I know the usual suspects will say this is too broad a patent, but the fact is that in terms of a fully touch and multitouch UI, the other players were completely out of the game. The rest were still using thumbpads and roller balls and physical buttons and keyboards when this was filed.
In any event, life just got much harder for the Android folks.
Unlocked Pentaband iPhone 5 (AWS), unlocked iPhone 4
Unlimited airtime, Unlimited CAN/US long distance, Unlimited SMS to CAN/US wireless numbers
2500 Call Forwarding minutes to CAN/US numbers
CiD, 6GB
Google Voice for visual voice mail with message transcription, conditional greetings, unlimited messages (vs 35 message cap), remote retrieval from any PC or phone, no auto-purge after 10 days and most importantly no $7-$8 charge.
$53
Neither of those sites understand patents at all. They look at the pictures and try to guess what is protected. People who say this is an "incredibly broad" patent have not read it.
This patent is for a vertical bar that moves when a document is scrolled and disappears when a pre-determined condition is met (i.e. stop touching the screen of the device). It's earliest date is back in 2007, so for somebody to show it to be invalid, they would need to find similar technology in 2006.
The text below is one of the claims from the patent. This is what is actually covered.
1. A method, comprising:
at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display:
displaying a portion of an electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical position in the electronic document;
displaying a vertical bar on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document, the vertical bar displayed proximate to a vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein:
the vertical bar has a vertical position on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document that corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed portion of the electronic document;
and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar;
detecting a movement of an object in a direction on the displayed portion of the electronic document;
in response to detecting the movement:
scrolling the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in the direction of movement of the object so that a new portion of the electronic document is displayed, moving the vertical bar to a new vertical position such that the new vertical position corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed new portion of the electronic document, and maintaining the vertical bar proximate to the vertical edge of the displayed portion of the electronic document; and
in response to a predetermined condition being met, ceasing to display the vertical bar while continuing to display the displayed portion of the electronic document, wherein the displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical extent that is less than a vertical extent of the electronic document.
Last edited by mandrsn1; 07-18-2012 at 04:27 PM.
Reason: added claim
Neither of those sites understand patents at all. They look at the pictures and try to guess what is protected. People who say this is an "incredibly broad" patent have not read it.
This patent is for a scrollbar that disappears when a pre-determined condition is met (i.e. stop touching the screen of the device). It's earliest date is back in 2007, so for somebody to show it to be invalid, they would need to find similar technology in 2006.
yes, you are right. I've read they were granted 25 patents today, of which this is considered one of the strongest. The abstract is pretty clear that it is their implementation of the scroll bar that is protected here.
In a computer-implemented method, a portion of an electronic document is displayed on the touch screen display. The displayed portion of the electronic document has a vertical position in the electronic document. An object is detected on or near the displayed portion of the electronic document. In response to detecting the object on or near the displayed portion of the electronic document, a vertical bar is displayed on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document. The vertical bar has a vertical position on top of the displayed portion of the electronic document that corresponds to the vertical position in the electronic document of the displayed portion of the electronic document. After a predetermined condition is met, display of the vertical bar is ceased. The vertical bar is displayed for a predetermined time period when the portion of the electronic document is initially displayed.
But I think we will still see people say it is too broad or that it is a 'knives and forks' patent in being to general or already common.
Now that I look at it, it doesn't seem at that 'mother of all' to me. I do think it will cause a headache for Android, as this implementation has become common.
The abstract is pretty clear that it is their implementation of the scroll bar that is protected here.
The abstract is virtually meaningless when interpreting the scope of a patent. In fact, the claim specifically states that "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." Thus, to infringe you would need a vertical bar that is not a scroll bar. Kind of weird. I doubt this gets litigated due to that clause.
Usually patents that are litigated (in high profile litigations) won't have similar issues like that.
The abstract is virtually meaningless when interpreting the scope of a patent. In fact, the claim specifically states that "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." Thus, to infringe you would need a vertical bar that is not a scroll bar. Kind of weird. I doubt this gets litigated due to that clause.
Usually patents that are litigated (in high profile litigations) won't have similar issues like that.
Well, it really isn't a scroll bar in that it doesn't not actually function as a 'thumbable' control. That is, with a traditional scroll bar, it's function is that moving the scroll bar moves the document display. With this patent, the bars themselves don't accept UI controls, they serve only as visual cues.
I guess what I am trying to say is that with these elements, you don't 'grab' the bars to move the display, you move the display and they show what is happening relative to the information/document available and displayed.
Well, it really isn't a scroll bar in that it doesn't not actually function as a 'thumbable' control. That is, with a traditional scroll bar, it's function is that moving the scroll bar moves the document display. With this patent, the bars themselves don't accept UI controls, they serve only as visual cues.
I guess what I am trying to say is that with these elements, you don't 'grab' the bars to move the display, you move the display and they show what is happening relative to the information/document available and displayed.
Exactly. So the importance of this patent comes down to what a "scroll bar" is. If the bar on a device is considered a scroll bar, there is no way they could infringe this patent, as the claim specifically states the bar is not a scroll bar.
The definition of these terms is why this patent will never actually be used in trial, in my opinion.
But yeah, I hate how blogs are so stupid with how they write about patents. The only read the abstract and look at figures. Those have little to nothing to do with how the patent will actually be interpreted. But that won't stop blogs from writing about how strong or weak patents are.
Exactly. So the importance of this patent comes down to what a "scroll bar" is. If the bar on a device is considered a scroll bar, there is no way they could infringe this patent, as the claim specifically states the bar is not a scroll bar.
The definition of these terms is why this patent will never actually be used in trial, in my opinion.
But yeah, I hate how blogs are so stupid with how they write about patents. The only read the abstract and look at figures. Those have little to nothing to do with how the patent will actually be interpreted. But that won't stop blogs from writing about how strong or weak patents are.
Thinking about it more, I think that they specified it was not a 'scroll bar' would actually help Apple if they did decide to litigate it. With most touch UI's today, you don't have a scroll bar that you have to select and pull to move around in a document or image or webpage. You just touch the image/document/etc and move. If at that instance you receive a visual cue in the form of a bar that informs you where you are in relation to the document/list as a whole, than that would seem to be what is covered. If instead you had to select a scroll bar to move the display, that would not be covered. But what touch UI's today use that concept?
Thinking about it more, I think that they specified it was not a 'scroll bar' would actually help Apple if they did decide to litigate it. With most touch UI's today, you don't have a scroll bar that you have to select and pull to move around in a document or image or webpage. You just touch the image/document/etc and move. If at that instance you receive a visual cue in the form of a bar that informs you where you are in relation to the document/list as a whole, than that would seem to be what is covered. If instead you had to select a scroll bar to move the display, that would not be covered. But what touch UI's today use that concept?
That is exactly how somebody in Apple's camp would interpret the patent.
Somebody on the other side would simply say, a scroll bar in the most broad sense, just indicates the position on a document. The need to select the bar (like what you suggested) is subset of types of scroll bars, so in a more broad sense anything that indicates the position would count as a scroll bar. Does that make some sense? It is going to be little nuances of how every word is defined.
It just depends on how the court ends up defining the terms before a trial. Both interpretations could be correct.
But yeah, this is hardly the "mother of all smartphone software patents." haha
i'd love to see apple actually have the cheek to use that 'patent' because we all know it would get thrown out for being a natural evolution.
given the cornered position apple is now in, they will try to use it without a doubt. good luck to them though because they'll need it. every single one of their 'patents' has been shot down so far for being prior art or invalid.
maybe in america where the patents system is completely stupid(and where i dare say a lot of judges are bought) it may work, but here in the uk where the courts have some intelligence they won't stand a chance
what if apple had a patent on a door. and that the door will have a circular object on it known as a doorknob
any other company (samsung) making a door cannot use a doorknob without apple getting a piece of the action
watch the courts strike the patent down.
Originally Posted by GeminiIII
i'd love to see apple actually have the cheek to use that 'patent' because we all know it would get thrown out for being a natural evolution.
given the cornered position apple is now in, they will try to use it without a doubt. good luck to them though because they'll need it. every single one of their 'patents' has been shot down so far for being prior art or invalid.
maybe in america where the patents system is completely stupid(and where i dare say a lot of judges are bought) it may work, but here in the uk where the courts have some intelligence they won't stand a chance
Neither of those sites understand patents at all. They look at the pictures and try to guess what is protected. People who say this is an "incredibly broad" patent have not read it.
This patent is for a vertical bar that moves when a document is scrolled and disappears when a pre-determined condition is met (i.e. stop touching the screen of the device). It's earliest date is back in 2007, so for somebody to show it to be invalid, they would need to find similar technology in 2006.
The text below is one of the claims from the patent. This is what is actually covered.
My hp pocket pc, had certain programs that did that clear back in 2005, sooooo there ya go.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using HowardForums
Speeds from my HTC SensationThe last one is Roadrunner-Way to impress, Time Warner
That is exactly how somebody in Apple's camp would interpret the patent.
Somebody on the other side would simply say, a scroll bar in the most broad sense, just indicates the position on a document. The need to select the bar (like what you suggested) is subset of types of scroll bars, so in a more broad sense anything that indicates the position would count as a scroll bar. Does that make some sense? It is going to be little nuances of how every word is defined.
It just depends on how the court ends up defining the terms before a trial. Both interpretations could be correct.
But yeah, this is hardly the "mother of all smartphone software patents." haha
I guess the counter to that would be the actual implementation. The patent is pretty clear that it is a visual cue that is invisible until the device detects certain criteria are met and then it is shown and provides feedback only, then disappears again. Scroll bars generally differ in two ways from that: a) they are usually static and remain in place and b) they are generally interactive and are controls that allow a user to perform an action by manipulating them. This patent explicitly goes away from both of those concepts. With mobile devices being throttled for real estate having the bars be static and in place reduces the amount of available space for displaying the list/document.
Those arguing it is a natural evolution would be implying that it was at least new (otherwise it wouldn't be an evolution but a copy of prior art. Can't logically be both as far as challenging it). Whether it was a natural evolution would be arguable and debatable, but if that is the argument against it, you are throwing out arguments of prior art.
i'd love to see apple actually have the cheek to use that 'patent' because we all know it would get thrown out for being a natural evolution.
given the cornered position apple is now in, they will try to use it without a doubt. good luck to them though because they'll need it. every single one of their 'patents' has been shot down so far for being prior art or invalid.
maybe in america where the patents system is completely stupid(and where i dare say a lot of judges are bought) it may work, but here in the uk where the courts have some intelligence they won't stand a chance
yes, poor, desperate Apple, backed into a corner. What shall become of them?
I don't know that 'stupid' is an argument against the patent system. Surely companies like Samsung, IBM and MS who each file many times more patents than Apple does feel it is a working system. Maybe these tech companies need to start hiring 'intelligent' people from the UK. Obviously, being the tech haven that it is, they would do well to recruit from there.
UK might have intelligent courts, but maybe they could put some effort into dentistry as well.
Those arguing it is a natural evolution would be implying that it was at least new (otherwise it wouldn't be an evolution but a copy of prior art. Can't logically be both as far as challenging it). Whether it was a natural evolution would be arguable and debatable, but if that is the argument against it, you are throwing out arguments of prior art.
"Natural Evolution" isn't a defense is patent law. Anything can be considered a natural evolution in hindsight. The standard is whether this was new and non-obvious at the time the patent was filed (here, early 2007). Apple has a patent in hand, so now it is presumed to be a new and non-obvious idea. The burden in on the other party to prove it wasn't.
Originally Posted by ceredon
Scroll bars generally differ in two ways from that: a) they are usually static and remain in place and b) they are generally interactive and are controls that allow a user to perform an action by manipulating them.
True, but would a jury agree that the current bar on an iPhone (or other phone) is not a scroll bar? If the jury considered the implementation a scroll bar, than this patent doesn't cover it. That is 100% what this case will hinge on, whatever the specific judge and jury consider a scrollbar. That is impossible to predict.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by mandrsn1
Bookmarks