Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Wins Mobile Patent On Displaying Lists, Documents

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the history-began-in-2007 dept.

Patents 306

walterbyrd writes "Apple yesterday was granted Patent no. 8,223,134 for 'Portable electronic device, method, and graphical user interface for displaying electronic lists and documents.' According to the patent's description, the technology relies upon a touch-screen display and includes both the function for displaying lists and documents, and how they look on a mobile product."

cancel ×

306 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

who owns the uspo? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681803)

It looks like Apple has controlling shares in the USPO

Re:who owns the uspo? (5, Insightful)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681831)

We (U.S. citizens) do, and we should be telling our congresscritters that this has to stop.

Re:who owns the uspo? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681879)

Yeah right, your all a bunch of lazy sad sacks (people of the US) sitting on your ass drinking and eating super-sized big mac meals in your vibrating arm chairs jacking off to 3D porn.

None of you will do a fuckin thing, get real!

Re:who owns the uspo? (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681897)

But I already did talk to my hopefully-soon-to-be congresswoman about it. Guess that shoots your theory.

Re:who owns the uspo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681929)

You've wasted time in your life that you'll never get back... "Hopefully soon to be" is not "is"... try speaking to the current congressperson...

Re:who owns the uspo? (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681983)

Well, she's leading the polls and she agreed with me. :)

My current congressman doesn't answer his phone when I call, but I believe I did mention the USPTO to his staff when I called about SOPA.

Re:who owns the uspo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682151)

She will agree with anyone, who votes for her, BEFORE the vote.

Re:who owns the uspo? (2)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682233)

You claim to know a lot about this person I haven't even named. No wonder you're cowardly posting anonymously.

Re:who owns the uspo? (1)

peted56 (1842988) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682253)

Hey their lips were moving, that is the test if a polly is lying!

Re:who owns the uspo? (1)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682281)

To be fair, in a typical phone call you cannot determine if the other persons lips are moving. There is some slight chance she wasn't lying after all ;)

Re:who owns the uspo? (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682333)

So you want to just roll over for the patent trolls instead of electing better candidates or convincing those in office? Do the trolls scratch your belly when you roll over?

FYI, the candidate in question actually blacked out her site for the big SOPA protest in January. She gets this stuff.

What did she agree to do? (3, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682267)

Okay, so your soon-to-be congress-woman candidate gets elected and becomes a real congress-woman

What she agrees to do now?

I mean, what can you expect _anyone_ in the Congress to do, while the USPO is protected by corporations, patent trolls, and the lawyer union?

Re:who owns the uspo? (5, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682015)

You've wasted time in your life that you'll never get back... "Hopefully soon to be" is not "is"... try speaking to the current congressperson...

You mean continue talking to the guys that routinely ignore their constituents, lie to us in the face of obvious factual contradictions, and only listen to those throwing hookers, bags of cash, and coke at them?

That's worked so well so far, hasn't it?

The definition of insanity comes to mind.

Toss all incumbents out. Demand term limits. Eliminate career politicians.

Strat

Re:who owns the uspo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682037)

Yeah, seriously. I want another form letter reply like I want to get punched in the face.

Some don't even tell you to fuck off via snail mail anymore... they require an email address so it's free when they tell you to go screw.

Re:who owns the uspo? (4, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682343)

Toss all incumbents out. Demand term limits. Eliminate career politicians.

Be careful what you wish for -- there's no reason to expect that the replacement politicians would be any less corrupt than the current ones, and every reason to expect that none of them would know what the hell they were doing for the first year of their first term in office. The result would be a completely dysfunctional government after every election.

The goal shouldn't simply be to have new representatives, the goal should be to have good representatives. And the way to get good representatives is to change the electoral system so that the path to getting elected isn't "raise the most money", but rather "best represent the views of the largest number of constituents". Only then will have you have politicians who are motivated to listen to people rather than to money.

Re:who owns the uspo? (5, Insightful)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682379)

Toss all incumbents out. Demand term limits. Eliminate career politicians.

Because of course anyone who replaces them will spring from the forehead of Athena, walk on water then turn it into wine, poop vanilla ice cream, and give us all sweet fuzzy kittens to make us happy when we're sad.

Why not try to create a better informed electorate? One which understands that software patents deter competition and stifle innovation.

Re:who owns the uspo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681917)

3D porn!? That sounds great!

Re:who owns the uspo? (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682095)

3D porn!? That sounds great!

Sounds great, until you go to Soviet, Russia, where the 3D porn watches you!

(Sorry for perpetrating an old tired meme, but I am old and tired)

Re:who owns the uspo? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682291)

... but I am old ...

Guess you ain't as old as me

... and tired

Guess I ain't as tired as you
 

Re:who owns the uspo? (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682397)

where the 3D porn watches you!

Your ideas are intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your kinky newsletter.

Re:who owns the uspo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682489)

stopped jacking off a long time ago. can't reach penis

Re:who owns the uspo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682003)

But the corporation already own them why do you think it keeps going and gets seemingly faster and easier to do everyday.

I don't get it (4, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681809)

I don't quite see the business model of filing an idiotically general patent, waiting around, suing someone for using it, spending millions defending it in court, and getting the patent thrown out and paying the competitor's legal fees.

Re:I don't get it (4, Interesting)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681817)

I wonder... can I get a patent on filing stupid patents?

I mean just think, that will pre-empt thousands and thousands of these things.

it'll be a god damn money pit.

Re:I don't get it (1)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682179)

If you can, let me patent the processes of suing for patent violations on patents about stupid patents first.

Re:I don't get it (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682321)

can I get a patent on filing stupid patents?

No, you can't

Simply because there has already been a lot of precedences

But you can try your luck on getting a patent on filing not-that-bright patents, since nobody has done that yet
 

Re:I don't get it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681819)

I don't quite see the business model of filing an idiotically general patent, waiting around, suing someone for using it, spending millions defending it in court, and getting the patent thrown out and paying the competitor's legal fees.

By suing someone you slow down their ability to bring competing products to the market.

Re:I don't get it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681913)

Congratulations, you discovered another method of being an asshole! Yes, please share it with the rest of the market and ultimately make the consumer suffer. Or can you not hear me over the sounds of profits jingling in your pocketbook?

Re:I don't get it (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681845)

But toss it on the pile of other bogus patents and it makes a good bargaining chip (threat).

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681999)

Doesn't Astro on Android already do something similar?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682025)

Replied to wrong comment... Damn phone.

Re:I don't get it (3, Informative)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681857)

It's not general, the summary is just dumb. As far as I can tell, it's a patent on a scrollbar that disappears when you're not dragging the view. If that's right, it's certainly a crummy patent, but not a general one.

Re:I don't get it (1)

memeplex (910698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682209)

Right. Plus, everyone's jumping on this as if Apple just applied for it. This looks like a basic early iPhone filing which is just recently granted and published. It's not news.

Re:I don't get it (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682231)

Good! Because for a moment I was thinking Apple went haywire and patented the <li> tag!

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682235)

my atrix does that when scrolling though text messages, I call prior art.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681875)

Thankfully for them, there are a lot of people in the justice system who don't know that this is an idiotically general patent* and they have a good chance of finding enough of them to win. Plus, win or lose, you kill all the competition who doesn't have millions to throw at defending each and every stupid patent claim out there.

*If it is, as slashdot summaries traditionally like to make patents sound much broader than they are. Even if it's not, there is still no reason to approve it since there's absolutely no reason to think this isn't obvious or that giving a patent for it helps to promote the sciences or the useful arts.

you don't see a business model (4, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681901)

But Apple's law firm does, and you nicely described all of the revenue generating functions.

Of course there's a difference between a business model predicated on bringing something of value to society and the business model of a rent seeking parasite that only owes its existence to an unaddressed inefficiency.

Re:you don't see a business model (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682009)

But Apple's law firm does, and you nicely described all of the revenue generating functions.

Of course there's a difference between a business model predicated on bringing something of value to society and the business model of a rent seeking parasite that only owes its existence to an unaddressed inefficiency.

I am happy for you to call lawyers, accountants, advertisers etc Devils sperm, but they are there to advise management who take the decisions. I'm not sure why we quite see the blame shifted onto the lawyers is beyond me.

Re:you don't see a business model (2)

don.g (6394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682053)

Does it make you any less of a dick because someone else paid you to be one?

Re:you don't see a business model (3, Funny)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682199)

Does it make you any less of a dick (or vagina) because someone else paid you to be one?

There, I fixed that for you.

~your friendly Norwegian Microsoft Developer’s Conference Incorrectly Politically Correcting Department.

Re:you don't see a business model (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682085)

Legal status quos that do nothing for society and only generate busy work for lawyers is a simple matter of parasitism.

Of course there is valid and important work lawyers do for society.

Now be intellectually honest and admit there's a whole bunch of other lawyerly work which is unjustified, wasteful and useless.

I think the word they like is "frivolous".

Re:you don't see a business model (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682441)

... I'm not sure why we quite see the blame shifted onto the lawyers is beyond me.

Because they sold their soul for $$'s and make all the crap possible.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681933)

They also go after an injunction on the competitor selling infringing hardware. If they manage to keep the case running long enough, their competitor's legal bills will be a fraction of what they've lost in sales. Apple profits.

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681945)

How about the business model of filing an idiotically general patent, suing a new entrant to your market before they have millions of dollars to defend themselves in court, sucking their coffers dry and driving them out of the market, thus ensuring your market position?

Re:I don't get it (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682121)

"How about the business model of filing an idiotically general patent, suing a new entrant to your market before they have millions of dollars to defend themselves in court, sucking their coffers dry and driving them out of the market, thus ensuring your market position?"

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:I don't get it (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682131)

How about clicking the link and reading the description. It's actually pretty specific about it.

I mean, fuck Apple, but don't just jump on that bandwagon.

"Abstract
In a computer-implemented method, a portion of an electronic document is displayed on the touch screen display. The displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical position in the electronic document. An object is detected on or near the displayed portion of the electronic document. In response to detecting the object on or near the displayed portion of the electronic document, a vertical bar is displayed on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document. The vertical bar has a vertical position on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document that corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed portion of the electronic document. After a predetermined condition is met, display of the vertical bar is ceased. The vertical bar is displayed for a predetermined time period when the portion of the electronic document is initially displayed."

Re:I don't get it (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682211)

Wait, wait, get this - it's a a scrollbar, but it's on a touchscreen. What innovation! Oh, the humanity! Nobody has ever used such an interface before across so many different devices and interfaces it could possibly be called "general"!

No it isn't (2)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682285)

Actually you're wrong. In the first claim of the patent they explicitly state the following: "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar;"

Essentially if you have a scroll bar in your implementation, you can't be sued with this patent as it's explicitly stated that it's not a scroll bar.

Also, it was filed in March of this year. It would be pretty damned easy to show prior art or that in fact your own implementation of this existed prior to Apple's filing of their application.

Re:No it isn't (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682337)

Actually you're wrong. In the first claim of the patent they explicitly state the following: "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar;"

They say that. But they don't offer any definitions of a "scroll bar", and they go on to describe exactly the function of a scroll bar.

Essentially if you have a scroll bar in your implementation, you can't be sued with this patent as it's explicitly stated that it's not a scroll bar.

You can be sued for anything. They may not be successful in their suite, however...

Also, it was filed in March of this year. It would be pretty damned easy to show prior art or that in fact your own implementation of this existed prior to Apple's filing of their application.

...assuming you can afford the requisite legal costs to actually make it to court and argue that claim, along with the slew of other patent violations you'd undoubtedly be served with at the same time.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682197)

How about the business model of filing an idiotically general patent, suing a new entrant to your market before they have millions of dollars to defend themselves in court, sucking their coffers dry and driving them out of the market, thus ensuring your market position?

I'm going to attempt to file this patent. If successful I will sue every major company in the US whenever they go to court. I'll split the spoils with you 90/10. (90 for me, you greedy SOB)

Re:I don't get it (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682287)

Also, how about the patent office doing its job and determining whether something is patent-worthy or not, rather than passing the responsibility to the courts?

Re:I don't get it (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682243)

You're missing the model, then.

The actual model is:

* file idiotically general patent based on common sense applications in existence today, but for $todays_hot_technology
* sit silently and wait for competitors to spend billions of manhours developing new product in concurrency with your product feature improvements
* pay a couple million (or billion, if you're Apple) to an unaccountable board which decides import restrictions to prevent your biggest threats from being imported for months if not permanently
* profit!

Wait for it - expect to see patents for idiotic everyday things, like touchscreen capable shovels.

What you don't seem to understand is that when you've got product cycles for hardware in the 18-24 month range, and time to market needs to be under 6 months in many cases, a delay of 3-4 months can mean death of a product, no profit, and any number of other things.

Re:I don't get it (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682387)

I don't quite see the business model of filing an idiotically general patent, waiting around, suing someone for using it, spending millions defending it in court, and getting the patent thrown out and paying the competitor's legal fees.

That assumes the competitor can afford the fight. Given apple's current bank balance...

Re:I don't get it (1)

Zaelath (2588189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682439)

The business model is:
1. File idiotic patent with lots of prior art
2. Block your competitor from selling their equipment for 6+ months while the patent is re-examined in court
3. Pay competitor some fraction of the profit earned in stage 2.

It's a clear winner.

I still say step 2 should only work until you've reached step 3 once, i.e. if you've blocked a competitor based on a patent that gets thrown out you can no longer "win" injunctions, you can only sue for losses after the fact.

UITableView (1)

fox1324 (1039892) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681821)

Did they just try to patent UITableView? as an iOS developer, I welcome our brushed-aluminum overlords.

Re:UITableView (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681969)

"Did they just try to patent UITableView?"

And a hairdryer, walkman, Geiger counter... basically anything electric that you can lift from the floor.

Re:UITableView (3, Informative)

harperska (1376103) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681975)

No, they patented the behavior of the scroll bar in UITableView, not the view itself like the summary makes it sound.

Re:UITableView (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682295)

/. should invent and implement a method and a function to limit or remove the badness hidden in the summaries.

This is just getting ridiculous (1)

cb_is_cool (1084665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681839)

Seriously.

Re:This is just getting ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682309)

I agree, but you're a little late. The moment software became patentable was the moment 'it' got ridiculous.

It were ever thus.

I am apalled....BURN THEM!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681843)

I think we should have an iPhone and iPad burning party in silicon valley in protest of this crap. This is just ridiculous.

Re:I am apalled....BURN THEM!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681853)

Sounds good to me. Let's get started by putting together a list of places people can bring their iPads to be burned...

Re:I am apalled....BURN THEM!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681887)

ya you're right, better do that kinda stuff now rather than later because when CISPA passes they'll just censor that kinda planning and organization right of the web and then arrest anyone who dared mention or comment on such a thing for instigating a riot

Re:I am apalled....BURN THEM!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682269)

Let's get started by putting together a list of places people can bring their iPads to be burned...

Starbucks!

Re:I am apalled....BURN THEM!!!!! (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681925)

Don't you know that Apple products aren't that green anymore? I'd hold off on the burning party for the iOS devices. Burn something renewable instead, like real apples.

Re:I am apalled....BURN THEM!!!!! (1)

John Bodin (189895) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682021)

How about the field of Apples aka the corporate campus?

Patent Experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681849)

Let the usual parade of Slashdot trolls who haven't read the patent or any other patent begin their tirade.

Re:Patent Experts (5, Insightful)

drkstr1 (2072368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682535)

Who the fuck cares what it says? You shoud not be able to patent a god damn UI concept. I don't care how detailed the patent describes it. (I assume you are the same AC farther up, exclaiming how detailed the patent is, like that somehow fucking matters) ...ending rant before my BP spikes...

Well there's your problem... (2)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681869)

The fact that we use the term "win" so often when talking about software patents shows how we really need to change how they are handled at the very least. If we could get it to the point were companies earned patents then it wouldn't be so bad.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681889)

with all the smart phones, tablets and slates on the market these days, I can finally use the shopping app that's just been sitting there. And all those documents! Now i can finally read them the way they were ment to be read.

Apparently i was doing it wrong before.

Re:wow (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681931)

Yes, you were doing it wrong. Now do it right and then pay up on the royalties.

DAMMIT (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681903)

There goes my career as a web and mobile app developer.

Prior Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681919)

I wrote a GUI on a portable industrial PC with touch screen in 1996 which
displays a list. Isn't this prior art ?

Re:Prior Art (2)

harperska (1376103) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681965)

Did your GUI include a scrollbar-like UI element that was only visible while you were touching the screen? If not, no, your GUI is not prior art. Yes, the patent in question is stupid, but it is not overly broad like the summary makes it sound. And not reading what the patent is actually covering just makes you look dumb.

Re:Prior Art (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682129)

so does patenting a list

Patent Images (2)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681927)

I couldn't see the images in the link above, but this site has them:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apple-wins-another-major-iphone-ios-interface-patent.html [patentlyapple.com]

Re:Patent Images - WARNING (1)

Lord Maud'Dib (611577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682119)

That site is terribly pro-Apple. The article itself sounds like it was written by them.

Re:Patent Images (1)

Pesticidal (1148911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682407)

Yeah I tried to view them on the USPTO site and was told to install an Apple Quicktime plugin. No fucking thanks.

don't hate the player hate the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681967)

apple didn't make software patents

Re:don't hate the player hate the game (4, Insightful)

SurfsUp (11523) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682077)

And what is wrong with hating the hateful player that plays the hateful game? Apple has gone out of its way to make itself perfectly hateful so I for one must comply.

Re:don't hate the player hate the game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682099)

haters gonna hate.

Further proof that our patent system is broken.. (1)

aklinux (1318095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681971)

I always thought to to be patentable, something had to be either new, or a new way of using what's out there. Frankly, I see nothing here that should be patentable.

What gives?

Document Preview that I've seen on other areas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40681981)

I went through the patent and it sounds like it is very similar to the page preview in applications such as Adobe Acrobat reader where it shows a small page and box showing which part of the document is being displayed. This is also similar to the other tools available online showing pdfs. The only thing that has been added to this patent, or what it seems, is that this is a concentrating on a touch device. This feels like applications on devices such as the MS's tablets are under threat (?) The other thing with this is it keeps talking about a vertical bar, what if the vertical bar is replaced with something else - i.e a vertical box. Would that infringe this patent ?

New Method (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40681987)

________ with a touch interface! Patent awarded!

Re:New Method (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682225)

Well exactly. Wading through the patent document, it mentioned the following points:

(1) Defining scrollbar behaviour.
(2) Showing and hiding a UI element based on user input.
(3) Defining a touchscreen apparatus to use your finger as an input device.

So (1) is a scrollbar (2) is autohide. Combining them produces a scrollbar that dynamically shows or hides based on user input. Nothing revolutionary given any UI toolkit could trap keyboard or mouse wheel events and show the scrollbar only while active. That Apple never marketed a 2 button mouse with a scroll wheel as found on common desktop computers is beside the point. (3) Defines basic touch screen interaction.

(3) really defines one's finger as a scrollwheel. So unless (1) and (2) stand together on their own, how is this revolutionary?

Re:New Method (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682237)

Although I generally agree the patent is silly, Apple did and in fact still does sell two button mice with scroll wheels (that are spheres instead of simply wheels).

It's been a long time since Apple sold a single button mouse, and even then it was not really a single button mouse as the system always was defined to access contactual menus via a modifier key.

Basically your point would have driven home much harder if you didn't trot out the old fallacies of Apple mice. It cheapens your argument.

Re:New Method (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682301)

?? Where did I trot out the old fallacies a single button mouse?

I thought they had the following inputs
(1) Magic Trackpad - touchpad for desktop systems
(2) Mighty Mouse - touch sensitive zero button mouse

So basically devices that use multi-touch over bluetooth to simulate traditional mouse behaviour. One you slide your finger around for motion, the other that moves across the desk.

I'm not aware they actually sell Apple branded mice with buttons and a scroll wheel.

Re:New Method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682341)

It's a crap patent, but the threshold for patentability was never been revolutionary.

Re:New Method (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682537)

Well I have an icon that only appears on my screen when I press my middle mouse button, and I can scroll up and down when this icon is visible and I hold down the button. Patent please.

Apple no longer a product company (1)

SurfsUp (11523) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682039)

Let's take inventory. IPhone 4s. A minor upgrade. Ipad 3. A minor upgrade, and a downgrade in terms of weight, thickness and battery life. New products. None.

OK, I think I can see the pattern now. Apple plans to milk its existing assets for everything they're worth and has no intention of creating new ones. That would cost money, you see.

Re:Apple no longer a product company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682111)

A 2048x1536 IPS LCD on a 10" device for $499, with 10 hours of battery life, is a minor upgrade?

What universe are you from?

Re:Apple no longer a product company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682145)

yea thank samsung for all of that, they are the ones who invented, designed and produce that shit, not apple dumb fuck, just to get sued for using their own technology by a licensee who is shitting in their own bed

who will win that race? seriously?

Re:Apple no longer a product company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682157)

Slashdot has become full of anti apple bigots. Say anything to defend them, and you're a schill. Mix in patents, and you'll bring them out of the woodwork in troves. It's not worth trying any more, no matter how correct you might be.

prior art (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682123)

fucking paper

Prior Art: Palm Pilot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682155)

The Palm Pilot has got to be prior art. It had a touch screen (all be it requiring a stylus).

This is idiotic.

Pop-up scroll bars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682163)

If you actually bother to read the patent, it isn't major at all. The invention being patented is vertical (or horizontal) bars that appear momentarily near the edge of the screen when the document is scrolled. So it's a minor UI innovation that might be useful on devices with very small screens.

What you should be most angry about (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682189)

What you should be most angry about is that you are paying someone tens of thousands of dollars a year to pump out this garbage so some asshole can sue your company and cause you to lose your job.

Please shoot those mofo's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40682229)

I have said it before. It is really time people shoot start shooting those idiots from the USPTO and Apple's legal team. It's just not possible to change the system when the government is totally made up by ex lawyers.

Record-setting? (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40682475)

Is this the most idiotic patent awarded to Apple, yet?

The tragedy isn't (just) that Apple had the gull to submit this shite to the USPTO, and it's not just a tragedy that it has been awarded: the other tragic fact is, Apple is actually going to use this shit, to thwart competitors.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?