Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Patents Page Turn Animation

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the or-as-it's-now-called-the-iTurn dept.

GUI 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.

cancel ×

192 comments

The facepalm is strong with this one. (5, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007289)

There are an insufficient number of Picards to adequately supply the amount of facepalm this requires and deserves.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (5, Funny)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007525)

There are an insufficient number of Picards to adequately supply the amount of facepalm this requires and deserves.

The Reinforcements Have Arrived [imgur.com]

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42009139)

I hate page turn animations. They are pointless transition elements that should die with print media. Let the digital age be one of an instantly displayed next page!

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (5, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007557)

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?

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008885)

Lotus Smart Suite and Lotus Organizer had an animated page turn in the 90's. You could even choose to turn it on or off and it had sound if you wished. Prior art should invalidate this lame patent.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007751)

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:The facepalm is strong with this one. (4, Funny)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007933)

I read on the Internets Apple just patented the process of sueing some entity; from henceforth, anyone caught violating that patent will ironically be sued.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007763)

to be fair, apple's page turn is rather neat and unique. if you turn up a corner, you see the back side of the page bleeding through a bit, like it is real thin paper. It's not a static image, but actually the words that are on the back page.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (2)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008571)

Who gives a toss? When I'm reading my non-back-lit ePaper Nook I just touch the screen and the next page in the book appears. When I'm reading my eBook I'm engrossed in what's going on in the story. The last thing I'm interested in is some bells and whistles and crumpled paper sound effects and other distracting shit. Apple can do what they like.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008689)

I agree, althought what is a toss I don't know. As said elsewhere in this thread ,there are a million ways to make an ereader. Apple chose one way and patented it. No big deal, different strokes for different folks. The only thing is, other companies have to make their own terraces and can't use apples.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (1)

drakaan (688386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008695)

Well-executed, sure. Novel and non-obvious? No. An invention? No. It's software, which is math. If they attempted to patent paper with a specific translucence so that you saw the back side of the paper bleeding through a bit when you turned the page, and made the case that it was non-obvious, etc, then fine, but they didn't.

Yet another article forcing me to use the #fuckapple tag. I *really* wish they would go back to making cool, useful, nice looking stuff instead of saying "nobody else gets to try".

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (0)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008795)

Some of the international versions of textbooks use really thin paper like this. So there is some pre-existing technology that should preclude this patent from being valid.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008703)

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. (0)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008989)

[[citation needed]]. Who is saying that apple is out of ideas, but is not an anti-fanboy that's been calling apple teh dumz for years?

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42009341)

Neat and unique, but not the first instance, seeing that this application from 2009 does the same thing. http://www.memememo.com/u/sato/c10395.html
Now, its in Japanese, but its still already been done.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007799)

I take this isn't a utility patent but a design one? Why is this in the news?

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42009107)

I take this isn't a utility patent but a design one? Why is this in the news?

Yep. The claim is The ornamental design for a display screen or portion thereof with animated-graphical user interface, as shown and described.

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007813)

Wait, did you mean to say Robert Picardos?

Re:The facepalm is strong with this one. (5, Funny)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008579)

Picard is insufficient to express the retardedness of this patent. Must go even higher to epic proportions [comicvine.com] in the facepalm department.

oh, you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007297)

can just kiss the fattest part of my ass, both apple and uspto

Re:oh, you (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007593)

can just kiss the fattest part of my ass, both apple and uspto

Sorry, but Apple already owns the patent on asking someone to kiss their ass.

Re:oh, you (2)

McFadden (809368) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007699)

Sorry, but Apple already owns the patent on asking someone to kiss their ass.

Not only that, but it's probably their most frequently used "innovation".

Patents (0, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007307)

It's no use. I have a patent on a methodology whereby old technologies are patented as new by simply changing the names of the components and/or adding the letter 'i' to the front of it. Pay up, sweet cheeks.

Re:Patents (0)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008159)

Oh yeah? Well _i_ have a patent on a methodology for posting to a website saying "i have a patent on a methodology for some process, so pay up", so pay up!

-1, Sensational (0, Troll)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007313)

Oh, good. Another patent article. 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.

Re:-1, Sensational (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007425)

It's not like I come here for actual news or anything.

Indeed, you obviously come here to troll.

Re:-1, Sensational (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007427)

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:-1, Sensational (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007543)

what ring-tone best fits my personality...

Listed here [allmusic.com] for your convenience.

Re:-1, Sensational (-1, Redundant)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008679)

Listed here for your convenience.

Touche.

Re:-1, Sensational (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007449)

And what is your contribution to the debate?

Re:-1, Sensational (5, Insightful)

GPierce (123599) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007769)

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:-1, Sensational (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008183)

It's actually both. Only a broken system would permit this and only a scoundrel would take advantage of it.

Re:-1, Sensational (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008951)

I do agree that many of the articles on Slashdot use overly sensational wording, usually borderlining on inaccurate in the name of making the story sound more interesting than it is. I don't see why a straightforward summary of the story can't speak for itself. We as readers are perfectly capable of forming our own strong emotions. It's like being a hamburger and having someone else's saliva on it already under the pretense that you can't take care of that digestive process yourself.

Re:-1, Sensational (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008959)

"Being a hamburger", hmmm not quite what I intended to type.

So how does the US patent system actually work? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007349)

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:So how does the US patent system actually work? (5, Insightful)

GPierce (123599) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008025)

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:So how does the US patent system actually work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008187)

Of course you're being sarcastic here, I'm sure, but the patent office is supposed to make sure something is actual novel (how they're supposed to come to this decision having no experience in the field the patent originates from is beyond me) and hopefully not already patented before (again how they're supposed to navigate this minefield when even industry professionals in their respected fields have a hard time is beyond me).

As we further our knowledge as a people and continue to advance, I continually wonder how much longer this extremely dated patent system can survive.

Your guess is as good as mine how Apple convinced them their "page turning animation" was somehow novel enough for a patent. I guess the patent office just takes the companies' word for it when they say "Trust us, it's different".

Notebook (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007371)

Circus Ponies' Notebook.app [circusponies.com] has had a very similar animation from the beginning and has been continuously available on the NeXT/OSX platform for about twenty years. It was announced for iPad on 2011-08-11, three months before Apple filed.

Re:Notebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007743)

I'm very familiar with NoteBook, and their page animation is much simpler than Apple's is. Apple's going a lot further in modeling the behavior of a page, which you can see if you just move your finger up or down while the turn is in progress.

Re:Notebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008181)

Apple's design patent doesn't appear to cover anything more the animation of the page turning.

Re:Notebook (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008221)

Circus Ponies' Notebook.app has had a very similar animation from the beginning and has been continuously available on the NeXT/OSX platform for about twenty years. It was announced for iPad on 2011-08-11, three months before Apple filed.

It's a design patent. If the other animation that you mention is very similar, then an exact copy of that other animation is not infringing (on Apple's design patent); an exact copy of Apple's animation is infringing, and something that is close would be difficult to judge.

Guys, remember that this is a _design_ patent. And it protects the design of _one_ way to animate turning over a simulated page in an eBook reader. There are gazillions of ways to do such an animation. Some look better, some look less good. One of them is now covered by a design patent, that's all.

Re:Notebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42009383)

the design do not need to be identical, just significant similar.

You guys understand this is the design of the GUI (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007405)

There's more than one way to animate fake pages being turned on a screen. Apple patented one of them. If anyone thinks this is Apple trying to patent book turning, you are a moron.

It's a pretty silly patent, but now's your chance if you want to make a page turning animation that makes every book look like the Necronomicon... patent it.
Otherwise get over yourself. eBooks don't HAVE to be animated in this fashion.. in fact you don't need the phyiscal book metaphor AT ALL for reading ebooks.

Re:You guys understand this is the design of the G (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007551)

i don't care if it just one way, its been done before, the point is not that they trying to patent book turning, but that they, and the uspto, both think that ANY animation of a page flip should be patent-able.

Re:You guys understand this is the design of the G (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007605)

But this isn't even supposed to be patentable subject matter.
What about In re Bilski?

Re:You guys understand this is the design of the G (0, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008295)

Kind of funny how 99% of "the patent system is broken!!!!111!!!elven!!" examples are actually examples of "I don't understand patents!!".

Here's a story!

Oog the caveman ties a rock to a stick and patents the hammer. Slashdot reports that hitting things with a rock is now patented. Slashdorks claim prior art because they pound nails with their forehead.

Years go by and the patent expires.

Bob Vila the caveman ties a tape measure to a hammer and patents the Craftsman HamMeasure. Slashdot reports that hammers are now patented. Slashdorks claim prior art because they pound nails with their forehead.

BeOS had this in the late 1990's (5, Informative)

Bill Hayden (649193) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007407)

BeOS had a 3d demo program with this exact functionality in the late 1990's!

Re:BeOS had this in the late 1990's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007653)

I still have a BeBox. I wonder if it still works and can demonstrate this if needed...

Re:BeOS had this in the late 1990's (2)

SoCalChris (573049) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007773)

But this patent is for e-reader devices. That's obviously COMPLETELY different from what you posted.

/sarcasm

Re:BeOS had this in the late 1990's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008197)

Silicon Graphics had a similar application. It was a book containing application icons with a 3D page-turning animation, and clicking the icons would launch the application.

kay power tools for photoshop did this back in 95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007455)

kay power tools or alien fx for photoshop did this back in the early nineties.

Hyperbole (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007489)

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:Hyperbole (4, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007665)

I frequently hear here that algorithms were explicitly excluded from patent protection.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007785)

Yea, if that one poorly worded sentence is all you read of the summary, I can see how it could be confusing.

Those of us who read the entire summary, however, suffer from no such befuddlement.

Re:Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007947)

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.

Not an algorithm. It's a design patent, it only covers the non-functional ornamentation (i.e. eye-candy) of a functional object.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008007)

And another Apple fanboi defends the king of skeuomorphism. At least Microsoft has decided its time to move on.

Re:Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008019)

Okay. They patented a mathematical rule instead. How is that any better?

Of course... (1)

scot4875 (542869) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007547)

Something like this is at best worthy of protection via copyright or as some sort of trade dress. Owning a patent on an animation makes absolutely no sense.

--Jeremy

It's a design patent (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007565)

It's a design patent, not a utility patent. That means it's all about the artistic properties. For example, the BeOS page turning looks very different, so it doesn't apply. Coke has a design patent on the shape of the Coke bottle. It doesn't seem so unreasonable that Apple's artwork is different and distinctive.

Re:It's a design patent (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007829)

It's an odd day when an AC has something more insightful to say than everyone else, but that's the case here.

Since this is a design patent, it only covers the ornamental aspects (in fact, the methodology and the like were specifically excluded in the patent, since the patent cannot cover any function). As such, others are welcome to make page turning animations (in fact, IBM had a VERY similar patent back in '95 [uspto.gov] that was cited as a reference by Apple) as much as they want, so long as it doesn't look like Apple's implementation. As the AC pointed out, the BeOS design looks nothing like Apple's, so it wouldn't act as prior art that could invalidate the patent. Even the IBM patent, while similar, is not close enough.

Re:It's a design patent (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008307)

Who decides what is "close enough"? If i want to make a page animation, how do I know I am not infringing? Does the patent list the exact set of design features that must be met to satisfy infringement? What if my animation has all of those features except 1, am I infringing? What is to stop Apple from suing me anyway because I cannot afford to defend in court?

Re:It's a design patent (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008597)

> Who decides what is "close enough"?

Jurors like Velvin Hogan. Yeah, you might remember that guy who ruled in favor of Apple and is now being accused of misconduct for having ignored the judge's instructions, having told the other jurors false things about what the law says, and having intentionally withheld important information during voire dire, among other things.

Re:It's a design patent (1)

Scowler (667000) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007993)

They should remove the word "patent" from that phrase. Lord only knows how much confusion it causes, especially on Slashdot.

Design Trademarks? Design IP? I dunno. Anything is better than "patent".

I hate page turning animation! (4, Insightful)

NixieBunny (859050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007643)

Why, oh why, do coders think it's a good idea to waste time pretending that every computer page is a paper page by making the corner flip up and move over? It's slow and distracting and adds nothing to the user experience except aggravation.

Re:I hate page turning animation! (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008049)

Well, for once, Apple has patented a way of spending more precious battery energy on something that doesn't need to be done at all. They can keep this one. :-)

Re:I hate page turning animation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008237)

Why, oh why, do coders think it's a good idea to waste time pretending that every computer page is a paper page by making the corner flip up and move over? It's slow and distracting and adds nothing to the user experience except aggravation.

I feel the same way about most transitional animations. If the animation doesn't slow down the action at all, fine, but even our cell phones are now powerful enough to not need animations to hide sluggishness.

Re:I hate page turning animation! (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008431)

Why, oh why, do coders think it's a good idea to waste time pretending that every computer page is a paper page by making the corner flip up and move over? It's slow and distracting and adds nothing to the user experience except aggravation.

Odds are that the coders (the majority of them any way) don't feel that way, their managers and application designers do.

Re:I hate page turning animation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42009079)

I'd go a step further, I hate PAGES in an ereader.

Project Gutenberg html format for one long continuously scrollable panel of text on a touch-screen reader seems better to me.

Read the claims, bozos (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007753)

What matters is what's specifically described in the Claims of a patent application. Write whatever you like outside of the Claims, it has essentially no bearing on what's protected if/when a patent is awarded.

Articles like this are what make slashdot such a steaming heap of waste.

By the way, the Federal Trade Commission will soon be suing Google up the bejesus for antitrust violations in its FRAND licensing practices.

Today, animated page turning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007777)

Tomorrow, Apple patents form submission and gains control of the entire patent system.

I can see the description now:

A method for providing alphanumerical responses to preconstructed inquiries whereby the neurocognitive state of the inquiry constructor and/or other persons associated therewith will be aligned to the intended state of the respondent in order to convey relevant thoughts through non-verbal means.

Okay, I'm tired of Apple's crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007807)

When is someone going to shut these assholes down? This is getting ridiculous.

Re:Okay, I'm tired of Apple's crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007997)

When is someone going to shut these assholes down? This is getting ridiculous.

They will shut _themselves_ down by concentrating effort on pointless useless crap
instead of actually innovating.

In this case, Apple is pandering to idiots by offering meaningless amusements
like the page turn animation. Intelligent people will wonder what else of actual
use has been foregone by Apple in favor of this idiotic Walt Disney-eseque
page turn animation.

I buy Apple products, but what has emerged from Apple since Jobs died
has me considering whether I have made a huge mistake. Of course the sad
truth is all the alternatives suck too, so there is no genuinely superior alternative,
especially if you want things which work with a minimum of hassle, which I do because
computers are for me a tool and not a hobby unto themselves.

That's okay (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007841)

As long as they don't patent the star wipe.

Patent applications have become very entertaining (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007861)

I think that value alone makes them worth copyrighting.

Atari's "Arabian" (0)

logicassasin (318009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42007911)

Didn't this game have page turning animations in it back in '83?

Re:Atari's "Arabian" (0)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008135)

Didn't this game have page turning animations in it back in '83?

This is specific to e-readers apparently. I didn't read the article, i didn't want to break any patents by turning pages.

Re:Atari's "Arabian" (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008279)

Didn't this game have page turning animations in it back in '83?

Quite possibly. I don't know it. However, this isn't a "patent on page turning animations". It is a _design patent_ (which is a totally different kind of thing than a _utility patent_), and it covers the design of one specific animation, that means how this specific animation looks. You could even use the exact some algorithm that Apple uses, changing some parameters to make the animation look different, and it wouldn't be covered by this patent. Unless the animation in this game looks _exactly_ the same, it doesn't invalidate this design patent. And if you create a new animation, unless it looks _exactly_ the same, it is not infringing on this design patent. What you are _not_ allowed to do now is to make an exact copy of this animation.

Re:Atari's "Arabian" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42009405)

They dont need to look exactly the same, just significant similar.

Jail time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42007913)

Can we please have some mandatory hard jail time for patent clerks that approve these obvious patents? "Oopsie..." is not good enough anymore. But who gives a damn if you're sitting in an impervious ivory tower. Just rubber-stamp it when it says "Apple", or "IBM", or "Samsung", or $BigCorpName.

Just like these parole boards, psychiatric evaluators, etc. When the "healed" nutcase/rapist/crackpot goes on a rampage again, no one knocks at their door with the question how they could draw the conclusions they did. I've read dozens of newspaper articles and in NONE of them the journalists made mention of putting in a call to the people OK'ing the perp for release.

At least they mentiontioned computer displays... (1)

Sir Realist (1391555) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008179)

Quick! to the time machine! We need to sue Gutenberg!

Broken Patent System (3, Interesting)

SmaryJerry (2759091) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008433)

I can't count the number of times that I've thought of a great idea and it turns out it exists already and is patented. The point of the patent system is to prevent copying but in a world of 7 billion people, 300 million in the united states, many ideas are going to overlap and occur independently. Each and every one of us has had great ideas and then looked it up only to find that it already exists; this is proof that the patent system is broken. In order for something to be patented it needs to be truelly original. It is criminal to allow the patent office to issue patents only based on the fact they assume other people are to stupid to think it or haven't filed paperwork to patent it because it is so obvious. Sure the average person might be, but I bet there are literally hundreds of thousands of coders would replicate the same algorithm if they worked on the same problem. So how can they patent something so rediculously easy to create for so many people? Because they assume everyone is average when they approve these patents. The patent office needs to take into account that a patent must be original to experts in the field, not just an average person, which doesn't appear to be the case. If we can make the patent process legitimate in the first place we would not have to worry about these battles over a few lines of code or patenting a 5 cent additional part and claiming it's an original idea. The patent offices need to take into account the value. How valuable is that algorithm? E.G. how much would you ahve to pay an expert before he thinks of it? For something like this, maybe $500, or a week or less worth of work/coding by one person. Could you replicate that process with any other expert? If so, then don't grant that patent. Is it really so valuable of an idea that every person in the US should be banned from implementing it? They should be ashamed to give patents for something so easily replicated and should think much harder about what it means to invent something. Inventing isn't being the first or only one to submit a piece of paper with specific words. Inventing is finding something that not one in the other 300 million people (or 7 billion) could think. If it doesn't pass that test, don't give it a patent!

goddammit... (1)

crukshank (2006384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008449)

...they've even referenced the venerable 805678 [uspto.gov] , leave him out of it.

Apple intentionally improves the competition (1)

Swarley (1795754) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008543)

The cheesy page turn animation is a horrible UI flourish. Apple did us all a favor by forcing other tablets to employ less garish page turn effects.

Tomorrows headlines: (1)

mindwhip (894744) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008549)

Apple sues all physical book publishers as their devices appear to violate newly granted patent.

This is a design patent! (2)

ProfBooty (172603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008611)

Sounds like the author doesn't understand the difference between a design patent and a utility patent.

Disney Had It First! (1)

Donor (8243) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008613)

I got your page-turning animation right here [youtube.com] !

Has anyone every played the 90's game, Myst? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008715)

All bet someone at Apple has. The page turn used in that computer game is exactly what Apple has, ummmm. invented here. It's a good thing that under the America Invents Act it is much easier to invalidate these piece of crap little patents.

1980's Education Software ... (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008731)

In the 1980's, Unicorn Software had a program for the Apple ][ that allowed the user to read mythology stories -- complete with animated page turning.

Uh, 1986? (0)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008759)

GEOS on the Commodore 64? Duh?

What the fuck... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008771)

Why the hell do I even bother to read /. anymore? The level of Applehate here is insane - it's worse than the old Linux vs. Microsoft days. The only difference is back then Linux had an actual snowball's chance in hell of taking over the desktop. But instead of following through and making it happen, Linux developers took a nap and let Apple come in and steal the show.

Now you guys are just a bunch of disgruntled neckbeards, sitting on your Linux front porch, waving your Android phones at anyone that walks on your open lawn.

Sad.

Can we put this to the vote??? (1)

Angeret (1134311) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008785)

I'd like to propose we swap the people of Gaza with the people of Cupertino. That way the Israelis can do some good, Apple can get what's coming to them and it would at least keep Israel and Gaza as far apart as possible.

Haven't a clue how we'd do it, but it would solve a few issues if we could.

The 80's called (1, Funny)

RenHoek (101570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008791)

All your page curls be mine!

I JUST Patented the Ipad/Waffle Iron. FUCK YOU MAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42008797)

Just so APPLE fucking gets it... I NOW own the patent to the Ipad / Waffle Iron combination George Foreman Grill and Personal cooling system. SUCK THAT DICK APPLE!

Nothing wrong with this patent (5, Informative)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008817)

Come on guys, the ignorance being displayed here is embarassing. Apple has not patented the general concept of turning a page. They've just claimed the rights to their specific page turn animation, that's all.

A lot of people here clearly don't understand what a "design patent" is, and how it differs from a utility patent and copyright. Here's an example of what they all mean:

Copyright: would apply to the code that implements the animation.
Design patent: would apply to the animation itself.
Utility patents: would apply to the general idea of turning of a page in an ebook.

This is the claim from the design patent:

The ornamental design for a display screen or portion thereof with animated-graphical user interface, as shown and described.

Note that it only covers the animation as shown and described. If you use a different animation, you're not infringing.

So calm down everyone. The patent system may be broken, but this is not an example of it.

Re:Nothing wrong with this patent (2)

ThinkWeak (958195) | about a year and a half ago | (#42008899)

So calm down everyone. The patent system may be broken, but this is not an example of it.

Does this actual patent serve a purpose though? I have a few different Android products and my wife has an iPhone and I honestly couldn't tell you how their page turning animations differ, I just know they have one. I don't think anyone is going to confuse an Apple product with its competition based on the page turning animation. Patenting the icons and even the swipe to unlock thing (which most definitely had prior art anyway) could hold some legitimacy, but this patent just seems like something to bog down the approval system. Am I missing something?

Re:Nothing wrong with this patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42009335)

They shouldn't be able to patent an animation, I think that's what enrages most people. You're the fool.

Another Apple Patent (1)

Adalbert1 (2538154) | about a year and a half ago | (#42009201)

United States Patent Application 20080270152, "Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party."

Let them have it (1)

Technomancer (51963) | about a year and a half ago | (#42009347)

Along with other skeuomorphic crap. E-books do not need stupid animations slowing you down when you turn pages.

Need to turn a page? (2)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42009355)

Call the help desk [youtube.com] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...