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!

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

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the here-I-am-on-the-road-again-there-I-am-up-on-the-stage dept.

Patents 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."

cancel ×

125 comments

Next patent application ... (5, Funny)

stevez67 (2374822) | about a year ago | (#43605467)

... the "on" button. Because no one has ever pressed an on button before. No one has turned a page. No one ever thought to make a phone a rectangle with rounded edges. The only ones these ideas are novel to are the nitwit patent attorney's who convince companies to pay them to file this crapola lol. But ... I'm sure there's an app for that.

Re:Next patent application ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605501)

sad thing is i wouldnt doubt someone wanting to do that and attempting it

Re:Next patent application ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605901)

Finally something you cannot blame on the niggers. Niggers don't produce anything except crime, poverty, and more niggers. They don't do patents. Patents aren't gangsta enough, yo.

Nigger males: about 7% of the US population, but commit over 60% of the US murders. Usually they murder other niggers. Because that IS gangsta, yo.

Soon as they stop doing that shit I will stop calling them niggers. They don't want to be thought of as primitive violent spear-chuckers who belong in the jungle because they aren't civilized enough for modern life? Let them stop acting like it then.

Re:Next patent application ... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#43606333)

Books do not have an on button, so this must be innovative!

If I were (5, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43605489)

If I were getting beat up by a competitor for what I consider stupid patents I would start filing stupid patents to fight back as well.

all this does is show once again that the patent system needs work.

Re:If I were (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605645)

Wow. I didn't imagine Fandroids would stoop this low. Ok fuck, never bitch about anyone using the patent system until there is reform. Don't bitch about it at all.

Re:If I were (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43605861)

that was actually the point, or did you stop reading after the first 9 words? it needs reform, it needs to be there, but it needs major reform

Re:If I were (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605665)

If I were getting beat up by a competitor for what I consider stupid patents I would start filing stupid patents to fight back as well.

  all this does is show once again that the patent system needs work.

No it doesn't. Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all. Saying that is as stupid as saying "Oh that little boy killed his sister on accident with a gun. Its the guns fault!" or "Violent video games made my sun kill those people!" no the video games didn't make him kill anyone he killed those people, no it isn't the guns fault because its the parents fault much like when there are stupid patent lawsuits it isn't the systems fault, its the company who files the suits fault.

Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

So if you want to blame something for a problem them blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea.

If patent laws were really to blame then everyone with a patent would be having major lawsuits everyday. Everything from post a notes, to wd-40, to Nintendo to Trojan condoms would constantly be in the news over some silly patent lawsuit but you never hear about others having much of a problem. Considering the millions if not billions of things under patent with a list constantly growing Id say the amount of stupid patent lawsuits is extremely small in comparison.

Re:If I were (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605695)

Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

It's a case of dumb and dumber really. In the end though, I'm not so worried about the one writing up this junk, I'm more worried about those approving it. Who's dumber really, the one who made the fail, or the one who fully endorses it?

Re:If I were (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606869)

Yes but the endorses and lawyers ( scum of the universe), are getting payed and payed well for it.

Re:If I were (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | about a year ago | (#43605711)

Except there are patent lawsuits everyday, about the dumbest of things between companies large and small, from patent trolls versus small and big businesses to big giants fighting each other.

Trying to argue it's not in the news everyday is a terrible example, and you know it, because news only cares about getting money, so whatever is the most interesting gets aired.

The gun is a killing machine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605915)

But the gun is a killing machine, it was made by people, designed to be good at killing people sized things, it is sold by people, billions of dollars were spent by people to ensure the laws are so lax that anyone can buy one. If the gun is the result of all these peoples evil work, then it is to blame.

The patent is to blame, because its the embodiment of all those years of protectionism. All those companies lobbying for special laws to lock themselves into their markets, all those patent officers thinking they're 'creating' innovation by issuing more patents. All those patent lobbyists that wanted patents on business processes, algorithms, and so on. All those politicians thinking they could create 'IP' economies that would simply sell each other the right to make something.

The patent is to blame, because they are to blame, and it's their work.

Re:The gun is a killing machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607115)

As far as i know, guns do not decide to shoot by themselfs.

Re:The gun is a killing machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608149)

No it's the kids doing the killing when handed these peaceful guns by their retard American parents.

Re:The gun is a killing machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608317)

I'm actually pretty sure that a 5y/o kid walking into a store wanting to buy a gun and ammo would be refused, and in most states it is illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a minor (under some age).

Just Apple is to blame (2, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#43606039)

> Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here.

No, only Apple is to blame. If somebody punches you in the face, and you hit back, are you to blame?

Samsung is only defending itself against a scummy patent bully.

Re:Just Apple is to blame (4, Funny)

schnell (163007) | about a year ago | (#43606381)

No, only Apple is to blame.

Well, thank goodness we finally have that sorted out. Has anyone informed the Supreme Court that "walterbyrd" on Slashdot has determined the root of this multinational, multi-claim nest of lawsuits involving hundreds of patents between Google/Motorola, Samsung and Apple is that "only Apple is to blame?" I'm pretty sure we can just put this whole thing to bed now.

GP is right, you are an idiot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606661)

GP is right, he is responding to a comment about the Samsung Apple case, not the root cause of " multinational, multi-claim nest of lawsuits".

You also did it in a dickish way "schnell".

Re:GP is right, you are an idiot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607639)

Nope, I have to agree with Schnell.
Walterbyrd deserves the criticism; at best he is yet another shill on Samsung's payroll.

Re:Just Apple is to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607139)

No, only Apple is to blame.

It's only wrong if apple do it. The cheque is on the way from Samsung

Post at 8.20

Re:If I were (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43606951)

sure it needs work since stupid patents get granted. the system grants patents because the system gets money based on how many patents were granted. the millions of patents being granted being a fine example of that, while novel ideas being patented is at an all time low.

Re:If I were (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43607075)

Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all.

There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations. The PTO grants a massive amount of patents that should be invalid, as proven time again in the courts. The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds. They don't take responsibility and readily put forth the fact the standard for granting a patent is far below the stated requirements, so the courts are weary to just invalidate a patent -- believing that the patent office is actually doing it's job well, when in reality they'll let you patent essentially anything: If you want a weak patent that won't hold up in court, they're cool with that so long as you pay your fees, cross your t's, dot your i's, and replace all the terms such that the application won't generate any hits when searched in their patent database. 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. Yes, it would take longer and be more expensive to grant patents, but just make those filing for the patents pay the bills; This would bring the cost of patents up closer to their actual cost -- No, instead it's basically a government subsidy for legal warheads.

Furthermore: Patents are not required to spurn innovation. Demand for innovation exists regardless of patents, and will generate drive for innovation by basic market forces regardless of granting monopolies. 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. Patents and Copyright merely enforce artificial scarcity, when the artists and researchers could just as easily make their money without patents: Simply withhold their labor unless agreement to be payed for it is ensured (like car mechanics and home builders do, it's a proven system). If there are those who would not invest without monopoly assurances afterwards then those who will invest in research regardless will out compete them -- As proven by stagnant companies doing poorly in the automotive and fashion design industries compared to those who innovate without promise of monopoly. 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. We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing. 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). [vortexcortex.com]

We have NO EVIDENCE that the patent system is fulfilling its goals. We don't know if it's harmful or not, but there are indications that point to it being harmful (frivolous patent lawsuits and bogus patents), and there are at least two data points that indicate patents are not required at all. The real problem with the patent system is that we did not do a test to see if it was beneficial. Everyone just assumes it is without ANY evidence to support their claims. We need to do the experiment and abolish patents to see if they were harmful or helpful. We can re-institute the laws if we need to later. Continuing to operate the world's economy on assumptions of untested hypothesis is egregiously intellectually and economically negligent. That patents exist at all with no proof they're beneficial is the problem. That problem can not be fixed until we've abolished patents.

If you assert that there are no problems with the patent system then I must point out: Ignorant people like you, who operate based merely on assumptions without any evidence to back their claims, are the problem.

Re:If I were (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43607087)

No it doesn't. Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all. Saying that is as stupid as saying "Oh that little boy killed his sister on accident with a gun. Its the guns fault!" or "Violent video games made my sun kill those people!" no the video games didn't make him kill anyone he killed those people, no it isn't the guns fault because its the parents fault much like when there are stupid patent lawsuits it isn't the systems fault, its the company who files the suits fault.

Guns? That's so obviously an attempted strawman it's not even funny. And you're even wrong on that one too - the parent is to blame. Nobody else could have put the gun within reach, nobody else could have neglected to teach the kid about gun safety, nobody else could have been stupid enough to keep ammunition around with the gun. If you really want to shift blame around like an idiot, you could blame gun producers. Or sellers. Or anyone along the chain that ends with putting a gun in the hand of a child. I'd still vote that the parent is to blame, there are even legalese words for it: criminal negligence.

So what are you saying? That we should just sit back and watch these morons rip each other off? And what happens in your utopia when precedence is set for massive payouts for ridiculous lawsuits? Oh that's right, there are also words for that: patent trolling. So your solution is to do nothing and point at statistics 'oh, but it's not so bad cause most patents aren't ever used in this way'.

Right, let me strawman that up for you: we should hand out guns to everyone age 18 or over, because only a very few of those people are going to shoot some schmuck in the face with it, so it's not so bad. It certainly can't be the law that's wrong.

If you have a system that allows undesirable lawsuits, the system is wrong not the lawsuit.

Re:If I were (3, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43607121)

Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

So if you want to blame something for a problem them blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea.

By your own logic Samsung and Apple can not be blamed. They are only "filling for horribly dumb lawsuits" because they are "a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations" -- They are artificial amoral corporate entities, and they must act the way they do because the rules say they must do so or be held accountable by their shareholders: Profit by any means is why they do this.

So, why don't you heed your own advice and "blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea" of corporate personhood?

You're the kind of guy who cries "Cheater!" and blames the AI for following the rules of the game.

Re:If I were (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608213)

Slightly off topic but I'd like to point out that morals, in reference to your claims of 'amoral', are artificial in and of themselves. Morals are no different than claiming that 'the hand of God' has brought us rules to live by. Pointing to this concept of morals is non-different. It's the atheistic method of trying to pass down rules with little or no backing other than 'I say so.'

Re:If I were (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43605725)

AC's response is kinda messed up.

I don't entirely agree with you, but it has been pointed out that some "rights holders" have bought up patents as a defense against being sued by patent trolls. So yeah, it makes sense, in a way, to file for trivial patents as a defense against other trivial patents.

It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce, get together, and lobby for patent reform - along with copyright reform.

The system is most definitely broken. I don't think that Samsung is taking the "best" approach to fixing the real problem - not by a long shot.

We need an analogy here, I think. A housing developer built on some low lying land, in a "classy" area of town. All the in-crowd bought his houses - that is, the "rights holders bought homes in the subdivision. The city's sewer system backs up onto these properties. Samsung's "fix" here, is to add three inches of topsoil to their own property to keep the sewerage from running onto their own property. Of course, that does nothing about the sewerage running in the streets, or on their neighbor's yards. The whole neighborhood still stinks to high heaven, and it's an unhealthy place to live.

It's time for the subdivision to partner with government, and get the damned sewer system fixed, and get the crap out of everyone's neighborhoods!!

Re:If I were (1)

FunkyLich (2533348) | about a year ago | (#43605875)

We need an analogy here, I think. A housing developer built on some low lying land, in a "classy" area of town.

Oh yea? You forget you're on /. punk! Explain to us with the one and only, the Car Analogy! Yeah! ... you're free to go this time.

Re:If I were (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43605909)

Alright - you've driven your car into the city's sewer plant, and the roof is six inches under the surface of one of the ponds. You and all the other "rights holders" are hoping to use some jumper cables to get the car started again, so that you can drive it out of the pond.

Re:If I were (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605913)

We need an analogy here, I think. A housing developer built on some low lying land, in a "classy" area of town.

Oh yea? You forget you're on /. punk! Explain to us with the one and only, the Car Analogy! Yeah! ... you're free to go this time.

Oh. You really thought you were being clever, witty or funny. Didn't you?

My heart weeps for you.

Re: If I were (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606675)

Douche

Re:If I were (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43606801)

It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce, get together, and lobby for patent reform - along with copyright reform.

There's a saying of "be careful what you wish for" because you can bet Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung would love to do this. But the patent reform they want would ensure that no one else can enter the market.

Ditto copyright - they're going to ensure that the big companies can take copyright with a token payment and anyone else can't.

Re:If I were (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43607231)

It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce

They did try that but Apple and a bunch of random patent trolls wouldn't play ball. In Apple's case it is because they don't have any valuable technology patents, only daft design patents on rounded corners and the like. Even if there was a truce Apple would still need to license tech patents under FRAND terms, but no-one needs their patent on page curling.

Re:If I were (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43607601)

I don't entirely agree with you, but it has been pointed out that some "rights holders" have bought up patents as a defense against being sued by patent trolls. So yeah, it makes sense, in a way, to file for trivial patents as a defense against other trivial patents.

Obviously Samsung, being Samsung, will use this patent purely defensively. Most probably to defend sales if HTC, LG and others wake up and spend some more money on marketing their phones :-) I mean they are such an outstanding company with only the best of motives, several convictions in 2012 for price fixing, a CEO who was convicted for tax evasion, people getting cancer in their factories from chemical poisoning. And let's not forget their patents on rounded corners (which are strangely never mentioned, but Samsung has design patents that include rounded corners).

Re:If I were (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year ago | (#43606167)

IMNSHO anything that is an obvious idea, and can be trivially implemented by one skilled in said craft should not be patentable... This includes any [simulation of real-world activity] on a [generic computing interface]. I really with the US-PTO would get a clue already.

Re:If I were (1)

FunkyLich (2533348) | about a year ago | (#43607861)

IMNSHO anything that is an obvious idea, and can be trivially implemented by one skilled in said craft should not be patentable... This includes any [simulation of real-world activity] on a [generic computing interface]. I really with the US-PTO would get a clue already.

There could be a lot of people agreeing with this. I also envision them rubbing their palms in excitement because there is now a lot to do for them: When does an idea stop being obvious? Is it related to the skill of the practitioner? Does that mean that if I am an average skill worker and have an idea that clashes with a patent then this idea is patentable and I am a violator, while at the same time some very high skill worker can come up with the same idea and in that case he is OK because the idea can be trivial to implement for him?

Re:If I were (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606389)

Samsung is far from a saint, they are literally one of the most corrupt companies in the world. They practically own the South Korean government.

Re:If I were (1)

kawabago (551139) | about a year ago | (#43606625)

The patent system doesn't need work. It needs to be out of work!

OBVIOUS! (4, Interesting)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year ago | (#43605503)

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

My theory (5, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43605513)

the issue seems to be that the patent officials either

A - dont spend even 1 second and just stamp it if it comes from a known company
or
B - the patent officers dont understand what they are looking at, yet dont want to sound stupid, so they stamp it

at least thats my theor

Re:My theory (2)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#43605855)

The problem is patent officers aren't masters in individual fields of study to be able to determine if something is "obvious". A patent officers approval doesn't necessarily mean that the patent isn't obvious or even not already patented. That's a job for the courts and submitter. There is supposed to be a level of restraint on the submitter to not post something obvious in their field and to do diligence in ascertaining whether or not a patent should be granted for their idea or if there are existing patents that cover the idea.

The sad thing about this is the general mentality these days of the submitter intentionally not doing these duties for deniability reasons so companies can amass more and more patents.

Re:My theory (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#43605903)

I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

Re:My theory (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year ago | (#43607063)

I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field.

I don't think that is entirely the problem. The other issue is that it is far easier for a patent office to say 'yes' to patents because if they refuse an application this sort of thing [slashdot.org] happens and, if the lawyer is backed by a large multinational you will probably end up with a major legal battle on your hands. It's essentially intimidation with lawyers to approve the application.

Re:My theory (1)

Capt.Albatross (1301561) | about a year ago | (#43606309)

There is supposed to be a level of restraint on the submitter to not post something obvious in their field and to do diligence in ascertaining whether or not a patent should be granted for their idea or if there are existing patents that cover the idea.

Good point. If I recall correctly from my brief encounters with the patent system, if you don't bring the examiner's attention to what could arguably be considered prior art, it explicitly counts against you should your patent be challenged. It may be that large corporations have realized that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law' definitely applies here, and they can cause a lot of trouble for a competitor even with a shaky patent, for example by dragging things out to the point where it becomes moot, or by using the threat of doing so to get cross-licensing agreements.

Wooops! (1)

intellitech (1912116) | about a year ago | (#43606311)

level of restraint on the submitter

Found your problem!

Re:OBVIOUS! (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43605515)

Money.

Re:OBVIOUS! (1)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year ago | (#43605575)

Sadly, too true

Re:OBVIOUS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605603)

I thought rejecting a patent application would be a better incentive for money. After all if they send in another application for the same innovation/invention they have to pay the fee again, but then I thought, no the corporations would just stop applying for patents of stupid stuff.

Maybe patent clerks salaries' should be tied for the number of applictions they reject for a valid reason. A QA system would be in set so up where other clerks would check their. If a decision is overturned than they lose points. Of course, this could cause friction in the workplace so it should be anonymous.

Re:OBVIOUS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605813)

The most accurate approach would be to have people with limited power granting patents. There should be very few patents getting granted. Getting a patent is something that you should earn by producing something genuinely novel that advances our society and can net you money. Patents for snowballs should be ignored. Patents for a real innovation (I have not seen one in my life time) that is truly unique. Maybe. Rockets were not even a unique innovation. Going to the moon was just the appropriate application of science. Science shouldn't be the focus of patents.

Maybe a specific process. Such as the specific details around Imax. But it should still be relatively easy for someone to produce Vmax and slightly change the process or specifications. Shits just still not novel enough in my opinion to deserve epic rewards footed by society as a whole. Heck society owes no one anything.

Re:OBVIOUS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605965)

See, that's the problem. It's hard to judge what's truly innovative because all work is based on previous work and if we only granted say 1 patent every 30 years it seems pretty ridiculous to have patents anyway. At that point, you would be better off abolishing patents and (here's my idea) rewarding the inventor or group with lots of money. Oh wait, apparently "my" idea has already been proposed according to wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents. Funny how that works, and funny how many discoveries and inventions were made around the same time. The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other. Now there are definitely things that were discovered by an individual before others recognized it one them being the work of Mendel and another the general theory of relativity. Rambling aside, it's hard to agree on a definition of innovation or invention which is patent-worthy.

Now just my 2 cents, but I think the easiest test: would a particular field or society be held back by the length of the patent term if the invention, innovation, or whatever had not been disclosed? In industries in which their is strong competition, low costs, and where it's easy to see that progress moves whether there are patents or not, such as the software industry, it's easy to say no. Software patents are flatly stupid. Basically, the cost of research is a good guide into how long patents should be if they should exist at all. I'm not convinced patents should be completely abolished, but it's kind of stupid how IBM patents so many damn things, but I can't remember a recent product that depended on their research. I guess it's not too bad as you could argue that patents are a good way to encourage research even if they turn up dead ends. Kind of like a way their exposing their failures in public. But perhaps the failure would be obvious to someone else so maybe they we're better off for not granting the patent.

Re:OBVIOUS! (2, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#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 [wikipedia.org] is a reference.

Re:OBVIOUS! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607793)

I think he was referring to three examples of the same idea being discovered twice at around the same time in each case. E.g. Calculus (Newton and Leibniz), and the telephone (Bell and Swan) are classic examples. I don't know of anybody else working on relativity at the same time as Einstein, but considering the explosion in theoretical physics at the time (e.g. quantum mechanics) it is unlikely that relativity would have remained undiscovered for long.

The point is an important one: great discoveries would happen anyway, we cannot assume that a patent system makes them more likely.

Re:OBVIOUS! (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#43605739)

It stamps the Patent on the line, or else it can't see the $ sign.

I know, I know (4, Informative)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year ago | (#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 - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/29/1216254/lawyer-loses-it-in-letter-to-patent-office [slashdot.org]

Re:OBVIOUS! (2, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#43606051)

In all fairness, how can they deny Samsung a bullshit patent, when they have granted Apple so many bullshit patents?

Re:OBVIOUS! (2)

Capt.Albatross (1301561) | about a year ago | (#43606379)

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

Part of the problem is that 'obvious' has gained a special meaning in this context, partly as a result of case law, and that meaning is not the obvious one. Lawyers aren't paid to be reasonable.

Re:OBVIOUS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607377)

That isn't a problem at all. If we were to use the "obvious" meaning of "obvious", then the patent office would have to reconcile:

* People who think everything's new and non-obvious because they're drooling idiots with the attention span of a goldfish.
* Savants who see everything as a trivial combination of previous ideas, and given the same problem might actually have reached the same solution.
* Slashdot users who see everything as a trivial combination of previous ideas, but only when they've been told what the solution was.

The first group will say everything's non-obvious, and the second and third groups will say everything's obvious, and at least the first two are largely justified in their concept of obviousness. And, of course, there are lots of other people between the extremes.

How do you expect the patent office to respond, if not by defining a special, rigorous meaning of "obvious"? For reference, the special meaning is roughly:

* To be obvious, the idea has to be a combination of ideas in prior art (mainly patents and academic publications - not everything is necessarily prior art, especially if it's hard to pin down an accurate publication date).
* The previous ideas must be in fields at least tangentially related to the invention, so there's a decent chance that someone other than the inventor would have known about them (pulling six ideas from six completely unrelated fields to solve a problem in a seventh is not automatically obvious).
* The "idea" of combining those previous ideas has to be a fairly direct consequence of the problem and knowledge of those ideas. If it still requires some spark of inspiration to pick that particular combination over millions of others, then it's probably non-obvious. The standard test is whether one "skilled in the art" could be expected to have the same idea, and this is a fairly low bar: it's been described to me as "a fairly stupid grad student". Or the top 0.1% of Slashdotters, if you prefer.

Re:OBVIOUS! (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year ago | (#43606723)

Aren't they paid, or at least rewarded, for patents approved, rather than patents reviewed?

Re:OBVIOUS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608181)

Patents are written in rambling legalese and are not straightforward to read, especially software patents since they describe an abstract concept rather than a tangible object and quite often the product doesn't even exist. The abstract of a software patent is thus often meaninglessly vague and the examiner must drill down through all the claims to get an idea of what it's really trying to patent.

thank god (1)

reub2000 (705806) | about a year ago | (#43605511)

Finally, patents are being used for something useful. What an annoying animation.

*turns page* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605523)

patented. *clicks mouse suggestively* patented.

I laughed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605563)

not at the patent(s) but at slashdot readers that start frothing when they invariably don't understand what's actually being patented.

Re:I laughed (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43605719)

samsung is patenting the page turn animation so they can sue amazon and apple

Re:I laughed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607201)

Or... they're patenting it before Amazon or Apple do so in order to avoid being sued themselves.

Re:I laughed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606873)

You suck as a shill, and should request immediate training from your supervisor. It's not a complex task to understand a computer graphics representation of a physical action. It's also does not take complex thought to see how simulating a physical action with computer animation goes beyond the spirit of the patent system.

If you find that thought process difficult, well, perhaps you should find a nice factory job. Stay away from shilling on technical web sites where your intellect is dwarfed by most members. Hang out on Facebook where you can match wits with people your own speed.

Get a patent on this (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43605583)

I got your patent right here.

Is this a design pattent? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605597)

If it is a design pattent, I don't see the problem with this. They may want to ensure that they have a certain look on their ereaders which is not faked by other ereaders.
This is totally acceptable, kinda like round corners are acceptable (with a lot of other rules) to ensure your device is not faked.

If its not a design pattent, its certainly not worth being granted on basis that its not really novel.

And as a personal opinion on the thing, I actually like the kindle approach of just going to the next page and no animation best.
On a device where changing pages is kinda like scrolling, I would like to see when I change pages, but on an ereader with a slow enough screen to already see the change easily, I think an added animation would be stupid.

Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605639)

Oh, I remember how the faux page curl seemed so novel for 5 minutes on Flash sites.

Re:Flash (2)

unrtst (777550) | about a year ago | (#43605699)

Oh, I remember how the faux page curl seemed so novel for 5 minutes on Flash sites.

Doesn't matter... that was WAY before Flash worked "on a cell phone".

"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year ago | (#43605649)

Seriously, with as litigious as everyone is, who WOULDN'T patent every thing they could think of, if only to keep "the other guy" from litigating you to oblivion?

Not that I'm saying Samsung won't exploit such patents. I'm sure they can, and will. But that's how the game is played, so instead of getting riled at Samsung ( or Apple, or anyone else for that matter ) for suing everyone for absurd patents, shouldn't we, instead, be outraged at the system that allows and encourages such behavior?

Re:"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" (1)

Shadowmist (57488) | about a year ago | (#43605981)

Seriously, with as litigious as everyone is, who WOULDN'T patent every thing they could think of, if only to keep "the other guy" from litigating you to oblivion?

Not that I'm saying Samsung won't exploit such patents. I'm sure they can, and will. But that's how the game is played, so instead of getting riled at Samsung ( or Apple, or anyone else for that matter ) for suing everyone for absurd patents, shouldn't we, instead, be outraged at the system that allows and encourages such behavior?

Remember Apple started playing this game when someone sued THEM for one of those niggling patents on the iPhone. Knowing that their phone was going to be a big ticket item, they really did not have any choice but to play this game... No one, not Samsung, Google, Microsoft, whoever does.

Re:"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" (3, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#43606069)

> Remember Apple started playing this game when someone sued THEM

Difference is: Apple's patents are pure bullshit, and Apple only sues over their bullshit patents because Apple is scamming the system.

Not *all* patent lawsuits are scams. Some patents are entirely legitimate. Apple is the master of junk patents, and scam lawsuits.

Re:"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607419)

Samsung have already sent you one cheque today. Don't be greedy

Don't you think its wrong though (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605653)

Don't you think its wrong though that Apple spends billions of dollars and then have someone else come along and copy it for nothing and make millions and billions of dollars off of it. Does that sound fair? I don't think it does!

Re:Don't you think its wrong though (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605833)

Billions of dollars seems like a lot of money to spend implementing something that a lot of other things have already successfully implemented for much cheaper. Have the shareholders been notified?

Re:Don't you think its wrong though (3, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#43606079)

> Don't you think its wrong though that Apple spends billions of dollars and then have someone else come along and copy it

Like what? What great invention - that Apple spend billions of dollars on - was stolen from Apple? Please be very specific.

Yu0 Fail It?F! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605689)

Important distinction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605735)

Apple's patent was a design patent -- design patents cover purely ornamental aspects of a functional device.
Samsung's patent is a utility patent -- utility patents cover functionality only, and are what most people think of when they say "patent" with no specifier.

Not saying this makes one right and the other wrong, just that it's an important distinction which a lot of press coverage, including /.'s own summary, is ignoring.

heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605763)

Now Samsung even copies apple's patenting techniques. I swear if apple made a golden toilet, Samsung would too.

Last refuge of the incompetents (2)

Progman3K (515744) | about a year ago | (#43605839)

When you have nothing left to say and have no innovation, you patent something very obvious.

clap...
clap...
clap...

Re:Last refuge of the incompetents (2)

Artea (2527062) | about a year ago | (#43605925)

I'm afraid "Simulating applause through an electronic device" is patented, you owe me royalties.

Just self defense on Samsung's part (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year ago | (#43606091)

Apple is the one filing all the scam lawsuits.

Re:Just self defense on Samsung's part (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43607615)

Apple is the one filing all the scam lawsuits.

Like the one that Google/Motorola is losing right now against Microsoft over h.264. Google asked for four billion dollars per year for you to watch h.264 videos on an Xbox. But in your warped world view that is probably purely defensive.

Re:Just self defense on Samsung's part (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607733)

Weren't Microsoft (along with Apple) the ones who refused to support WebM, because WebM might be covered by patents, and they would risk being sued?

Can we really blame Google for showing Microsoft that there are very real patents in h.264, and the risk of being sued is thus very real - instead of just "might be"?

It could be worse (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | about a year ago | (#43605889)

At least nobody has filed a patent on 'reading through means of artificial light while laying in bed.' or 'Protecting pages of written text by binding said text between hard layers of cardboard.' So don't worry be happy.

why is this allowed? (1)

Bugler412 (2610815) | about a year ago | (#43606005)

There is no way on earth that a patent system that allows this sort of BS can be successful in forwarding the basic goals of the patent system, none.

Only now? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43606477)

There is no way on earth that a patent system that allows this sort of BS can be successful in forwarding the basic goals of the patent system, none.

You're only realizing this now? I knew the patent system had jumped the shark when someone patented swinging sideways on a swing.

Re:why is this allowed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606879)

I think you are confusing the goals of the patent system with their actual goals. Control of production through the ownership of ideas.

and the show WILL reach a new low (1)

deatypoo (1837038) | about a year ago | (#43606827)

So here we have Apple an American company, Samsung a South-Korean one and the United States Patent also an American entity. Now I don't know as a Canadian who has been observing Americans for a while how much credibility, even with truckloads of facts or legal proof, any American is willing to give to a foreign entity, but I still find it far fetched to believe Samsung has any chance at all to have anything enforced in this one. Apple will change the colours, US patents will say it's OK, new patent, case closed/appeals ensue, jobs preserved.

Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606843)

For fuck sakes, but you Americans need to solve your absurd software patent problem. The rest of the world is laughing at you.

Prior Art? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about a year ago | (#43606983)

The net comic The Gods of ArrKelann [rmcomics.com] has used a page-turning interface for years.

I'm not sure whether it was from the start of the run or if it got converted somewhere along the way. But it's pretty clearly a page-turning interface.

Button press patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607055)

Thank god nobody's thought to patent button pressing.

How about a fresh idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607347)

Why do we not patent "the patent troll" and go after all these lawyers using our method and procedures... We will file it vague enough so that ALL patent trolls fall within the wording. Maybe then this shit will stop...

EU Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607351)

Jesus, I'm glad there are certain countries in EU that dont give a sh*t about such patents ...

Gonna get sued by Apple. (3, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#43607441)

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".

Good patent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607745)

Finally a good patent. It's been years since we last saw one of those.

Now, Samsung, please also get a patent on "method for increasing ad views by splitting a single article over multiple artificial pages" and "method for placing ads on top of text, to make it impossible to read the content without interacting with the ad", and then put all three of them in a safe in a disused lavatory with a sign saying "beware of leopard".

While you're at it, "method for using a security update to install malware on a computer" would be nice to get locked up also, so we can get rid of that stupid Java/Ask thing.

OT Car system needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608023)

OT bitching: We desperately need a system for cars, including engine management. Flashable onto a box that can run anything.
It just breaks my heart to see these high horsepower gorgeous engines in these modern god awful POS SUVs, etc.
I want to put these incredible and now plentiful motors into other things. boats, old cars, pickups etc.
Breaks my mind to try and use the on board computer systems. Crap.
Our greatest expense, second to housing and every detail is proprietary, with exorbitant replacement costs.
Huge market.

What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608095)

To all of those that think the patent laws don't need to be revised, (and you might think this is ridiculous but under the current state on the law it could be possible because of loopholes in it) if one day you wake yourself and find that a company opened up a web site for personal names and start to charge for the use of a name that they have patented say the name of your future kid or something like it what do you think will happen in the long run (after all a name is just another word, just like an apple)

Google Glass Makes Page-Turn Tech Obsolete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608211)

As soon as augmented reality comes into play, we will see digital representations of physical objects. So once you're looking at what appears to be a book on your desk through your Google Glass display, you will just turn the pages like you normally would.

Now how is anyone going to patent the physical action of turning a page?

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...