
- mrinterweb 14y agoA prime example of a difference between Google and Apple both on HN front page at the same time. "Google Books team open sources a book scanner": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4793974 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4793974.
- mtgx 14y agoMaybe Apple shouldn't abuse the patent system this way.
- brudgers 14y agoWould this be prior art for an animated buggy whip interface when accelerating an automobile?
- smogzer 14y agoThe photoshop plugins: Kai power tools and alien skin. Already did page turn effects back in +-92.
- ricardobeat 14y agoIt's a design patent. They own this specific design/style for page turn animations, much like a trademark. Same goes for the music app icon. The article also mentions the Apple Store's glass stairs and the iPhone packaging patents as if they are something ridiculous, when in reality both were very innovative (the stairs are still an unmatched engineering feat). The iPhone packaging went on to be imitated by everyone, right now I'm sitting beside an Asus laptop packaging that looks exactly like the iPad's.
- bane 14y ago> the stairs are still an unmatched engineering feat What in the world are you talking about? It's stairs, made of glass, typical in high-end civic and commercial buildings the world over. So common are glass stairs that they have to be pointed out to be noticed. Here's the patent if anybody is remotely interested in reading about commonplace construction materials http://pdf.ifoman.com.s3.amazonaws.com/staircase_page_patent_c.pdf http://pdf.ifoman.com.s3.amazonaws.com/staircase_page_patent...
- ricardobeat 14y agoThe stairs in the Apple stores are made almost entirely out of glass. There are no steel beams holding it up, the glass itself bears the load. The ones you usually see at high-end buildings/shops only have glass steps and/or sides. And don't forget the curved ones [1][2]. They are also earthquake-resistant for the japanese stores. [1] http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/29/stunning-photo-of-glass-staircase-at-amsterdam-retail-store/ http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/29/stunning-photo-of-glass-... [2] http://www.eckersleyocallaghan.com/projects/project/apple-shanghai.html http://www.eckersleyocallaghan.com/projects/project/apple-sh...
- jlgreco 14y agoI'll just ask you what everyone else is asking. Do you think this design patent is novel and non-obvious? Wikipedia seems to think that design patents must be both (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#cite_note-8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#cite_note-8). Is it wrong? There seems to be some sort of meme here that, for some reason, design patents are completely above criticism. I don't understand how anyone can reasonably think that.
- utopkara 14y agoCall me crazy, but it seems like the internet will correct the patent system by calling duds like this one. As specific patents get publicly criticized (be it design or utility), it not only helps correct examiner errors, but also puts pressure on patenters to file only worthy patents.
- JimmaDaRustla 14y agoAm I being punked?
- hcarvalhoalves 14y agoApparently it increases pageviews to talk about patents and Apple in the same post. It doesn't even need to be accurate.
- jpeg 14y agoApple patents the page turn. At first I read "Apple turns the patent page." But I guess this is not likely to happen any time soon...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- shinratdr 14y agoYou mean that page turn that was in no other reading apps before iBooks and is now in the Kindle app for iPhone? The one that doesn't exist on Sony e-Readers, Amazon Kindles, Kindle apps besides the iPhone one, Nooks, or any other reading device? So... Apple doesn't own page turning, or animating the turning of a page, just this specific implementation of it in this context. Which, for the record is something they did invent. Nobody else in the market was using a page turn animation, and it's the first thing people show off about iBooks. Yeah I'm just not feeling the outrage. I am getting more and more sick of this "Damn you patent system & Apple!" bullshit though.
- Shamanmuni 14y agoWhat? Nobody else was using it? Have you seen the Classics app for the iPhone? It appeared before iBooks and it had page turning. Apple even copied the bookshelf from them. It's no bullshit, the system is being abused. Silly and obvious things like a specific implementation of pagination in ebooks are being patented by a company who wants to go "thermonuclear" with its competitors. And many act like it's OK. Why? Because it's Apple? They didn't innovate at all with iBooks.
- Evbn 14y agoDelicious Library had bookshelves before the iPhone was invented. This whole conversation around drawing pictures of objects silly.
- shinratdr 14y ago> Have you seen the Classics app for the iPhone? Nope, neither did anyone else. I was talking about major e-book competitors, not every reading app ever made regardless of popularity. > Apple even copied the bookshelf from them. That's funny because if you ask the Delicious Library folks, they would say it was copied from them. Just goes to show that the concept of a digital bookshelf looking like a real bookshelf is a good one. > Silly and obvious things First of all, the best ideas are obvious once someone has thought of them. Of course we all want a minimal tablet, right? Well that's news to Microsoft who was letting 3rd parties sell Windows tablets for a decade. Not one of those tablets was minimal or boasted a clean design. Then Apple comes along and does it, everyone ridicules them, it sells like crazy. Now, suddenly it's obvious. As someone who has stood by them, it's hard to really give a shit that Apple is getting the patents they filed for. I find it much more bothersome that the rest of the tech industry gets to use Jony Ive as their hardware designer than Apple being afforded some small protection from what is slowly becoming an industry of clones. > And many act like it's OK. Why? Because they filed and were granted the patent. Where is the patent from the Classics team? Exactly. If you aren't going to even participate in the system, don't be surprised when things don't go your way.