Apple Patents Page Turn Animation 192
An anonymous reader sends this quote from the NY Times Bits blog:
"If you want to know just how broken the patent system is, just look at patent D670,713, filed by Apple and approved this week by the United States Patent Office. This design patent, titled, 'Display screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interface,' gives Apple the exclusive rights to the page turn in an e-reader application. ... Apple argued that its patented page turn was unique in that it had a special type of animation other page-turn applications had been unable to create."
The article doesn't really make it clear, but this is for the UI design of showing a page being turned, not the actual function of moving from one page to another. That said, the patent itself cites similar animations in Flash from 2004.
The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are an insufficient number of Picards to adequately supply the amount of facepalm this requires and deserves.
So how does the US patent system actually work? (Score:4, Insightful)
So how does the US patent system actually work? You apply and automatically get a patent then it's up to the courts to decide whether it's legitimate or not latter? Why bother having a patent office at all if they don't knock down crap like this?
Re:-1, Sensational (Score:5, Insightful)
This one even cheerfully tells us how to think, calling us to see the patent system as broken because of one particular patent. The sensationalism really adds something to Slashdot... It's not like I come here for actual news or anything.
Yeah, it's hard to imagine how a broken patent system, the traditional means by which inventors protected themselves from large businesses' simply taking their idea and adding it to their product line, thus eliminating any monentary incentive for innovation, would be of interest to a site that caters to inventors, tinkerers, engineers, etc. We should probably just drop any discussion about the trend of rising illiteracy, the "brain drain" to other countries, how many entrepreneurs are starting up in China to cut through the exorbinantly high costs of doing business here, all due to legal fees, and how small businesses here often now have to hire more lawyers than engineers. Discussing a pervasive and growing problem in our industry isn't thinking really, it's just repeating dogma, and nothing good has ever come from a group of like-minded citizens getting together to discuss the common problems of their community.
I'll just be over here now, reading the "actual news" then. Things that matter like sex scandals, new hair-styles for this winter, and what ring-tone best fits my personality...
Re:BeOS had this in the late 1990's (Score:5, Insightful)
Hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
... gives Apple the exclusive rights to the page turn in an e-reader application. ...
There are real problems with the patent system, but this kind of stupid misleading hyperbole does not help. Apple does not have exclusive rights to page turning, they were granted a patent on a specific algorithm. If you think they shouldn't have been granted that patent, then that actual issue should be addressed, rather than the made up garbage in TFA.
Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
But...they need to protect the BILLIONS of dollars in investments they spend in R&D! You think this page turning animation is just common sense or something?
I hate page turning animation! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Has someone patented flipping on a light switch yet, or spinning a dial? I think we can sue Apple into oblivion if we just patent everything used in skeumorphic designs.
Re:-1, Sensational (Score:5, Insightful)
Another brilliant thinker who can't tell cause from effect. The patent system is not broken because of this patent. This patent was approved by the patent office BECAUSE the system is broken.
The article doesn't tell us what to think or how to think. It's just a wake-up for those who are already capable of thinking.
Re:So how does the US patent system actually work? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when parts of the federal government actually did an honest job - most of the time. Drug regulators actually blocked marketing of drugs that were dangerous to your health. The SEC kept crooks from selling dishonest investments. The Bureau of Land Management kept people from buying horses and selling them to slaughterhouses.
Some time in the last thirty or so years, large parts of government (and private enterprise) became thoroughly corrupt.
The patent office is just one more example where a bought-and-paid-for-congress (along with the patent office bureaucracy) modified the rules so they no longer protect the public interest - they protect Corporate America.
If you have a valid patent, you can't afford to defend it. If some corporation has a completely bogus patent, you can't afford to challenge it.
Read up on the Enclosure acts of the early 18th Century. At this time the aristocracy essentially invented our modern form of private property. Intellectual property is a modern day way of inventing something new - Intellectual property rights that didn't really exist until someone bought the right politicians. Much of it is a form of governmental theft covered up by a concept (patents) that was once honest and a benefit to everyone.
Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but this is exactly why people are starting to say Apple has run out of ideas. No-one's going to buy an Apple smartphone/tablet over a cheaper but almost identically specced Android alternative because of the way the fucking pages turn. Even assuming they are confident they own this patent and will win it, it's just yet another example of them missing the point of how stupid and impotent it makes them look. Don't they have maps to fix?
Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:-1, Sensational (Score:0, Insightful)
I hate that this has to be explained on slashdot over and over. It is a corporations duty to its shareholders to maximize profit. That means play the game, don't break the law. Apple is just doing what it needs to do. The patent system needs a complete overhaul, and then it won't be Apple's duty.
Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:4, Insightful)
But here's the thing - if someone else submitted this exact same patent application, and had it granted, you can be pretty sure that a lawsuit against Apple would come along pretty soon. So they are kind of forced into applying for a patent on everything they are doing (or may want to do).
I don't think this is an Apple problem, more of a patent system problem.
Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is the first time Apple did it. Before then it wasn't innovative.
Except nobody else did patent it (Score:4, Insightful)
That is like saying I should kill you first because else you would kill me. And hey, since you want to kill me, I am justified in killing you. Hell, why not kill everyone and be really sure I am not going to killed by any of you? It is for my own protection.
Even by your logic, by your own nature do you judge others. Clearly apple fears patent trolls because it is one.
And finally, I HATE THAT CRAP, didn't that "software has to look like real things" die with MS Bob?
Re:A prior art ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically prior art has been thrown out by the US patent office in favour of, if it hasn't been patented yet patent it and let them sort it out in court.