Apple's Bounce Scroll patent is now invalid in the U.S.
0. phoneArena 23 Oct 2012, 06:39 posted on
It seems Apple will no longer be able to use the so called "Bounce Scroll", or "rubber banding" patent to attack its competitors, as the US Patent Office has decided to invalidate its patent. Apparently, Samsung has managed to prove its point in front of the USPTO by seeking out some prior art...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
14. No_Nonsense (Posts: 826; Member since: 17 Aug 2012)
Depends on what the patents/ inventions/ technologies are. Not all patents are useless. Maybe even Apple has some good patents.
38. tedkord (Posts: 11925; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
They do. I remember one story recently where they had applied for a patent for a method of using the speed and pressure of your finger typing to improve predictive typing. If they found a novel way, that's valid.
However, knowing Apple, they would then consider ALL methods of obstructive typing to be covered by the patent.
18. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)
Hmm.....I think a lot of apples patents are going to be found invalid in the near future.
24. protozeloz (Posts: 5396; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
And I think they're goes the last nail on the biased jury coffin, after all they said patent was valid during the trial, this may actually help Samsung pull a Google in there
25. Rocksteady (unregistered)
It's like they gave apple a wedgie.
Anyway, I personally prefer the cool blue Android light at the end of the list.
26. tiara6918 (Posts: 2042; Member since: 26 Apr 2012)
Apple, you can't sue anytime you want. Look at what's happening now, you're putting yourself to shame.
27. AndroidShiz (Posts: 154; Member since: 08 Nov 2011)
This is probably a result of Google's streamlined patent search tool. In other news, Judge Koh, who worked as a consulting lawyer for Apple years ago before becoming a judge, is now considering a top position at the USPTO.
31. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
You can never rule that out when VP of Mosanto lands in FDA ... corrupt politicians and business houses can make anything happen anywherfe in the world.
28. APPLEpatentISaJOKE (Posts: 3; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
I really hope this would bring innovative product that really innovative
(i.e not patenting bounce back, icon, round corner....)
thanks google for the android....
29. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
So one self proclaimed "iNNOVATION" on path of being busted finally :D
30. AndroidShiz (Posts: 154; Member since: 08 Nov 2011)
Personally I think the way HTC and even Windows Phone has done the bounce back or end of page snap back feature is way cooler than Apples anyways. HTC with its accordion vertebrae style is my fav.
34. Slammer (Posts: 1515; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
It seems to me, that under the "previous art" standard, the next patent to be invalidated is the Tablet design. To me, this is more obvious than the rubber band effect.
39. tedkord (Posts: 11925; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Let's not forget swipe to unlock. And unified search. Hell, most of Apple's utility and design patterns are either ripped off or not patent worthy due to obviousness.
46. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Unified search has to be the next patent that gets invalidated. Searching across multiple entities (web and local) is in the realm of obvious.
36. speckledapple (Posts: 892; Member since: 29 Sep 2011)
I think its good as its not something I think a company should even have a patent for.
41. tedkord (Posts: 11925; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
I've been checking to see what spin BGR puts on this, but the story hasn't shown up there yet. Most likely, lil Johnnie's tears keep shorting out the Mac he writes on.
42. groupsacc (Posts: 232; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
Absolutely disgusted. Who in their right minds, or with an ounce of moral fibre would patent something with prior art.
43. tedkord (Posts: 11925; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Stuff with prior art gets patented all the time, not just by Apple. With the sheet number of patents in existence, and the new ones being granted all the time, it's almost impossible to come up with a complex product that doesn't infringe something.
45. ddeath (Posts: 169; Member since: 14 Apr 2012)
The USPTO is probably relooking at some of the patents that they have been approving and giving out a dime a dozen to Apple since they are being ridiculed at and losing credibility as a patent office. Patent for a black rectangle with rounded corners? COME ON!!
48. gallitoking (Posts: 4720; Member since: 17 May 2011)
the judge made a big mistake by this ruling, stupid or not is a patent that was given to Apple and is her job to enforce it... still got faith she will do the right thing here
50. tedkord (Posts: 11925; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Did you even read the article? It wasn't a judge, it was the US patent office. And, yes it is their job to validate patents, and patents are not supposed to be allowed on things that already exist or are obvious. The mistake was in ever granting the patent in the first place.
Your blind allegiance to all things Apple is really showing.
51. jroc74 (Posts: 6014; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
This is why it doesnt pay to be a fanboy....with anything.
That 1 billion dollar settlement might get a wee bit smaller now....
52. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
by the time it's time for actual payout you never know it coul just be insignificant amount. Samsung will keep dragging the case and keep reaping benifits. As more and more utility patents go off the table large amount of cash slips out of apple's claims (and goes into atorney's pockets ... the real benificiaries of this dogfight) :)
56. pliskin1 (Posts: 59; Member since: 17 Oct 2012)
Bounce back scrolling was such a stupid patent, even my dumb phone has it. Hopefully they can overrule the pinch to zoom patent too.