Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Patents Apple

Move Over Apple - Samsung Files For a Patent On Page Turn 125

Nate the greatest writes "Remember last year when Apple received a patent on the faux page curl in iBooks? Lots of people laughed at the idea that Apple could patent the page turn, but not Samsung. The gadget maker has just filed for their own page turn patent. The paperwork explains in great detail what the page turn looks like, how the software would work, and what on screen gestures could be used to turn the page."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Move Over Apple - Samsung Files For a Patent On Page Turn

Comments Filter:
  • I know, I know (Score:5, Informative)

    by Frankie70 ( 803801 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @09:55PM (#43605931)

    why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

    Because lawyers then write them nasty letters. This was covered a couple of days back - please pay attention - []

  • Re:OBVIOUS! (Score:3, Informative)

    by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Thursday May 02, 2013 @01:16AM (#43606821)

    The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other.

    Not to be a dick, but you should check your facts before posting. Calculus predates the telephone and theory of relativity by a couple thousand years. If you are referring to infinitesimal calculus, then you are still off by at least a couple hundred years. Here [] is a reference.

  • by Arancaytar ( 966377 ) <> on Thursday May 02, 2013 @04:51AM (#43607441) Homepage

    Not for infringing the "page turning" patent - for infringing on their patent of "a method to use the US Patent Office for anti-competitive business tactics".

  • Re:If I were (Score:3, Informative)

    by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday May 02, 2013 @09:22AM (#43608741) Homepage Journal

    There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations.

    There's a difference between "there is no test for obviousness" and "I don't know what the test for obviousness is," and they should not be used interchangeably when you mean the latter. The Examiner can make a prima facie case that a claimed invention is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element in the claim. So, if a claim recites A+B+C and the Examiner can show one piece of prior art that teaches A+B and another that teaches C, and they can be combined without undue experimentation or changing their functions, then the claim is obvious. If, on the other hand, the Examiner can't find anything that teaches C anywhere, then the claim is not obvious.

    Happy to help clarify that for you.

    Now, to clear up a few other things you say:

    The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds.

    It costs about $25k to file and prosecute a patent to issue, not "hundreds". And they can be invalidated for just a few hundred via post grant review.

    First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art.

    That doesn't change anything, as all patent applications were published under the first-to-invent system, too, and the public could protest by submitting prior art to the Examiner.

    Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design.

    Here [] are tens of thousands of design patents in the automotive industry. And here [] are thousands of design patents on dresses. A search for design patents on "jeans" will turn up a similar number, as will socks, shoes, etc. Your premise is demonstrably false.

    Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale.

    Yes, but without patents, there would be more efforts to protect trade secrets - like you wouldn't actually ever own a physical microchip to strip it apart. You'd merely be renting it under a lease agreement, with massive liquidated damages if you do damage it. Do you really want to have to have a subscription to use your computer? I don't.

    We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing.

    Actually, the generics market exists because of patent disclosures and the FDA orange book. Would you buy a "generic" reverse engineered version of a brand new medicine that the FDA hadn't approved, much less tested?

    It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code). []

    Watch out, Slashdot, we've got a badass over here.

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine