Support NeoGAF

[Technosteve]

I understand that you believe that the bounce back patent is analogousness to how a loaded spring system works in pulley system, where you pull the rope on a pulley to the end where the pulley is attached to a spring which would allow the rope to rewind back on to the pulley if the rope was let go.


but that is patented.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I understand that you believe that the bounce back patent is analogousness to how a loaded spring system works in pulley system, where you pull the rope on a pulley to the end where the pulley is attached to a spring which would allow the rope to rewind back on to the pulley if the rope was let go.


but that is patented.

I'd assume that patent has expired, though?

(in any case, I think the "finite number of options" argument is considerably more cogent where that patent is concerned)

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Hardware.

"Nintendo scored a patent Tuesday for a Sanity system for video game, which covers causing a game character to hallucinate - e.g., see bleeding walls and hear maniacal laughter - as its sanity decreases in response to encountering a creature or gruesome situation."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/08/30/1645253/nintendo-patents-insanity

 

[dream]

other games had different art, differences in programming, different objectives, characters, etc, etc.

nintendo did patent the D-pad, though. and, hey, surprise, other people had to come up with different variations of the d-pad. and we all survived.

scrolling isn't a problem for new phones. they all scroll. they all scrolled before and they'll continue to scroll. but the bounce back feature was Apple's contribution. they can license it if they want.

I have a vita and I noticed right away that Sony came up with a different kind of bounce feature. they stretch the text at the end. it's very cool. I may even like it more than the iOS bounce back. the point is that they did something different, though. they innovated and came up with something cool on their own.

edit. and one could also argue that perhaps stretching text is more obvious than creating a fake page with background and bouncing that up. it's not so obvious that bouncing is more natural than stretching.

And to add on to this, HTC has a different type of bounce cue in Sense 4.0 where the end of the list sort of separates like an accordion. So it's definitely possible to implement a similar feature without resorting to wholesale copying like Samsung did.

 

[Technosteve]

"Nintendo scored a patent Tuesday for a Sanity system for video game, which covers causing a game character to hallucinate - e.g., see bleeding walls and hear maniacal laughter - as its sanity decreases in response to encountering a creature or gruesome situation."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/08/30/1645253/nintendo-patents-insanity

you brought dyack in to the conversation, you never go full dyack

 

[iamblades]

I understand that you believe that the bounce back patent is analogousness to how a loaded spring system works in pulley system, where you pull the rope on a pulley to the end where the pulley is attached to a spring which would allow the rope to rewind back on to the pulley if the rope was let go.


but that is patented.

Again, hardware.

Also I imagine that patent is long since expired, meaning public domain. Do you really think everything ever done should be eligible for a new patent if it is done in software? On a new device? With a new interface method? Where is the limit to where the same idea can be repatented?

 

[rozay]

nintendo did patent the D-pad, though. and, hey, surprise, other people had to come up with different variations of the d-pad. and we all survived.

scrolling isn't a problem for new phones. they all scroll. they all scrolled before and they'll continue to scroll. but the bounce back feature was Apple's contribution. they can license it if they want.

I have a vita and I noticed right away that Sony came up with a different kind of bounce feature. they stretch the text at the end. it's very cool. I may even like it more than the iOS bounce back. the point is that they did something different, though. they innovated and came up with something cool on their own.

edit. and one could also argue that perhaps stretching text is more obvious than creating a fake page with background and bouncing that up. it's not so obvious that bouncing is more natural than stretching.

The bounce back patent isn't going to affect the way stock android does it (the overscroll glow) correct?

"Nintendo scored a patent Tuesday for a Sanity system for video game, which covers causing a game character to hallucinate - e.g., see bleeding walls and hear maniacal laughter - as its sanity decreases in response to encountering a creature or gruesome situation."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/08/30/1645253/nintendo-patents-insanity

Well, let's hope the developers of Amnesia and the sequel don't have to endure an apple-like experience from Nintendo.

 

[iamblades]

"Nintendo scored a patent Tuesday for a Sanity system for video game, which covers causing a game character to hallucinate - e.g., see bleeding walls and hear maniacal laughter - as its sanity decreases in response to encountering a creature or gruesome situation."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/08/30/1645253/nintendo-patents-insanity

Which is nonsense as well, but I don't think they've ever abused that patent in court..

 

[Elfforkusu]

"Nintendo scored a patent Tuesday for a Sanity system for video game, which covers causing a game character to hallucinate - e.g., see bleeding walls and hear maniacal laughter - as its sanity decreases in response to encountering a creature or gruesome situation."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/08/30/1645253/nintendo-patents-insanity

Ok?

I was responding to that particular patent, not that Nintendo never got a software patent. For the record I also think the linked patent is a stupid patent.

The example was meant to illustrate how fortunate we all are that they didn't pull an Apple in 1985 and set the videogame industry back by many years (because in this hypothetical timeline, only Nintendo games could only have scrolling).

In my opinion we shouldn't need to be "fortunate" about this. Software patents (or the system woefully equipped to handle them, if you prefer) put us in a position where a single innovation can stagnate an entire industry.

 

[SRG01]

The bounce back patent isn't going to affect the way stock android does it (the overscroll glow) correct?

No it hasn't been a part of stock Android for a very long time... (if ever)

 

[LCfiner]

The bounce back patent isn't going to affect the way stock android does it (the overscroll glow) correct?
well let's hope the developers of Amnesia and the sequel don't have to endure an apple-like experience from Nintendo.

I can't say for sure but I doubt it.

I feel we might be focusing too much on the scrolling...

the more potentially problematic issue is the pinch to zoom patent. that's one that I really do think is vital to a multitouch tablet/ phone device.

so, what happens now? Will that one be licensed? Will Google need to come up with some sort of crazy behind the scenes voodoo to make the pinch to zoom functionality not infringe on the patent?

I do wonder, honestly, if some sort of visible cue on the screen - like a faint circle - located at the finger touch locations could get around the patent, since it would look visibly different from the way it looks now on iOS (and everywhere else)

 

[iamblades]

And to add on to this, HTC has a different type of bounce cue in Sense 4.0 where the end of the list sort of separates like an accordion. So it's definitely possible to implement a similar feature without resorting to wholesale copying like Samsung did.

No one is arguing that there aren't other ways to do it without infringing the bullshit patent.

The argument is that, given the fact there are only a good half dozen things that make sense for the UI to do at the end of a scroll, is it something that deserves patent protection?

You have:

1. stop dead at end
2. bounce to last spot(apple)
3. Bounce to end(samsung)
4. Slide and glow(stock google)
5. Return to top
6. various other animations like the accordion stretch.

Do any of these really deserve a patent?

 

[Technosteve]

i think a very good article can be written if we looked at the use of patents from the inception of patents (age of steam and electricity) to now (age of software and biology) i believe one underlying principal will still exists.

Patents exists to protect the inventor for his labor and to allow innovation to flourish.

 

[SRG01]

2) Software is defined by programming. It is the translation of an idea (process) into instructions to reliably (hopefully) accomplish that process. Patents should not apply -- copyright does. Should mathematical formulae be patentable as well? How about book and movie tropes?

End software patents. </software engineer>

Just saw this post, but I definitely agree. There are a lot of problems with software patents, especially with implementation and/or methods.

Pinch to zoom is perhaps the most damning of the entire case/jury, and ironically will be the hardest to overturn.

i think a very good article can be written if we looked at the use of patents from the inception of patents (age of steam and electricity) to now (age of software and biology) i believe one underlying principal will still exists.

Patents exists to protect the inventor for his labor and to allow innovation to flourish.

I actually disagree. The intent is to allow innovation to flourish by protecting inventors for their labor. However, the intent has been lost and patents have now become a tool for litigation.

Do any of these really deserve a patent?

You mean if they pass the "novelty" test?

 

[MThanded]

No one is arguing that there aren't other ways to do it without infringing the bullshit patent.

The argument is that, given the fact there are only a good half dozen things that make sense for the UI to do at the end of a scroll, is it something that deserves patent protection?

You have:

1. stop dead at end
2. bounce to last spot(apple)
3. Bounce to end(samsung)
4. Slide and glow(stock google)
5. Return to top
6. various other animations like the accordion stretch.

Do any of these really deserve a patent?

There are many more ways to handle this. However, due to my pending patents I will not be divulging them at this moment.

 

[Tabris]

Now this is the key. This is the key of this whole argument. It doesn't entitle them to be the only one to use the idea, but it entitles the inventor to receive an appropriate licensing fee.

This is only becoming a noticeable issue due to the nature of the open source Android platform and OEMs.

People keep missing this point. Patents shouldn't prevent someone from being able to use a software idea, it should prevent someone from using someone else's idea FOR FREE.

Android OEMs free ride is over is all this means.

Microsoft and Apple both pay licenses to a lot of other companies and have agreements with each other in this space. Google was able to get away with this due to the open source OEM nature of their OS, but the OEM's have to pay up the same way as these 2 companies have had to.

 

[LCfiner]

the jury form

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266878/apple-vs-samsung-final-jury-form#3696275

i love this handwritten correction of the total damages. seems so nuts to have this enourmous sum of money corrected in handwriting. I'm so used to seeing everything typed up these days.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266878/apple-vs-samsung-final-jury-form#3696271

 

[iamblades]

i think a very good article can be written if we looked at the use of patents from the inception of patents (age of steam and electricity) to now (age of software and biology) i believe one underlying principal will still exists.

Patents exists to protect the inventor for his labor and to allow innovation to flourish.

Not really.

The purpose of patents is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."

It is not supposed to be used to protect some corporations profit margins.

Given what we've seen of software patents in the last several years, I don't see how anyone can argue that is the case.

 

[Elfforkusu]

People keep missing this point. Patents shouldn't prevent someone from being able to use a software idea, it should prevent someone from using someone else's idea FOR FREE.

Android OEMs free ride is over is all this means.

There are so many software patents (and as a result of so few of them being novel, so many violations of software patents) that payment is a substantial issue. Pay for one, pay for a thousand. Besides, what's an appropriate payment for bounce scrolling or pinch to zoom? Who decides? My competitor? Yeah, I'm sure they'll offer a fair licensing fee!

Patents will and do prevent good ideas from being used and improved upon, and they also stifle other good ideas by the mere threat of litigation.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

the jury form

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266878/apple-vs-samsung-final-jury-form#3696275

i love this handwritten correction of the total damages. seems so nuts to have this enourmous sum of money corrected in handwriting. I'm so used to seeing everything typed up these days.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266878/apple-vs-samsung-final-jury-form#3696271

I was part of an organization in litigation against my university. The entire settlement contract was hand written. Signed by legal counsel and VPs. Written is written is written.

 

[Technosteve]

you patent something you lay everything bare on how to produce that widget, other people can learn how you did it and then improve on it. That's how the patent system works in every field except i guess Software.

Put on my libertarian hat, I understand free software is good it gave us linux and the internet. But god damn it you people don't even let the court system work its way through to invalidate or validate the patents. You guys just say fuck patents, am i set in how the world works that i don't understand this rationality?

 

[rozay]

you patent something you lay everything bare on how to produce that widget, other people can learn how you did it and then improve on it. That's how the patent system works in every field except i guess Software.

Put on my libertarian hat, I understand free software is good it gave us linux and the internet. But god damn it you people don't even let the court system work its way through to invalidate or validate the patents. You guys just say fuck patents, am i set in how the world works that i don't understand this rationality?

I wish I lived in your world, it sounds like a nice place.

 

[dream]

re: pinch to zoom alternatives

Samsung (ironically) does have that weird accelerometer-based zoom feature where you put two fingers on the screen and tilt the phone. It's nowhere close to ideal, but it's entirely possible to come up with an alternative.

 

[Tabris]

Let's take a history lesson.

When Windows 1.0 came out, Microsoft paid Apple to license their GUI patents, because Apple had invented those software features.

When Windows 2.0 came out and Microsoft improved the GUI with their own features, Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement. It was decided that out of the 189 GUI patents, 179 were covered with the licensing that Microsoft had spent and 10 were the only feasible way to express that idea, and the suit was thrown out.

This is not the case in either patent Apple won on today, Samsung hasn't paid Apple to license the patents and there are other ways to express that idea (i.e. ways Samsung could innovative or as you put it, iterate). The other point this isn't something that's new, there's been patent lawsuits back to 1980's in regards to software.

Nothing's free in this world until it becomes public domain. These are not public domain. Samsung needs to learn how to pay licensing fees like the rest of the companies have to (Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, etc). Free ride is over.

 

[iamblades]

you patent something you lay everything bare on how to produce that widget, other people can learn how you did it and then improve on it. That's how the patent system works in every field except i guess Software.

Put on my libertarian hat, I understand free software is good it gave us linux and the internet. But god damn it you people don't even let the court system work its way through to invalidate or validate the patents. You guys just say fuck patents, am i set in how the world works that i don't understand this rationality?

I honestly don't really see how anyone who has spent any significant time programming anything can agree with the idea of software patents.

You do bring up a good point though, that software patents are required to give full details on implementation. Software patents require a full source code dump which goes into the public domain after it expires might be interesting. Issues with how often code changes though. Just more reasons software shouldn't be patentable IMO.

 

[Lynn616]

The Android business is going to get expensive. OEMs need to pay Microsoft and now maybe Apple for each handset sold.

 

[SRG01]

you patent something you lay everything bare on how to produce that widget, other people can learn how you did it and then improve on it. That's how the patent system works in every field except i guess Software.

Put on my libertarian hat, I understand free software is good it gave us linux and the internet. But god damn it you people don't even let the court system work its way through to invalidate or validate the patents. You guys just say fuck patents, am i set in how the world works that i don't understand this rationality?

Patents were valid for a time when inventors and innovators had little to no way of communicating significant ideas and inventions without losing attribution or risk of theft. It also "guaranteed" some form of profitability to the inventor, as a sort of incentive for both the inventor and future inventors to continue with their work.

The world is entirely different now.

The Android business is going to get expensive. OEMs need to pay Microsoft and now maybe Apple for each handset sold.

Due to the Sharp-MS agreement, we now know with a reasonable amount of certainty that it's related to FAT and long filenames. I'm not sure how valid it is now in the 21st century, or whether there's a workaround.

As far as Apple is concerned, they've already said that they aren't interested in licensing. If they are, it's going to be around the $20-30 dollar range, which is outrageous.

 

[iamblades]

Let's take a history lesson.

When Windows 1.0 came out, Microsoft paid Apple to license their GUI patent, because

When Windows 2.0 came out and Microsoft improved the GUI with their own features, Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement. It was decided that out of the 189 GUI patents, 179 were covered with the licensing that Microsoft had spent and 10 were the only feasible way to express that idea, and the suit was thrown out.

This is not the case in either patent Apple won on today, Samsung hasn't paid Apple to license the patents and there are other ways to express that idea (i.e. ways Samsung could innovative or as you put it, iterate).

Nothing's free in this world until it becomes public domain. These are not public domain. Samsung needs to learn how to pay licensing fees like the rest of the companies have to (Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, etc)

You still haven't said anything about why something so trivial with so much prior art even deserves to be patented. Which is the most important point in all of this.

 

[rozay]

re: pinch to zoom alternatives

Samsung (ironically) does have that weird accelerometer-based zoom feature where you put two fingers on the screen and tilt the phone. It's nowhere close to ideal, but it's entirely possible to come up with an alternative.

The N900 also has that zoom feature where you hold your finger and scroll in a circle clockwise or counter clockwise.

Am I the only one who dislikes pinch to zoom though? I find it entirely useless when a double tap does the job in 99% of my usage, and I don't find the zoom-in gesture to be natural at all.

 

[Technosteve]

Patents were valid for a time when inventors and innovators had little to no way of communicating significant ideas and inventions without losing attribution or risk of theft. It also "guaranteed" some form of profitability to the inventor, as a sort of incentive for both the inventor and future inventors to continue with their work.

The world is entirely different now.

yeah we don't patent shit and keep it a trade secret

 

[Elfforkusu]

you patent something you lay everything bare on how to produce that widget, other people can learn how you did it and then improve on it. That's how the patent system works in every field except i guess Software.

Put on my libertarian hat, I understand free software is good it gave us linux and the internet. But god damn it you people don't even let the court system work its way through to invalidate or validate the patents. You guys just say fuck patents, am i set in how the world works that i don't understand this rationality?

Linux and the internet are perfect examples, because they are iterative innovations that have only achieved such heights because they escaped being bogged down by the patent system through dumb luck.

If I thought any more than the tiniest margin of software patents were legitimately novel, then the documentation aspect would be worthwhile.

But as it is, "laying bare" how you implemented pinch to zoom (so difficult!) is not advancing the "progress" of software in any meaningful way. The patent was established purely as a deterrent and an insurance policy.

 

[Lamel]

I don't want my pinch to zoom gone from my phone

apple is being a big baby.

 

[SRG01]

yeah we don't patent shit and keep it a trade secret

Of course. The whole semi industry is based off of trade secrets. Why? Because a) costs of patenting an idea, b) it's going to be copied anyway, and c) the speed of innovation means the previous idea will become irrelevant in 2-3 years.

Linux and the internet are perfect examples, because they are iterative innovations that have only achieved such heights because they escaped being bogged down by the patent system through dumb luck.

If I thought any more than the tiniest margin of software patents were legitimately novel, then the documentation aspect would be worthwhile.

But as it is, "laying bare" how you implemented pinch to zoom (so difficult!) is not advancing the "progress" of software in any meaningful way. The patent was established purely as a deterrent and an insurance policy.

Exactly. The whole patent game is to submit something hopefully with "enough" differences with implementation and methods to get it passed.

However, the system is supposed to catch these "workaround" patents and declare them invalid...

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Unfortunately, I think the precedent has been set. Once the OEMs have been taken care of, Apple will go up against Google itself and likely win. Probably this time next year Android will either be banned or in a severely nerfed state. The US government is going to do whatever it takes to keep Apple happy, they're the only bargaining chip they have in the international market right now.

 

[Elfforkusu]

re: the doomsday scenarios of Apple getting Android banned, maybe this will kickstart Samsung into getting a damn (legit) linux phone over here. I'll commit the patent infringement myself when I install the OS!

Let's take a history lesson.

When Windows 1.0 came out, Microsoft paid Apple to license their GUI patents, because Apple had invented those software features.

When Windows 2.0 came out and Microsoft improved the GUI with their own features, Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement. It was decided that out of the 189 GUI patents, 179 were covered with the licensing that Microsoft had spent and 10 were the only feasible way to express that idea, and the suit was thrown out.

This is not the case in either patent Apple won on today, Samsung hasn't paid Apple to license the patents and there are other ways to express that idea (i.e. ways Samsung could innovative or as you put it, iterate). The other point this isn't something that's new, there's been patent lawsuits back to 1980's in regards to software.

Nothing's free in this world until it becomes public domain. These are not public domain. Samsung needs to learn how to pay licensing fees like the rest of the companies have to (Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Nokia, Motorola, etc). Free ride is over.

"iteration" is derivative by definition, which is why I like to use it when describing software (apart from that it's a programming term, and thus dually appropriate). None of these companies are purely "innovating" from that perspective, they're just refining their trade, adding new ideas to the mix. That's another part of what makes all of this absurd. Xerox invented all this stuff, Apple stole it, improved it and patented it, Microsoft stole it from Apple and refined it, and on and on.

Software patents aren't new, but this explosion of patents and corresponding litigation is. It magnifies the problem.

 

[Tabris]

You still haven't said anything about why something so trivial with so much prior art even deserves to be patented. Which is the most important point in all of this.

Apple has been successful due to subtle software features to their OS that make the experience signature. While trivial, that idea is an essential part of the experience.

Anyways, the big part of the lawsuit is the trade dress though. Samsung was able to be as successful they are due to copying of Apple's trade dress.

 

[DSN2K]

Unfortunately, I think the precedent has been set. Once the OEMs have been taken care of, Apple will go up against Google itself and likely win. Probably this time next year Android will either be banned or in a severely nerfed state. The US government is going to do whatever it takes to keep Apple happy, they're the only bargaining chip they have in the international market right now.

you seem to forgotten one major issue, EU and Asian courts will laugh off Apples claims. If anything EU will find a way to get their share of apples spoils, they mugged MS and they will eventually mug Apple because they can.

 

[Technosteve]

there is a difference of inventing a product and giving it away for free, and inventing a product giving it away for free but then use it commercially.

the difference is licencing

 

[Talon]

Unfortunately, I think the precedent has been set. Once the OEMs have been taken care of, Apple will go up against Google itself and likely win. Probably this time next year Android will either be banned or in a severely nerfed state. The US government is going to do whatever it takes to keep Apple happy, they're the only bargaining chip they have in the international market right now.

That's a nice tinfoil hat.

 

[LCfiner]

Unfortunately, I think the precedent has been set. Once the OEMs have been taken care of, Apple will go up against Google itself and likely win. Probably this time next year Android will either be banned or in a severely nerfed state. The US government is going to do whatever it takes to keep Apple happy, they're the only bargaining chip they have in the international market right now.

this is an extremely pressimistic prediction. Android isn't going to be banned. Jeesh.

And bringing the US govt into this is a little "tin foil hat" paranoid.

 

[MThanded]

Unfortunately, I think the precedent has been set. Once the OEMs have been taken care of, Apple will go up against Google itself and likely win. Probably this time next year Android will either be banned or in a severely nerfed state. The US government is going to do whatever it takes to keep Apple happy, they're the only bargaining chip they have in the international market right now.

Dem conspiracy theories.

 

[Technosteve]

Of course. The whole semi industry is based off of trade secrets. Why? Because a) costs of patenting an idea, b) it's going to be copied anyway, and c) the speed of innovation means the previous idea will become irrelevant in 2-3 years.

that's why fundamental patents are so powerful.......

 

[Talon]

Android OEMs will just pay Apple a license fee and move on.

Android itself has actively differentiated itself with ICS and Jelly Bean.

 

[Tabris]

Software patents aren't new, but this explosion of patents and corresponding litigation is. It magnifies the problem.

Actually once again, back to your history lesson, the late 80's and 90's had the largest explosion of patent infringement litigation. When all the OS' software companies were fighting for their piece of the market and ensuring their ideas were protected. IBM, SCO, HP, Microsoft, Apple, Xerox, etc.

You are seeing a similar explosion now as it's the same scenario, a new market (there has been Mobile OS' for a long time, but the market has changed now) where every company is trying to get as large of a chunk of the pie and protect as many of their ideas as they can.

Give it a couple of years, and all of the major concept ideas will have been settled into who owns what and who pays who. Same thing as in the mid-90s.

 

[Lord Error]

It's pretty crazy that Apple are winning this now, when they couldn't win similar type of suit against Microsoft way before.

Now I have a question that I'd really like answered by some of the legal experts here:

Company I work for makes, among other things, touch screen kiosks and other such interactive things on larger screens. I've implemented the bounce back feature on scrolling lists on one of the projects I've been working on. I simply thought it was a neat thing to do. This project is using non-apple hardware and software. Should I be advising my superiors that we should change this now in the light of this ruling, and go to some other kind of end-of-list animation?

 

[RoadHazard]

Man, if this leads to pinch-to-zoom actually being banished from Android (I doubt it, though), I'll be so fucking pissed.

1. Apple didn't invent it. They just said "it's ours now!", like with so many other things.
2. It's obvious, and shouldn't be patentable beyond FRAND.
3. Apple are assholes.

 

[SRG01]

Apple has been successful due to subtle software features to their OS that make the experience signature. While trivial, that idea is an essential part of the experience.

Anyways, the big part of the lawsuit is the trade dress though. Samsung was able to be as successful they are due to copying of Apple's trade dress.

Ironically, this was the area where Samsung was somewhat successful vs Apple. Not all of Apple's points stuck.

And that, perhaps, is what bugs a lot of people. Their software patents held more water than trade dress.

 

[user_nat]

Struggling to see the impact of this result. Other than Samsung being a billion dollars poorer.

Seems that most of the issues don't apply to current Samsung devices and they'd simply have to pay Apple to use anything that is still relevant. Hardly going to be the end of times.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Actually once again, back to your history lesson, the late 80's and 90's had the largest explosion of patent infringement litigation. When all the OS' software companies were fighting for their piece of the market and ensuring their ideas were protected. IBM, SCO, HP, Microsoft, Apple, Xerox, etc.

You are seeing a similar explosion now as it's the same scenario, a new market (there has been Mobile OS' for a long time, but the market has changed now) where every company is trying to get as large of a chunk of the pie and protect as many of their ideas as they can.

Give it a couple of years, and all of the major concept ideas will have been settled into who owns what and who pays who. Same thing as in the mid-90s.

Huh?

www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/WIKIPEDI/C091229D.pdf
(sorry for the pdf, best link I could find not buried in some dude's powerpoint presentation. Also it's not litigation persay, just bulk number of patents. But given the multiple orders of magnitude increase I think it illustrates the point well enough)

I'm familiar with the unix patent warzz, but what we're seeing now is way worse than any of that.

 

[Shambles]

It's pretty crazy that Apple are winning this now, when they couldn't win similar type of suit against Microsoft way before.

Now I have a question that I'd really like answered by some of the legal experts here:

Company I work for makes, among other things, touch screen kiosks and other such interactive things on larger screens. I've implemented the bounce back feature on scrolling lists on one of the projects I've been working on. I simply thought it was a neat thing to do. Should I be advising my superiors that we should change this now in the light of this ruling, and go to some other kind of end-of-list animation?

Best to play it safe. Remove the touch screen functionality altogether. Hook it up to a Model M keyboard.