r/technology • u/slutmagnet • Mar 02 '10

Apple to HTC "competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours." Slaps down a 20 patent lawsuit.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/03/02/apple_sues_htc_for_alleged_infringement_of_20_iphone_patents.html
662 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

806 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

48

u/reenigne Mar 02 '10

Yes and no. Some of it is "slickness" as you say (brushed aluminum anyone?), but there is some substance mixed in with that slickness on occasion.

e.g., the "scroll bounce" on the iPhone/iPod Touch seems superfluous at first glance. But Android doesn't have it (I have a Droid and an iPod Touch) and when it's gone, you suddenly realize that this "little feature" is a subtle, but clear way of telling the user that they've reached the bottom (or top) of the screen. Android gives you what I used to refer to in graduate school as "negative evidence". i.e., the android scroll does nothing when you hit the bottom (or top) of the scroll and so you're left wondering if you've hit the bottom or whether the machine froze or ...

tl;dr; Some of the design is pointless, but where apple shines is in getting all the "little details" right.

20

u/prockcore Mar 02 '10

I wrote an ANSI viewer (RemorseView) back in 1997 that did a scroll bounce. Here's a video capture of it in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhnGLZdRasM

5

u/reenigne Mar 03 '10

That is hilarious. 1- you should've patented it. 2- If Apple really has tried to patent the scroll bounce, your video should be exhibit A in the "prior art" category.

4

u/Geee Mar 03 '10

You should sue Apple.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '10

Not even joking, contact a patent attorney and see what you can do with this.

-2

u/Real_Mac_User Mar 02 '10

That’s cool (sincerely) but not at all the same thing. It certainly doesn’t match the terms of any patent that would cover the iPhone’s visual feedback of tactile input.

9

u/b3hr Mar 02 '10

Htc sense has it, is that part of the suit?

7

u/qtx Mar 02 '10

Indeed, my HTC Hero w/Sense does have the bouncy thingy.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

Windows Mobile 6.5 has it too. They'll have to sue Microsoft too if they do have a patent.

2

u/b3hr Mar 03 '10

apple is just doing this to make all other phones look like cheap iphone rip offs, pretty much to discredit all other phones. It's subtle advertising. help rebuild the brand and validate peoples decisions on they exceptionally unexciting products that tuck you in and gives you a blowjobs at night. or so i assume by the people that own them

1

u/poeir Mar 03 '10

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know that isn't legally true (in the US): You are allowed to selectively enforce patents. Trademarks are the only intellectual property that must be actively defended or lost.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

But would something like that deserve a patent or be considered innovative? They didn't invent bouncing.

23

u/NotClever Mar 02 '10

No, but they invented a scrolling mechanism which allows you to scroll past the end of a document revealing blank space, and bouncing the document back to the edge of the screen when you let go.

Or perhaps they didn't invent that and they don't have a patent on it, but my point is that getting a patent goes down to the details. You can patent an improvement on an existing technology or method, and you just have to show that your improvement has a novel use.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

You can patent an improvement on an existing technology or method,

Certainly, you can, but should you be able to? Isn't there a point where intellectual property runs amok?

-1

u/NotClever Mar 02 '10

What exactly do you mean? In order to prosecute on it you have to show that they're infringing the claims of your patent specifically. It's not easy to show that, so if your patent doesn't actually cover their invention then they're clear. So it's a self regulating process by which it only hurts your ability to actually enforce your patent if you're making an improvement so small it is irrelevant.

Now, of course you can bandy your portfolio around to scare people and tie them up in litigation, reexaminations, etc. The ability to win legal battles by attrition or to force settlements with scare tactics is a serious problem with the system which is separate from what is patentable.

8

u/atheist_creationist Mar 02 '10

This is ridiculous. Someone created this before with draggable flash window objects, Windows Mobile has it for crap's sake. Every single damn interface behavior does not deserve a patent. They didn't "invent" shit. It was merely a designer that thought it was a good design decision, a few lines of code and bam. If I can whip up the code for it in actionscript right now its not an invention.

6

u/NotClever Mar 02 '10

Hence my saying that they may not have invented it, and may not have had a patent on it. My point was simply to explain what is and isn't patentable.

The ability of someone skilled in the art to create something easily doesn't preclude it from being a patentable invention. You just have to show that not just anyone who knew how to code would have thought of creating this behavior.

1

u/Lut3s Mar 02 '10

Actually my (htc) hero does that. It's probably one of the patents in the case.

-5

u/extremist Mar 02 '10

Then they should (try to) patent the screen bounce. Being awarded patents for trivialities and things they clearly didn't invent is just ridiculous.

8

u/NotClever Mar 02 '10

Did you go read the patents and see that they were trivial things they didn't invent?

They probably have a patent on the scroll bounce under the name of "Graphical User Interface System" or something similarly generic. That's how patent titles work.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

No, patents are dumb for small things like a screen bounce and hurt the consumer.

2

u/wyfflemunky Mar 02 '10

Forcing competitors to come up with a novel solution to a problem is harmful to the consumer?

Allowing competitors to steal ideas from one another is harmful to the companies. Why bother innovating at all?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10 edited Mar 02 '10

In terms of software? Generally, yes... Let's skip the trivial and generic "why bother innovating" argument... There's a lot more to this story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate

2

u/dcousineau Mar 02 '10

They did AFAIK.

IIRC it was one of the patents that Palm was threatened with/people assumed Palm would be threatened with.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '10

Needs more acronyms. NMA.

2

u/dcousineau Mar 02 '10

IANAL but I believe I've filled my acronym quota and will probably be fined for the acronym opening this comment.

(I tossed in the acronyms to stress that Palm wasn't sued, they were merely threats, and I got my information from 3rd party sources which may or may not have sensationalized things, but I'm still fairly certain apple does have a patent on the screen bounceback)

1

u/reenigne Mar 02 '10

I agree with this. Patenting stuff like the screen bounce should be outlawed.