Apple Patents the Page Turn

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto

So, yeah, this just happened. I just... I have no words for how absurd this is. I don't care how limited the patent is (supposedly this is a different, more limited type of patent from what you usually hear about), this shouldn't belong to apple, because there's prior art going back years. Everything from the Moon+ e-reader app to the copies of department store fliers they have on their website has done exactly what this patent describes for /years/, yet Apple now owns it? Bullshit.

For discussion: let's talk about how screwed up IP law is, and how ridiculous Apple has been with it lately.

Patent system is killing innovation. It seems that the only relevant person in the tech world that actually knows this and isn't just spouting bullshit to score points is John Carmack. If only more people were interested in technology and innovation like him and less interested in money, this world would be a better place for.

Apple argued that its patented page turn was unique in that it had a special type of animation other page-turn applications had been unable to create.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. "Been unable" would suggest they've tried, probably repeatedly, and failed. When it's so simple an animation. Ok, to be fair with Apple, I haven't actually seen anybody use that exact animation. Usually they have only the corner folded over and draggable.

And something amusing - I went to the article, and it actually links to the patents for the icon and the staircase. I clicked to see the patent for the icon, went to Images at the bottom and was greeted with a big grey box and Firefox telling me I had to install extra plugins to see the content. Curious, I clicked to see which plugin I needed - I have Flash and it's enabled (it has happened that I randomly disabled it without noticing) and I've currently only disabled Java and Silverlight. Nope, it turns out I need Apple Quicktime. Yeah, smooth move patent office. here is the patent to check yourselves.

MIT had a prototype of an electronic book with page-flipping animation and sound, back in 1978.

Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

It might, just might not be Apple hate here and instead it might be hate for the stupid, ludicrous patent wars between the tech giants that stifles innovation and creativity, of which this is patent just another part of. Just a thought.

OT: This is freaking stupid. I had thought apple's patents were insane before, but this... It just takes the freaking patent wars BS to a whole new (and even more stupid) level. What is going to happen next I wonder, Google patenting browser tabs? Ugh...

Adam Jensen:
Patent system is killing innovation. It seems that the only relevant person in the tech world that actually knows this and isn't just spouting bullshit to score points is John Carmack. If only more people were interested in technology and innovation like him and less interested in money, this world would be a better place for.

Hence why I follow the independents. They always have a way to adapt.

OT- My respect for Apple being a large successful corporation is now fading away faster than ever. And hence is the reason we shoud'n-

Right, I got ninja'd here.

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

Was there any reason to patent it? Apple exists for money. Heck, all corporations do. But their recent problems are making them pissy over things that there is no reason to be pissy over.

This just in: Apple has patented vowels! That's right, vowels. Apple spokesman Dick Ritchy said that "Our programmers had created vowels back in 2001 and we feel that other companies are taking it for granted, we aren't getting the revenue we should be from Mexico and we think it's because Samsung have stolen our vowels."

They have expressed their desire to sue Android for the use of vowels, including Y. It is also suing, Disney, Rockstar, and any company that has used a vowel in it's logo, name or products.

...

Why doesn't that seem unlikely...

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

How long before they try to use this to claim all page flipping animations are infringing on their patent?
Remember this the company that tried to make a judge believe that people couldn't see the difference between F and Ph

Fuck it, the fact that Apple can get away with this is fucking disgusting. It seems every day I hate them even more. I may have a James Holmes style breakdown if I'm ever near the Apple Campus.

Makes the patent for rounded off squares seem tame by comparison

DVS BSTrD:

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

How long before they try to use this to claim all page flipping animations are infringing on their patent?
Remember this the company that tried to make a judge believe that people couldn't see the difference between F and Ph

That is a nice strawman you have there. The judge actually agreed with Apple on the "F and Ph sound alike" part. Apple just didn't expect the judge to also agree that iFone predates them. ;)

FEichinger:
All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

Exactly: it's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped - and Apple just got a Monopoly on it.

Who the fuck cares? Everybody should care!

Specifically people who have used in the past, are currently using, or are considering to use a page turning animation in their software. You say Apple only patented "this specific animation". I don't see that. The patent application contains three images of stages of the animation and says: we patent a sequence of this. Since the images are obvious illustrative images, I don't think a jury will limit the patent to them.

I have coded a page-turning animation for a video game a couple of years ago. I don't work at the company anymore and the video game was some bargain-bin garbage, but still, if a customer would ask me to do a page-turning animation for him, I'd be worried. When Apple Legal starts coming after me, I'm screwed.

Gotta wonder how much money Apple is spending in paying people off. Seriously, this is getting really absurd. And it's not Apple - it's expected that they're that selfish and pathetic - it's that there are people out there allowing this to happen. Someone should seriously check bank accounts before Apple gets a patent on the on/off button.

FEichinger:

DVS BSTrD:

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

How long before they try to use this to claim all page flipping animations are infringing on their patent?
Remember this the company that tried to make a judge believe that people couldn't see the difference between F and Ph

That is a nice strawman you have there. The judge actually agreed with Apple on the "F and Ph sound alike" part. Apple just didn't expect the judge to also agree that iFone predates them. ;)

So if predates don't stop Apple's legal team, what makes you think having an animation that is similar to their's will?

BreakfastMan:

It might, just might not be Apple hate here and instead it might be hate for the stupid, ludicrous patent wars between the tech giants that stifles innovation and creativity, of which this is patent just another part of. Just a thought.

People are still blowing up incorrectly, though. This is specific to this one instance, not page-turning as a whole, and people bitching that this is why the patent system is broken, or how Apple is patent trolling, etc, ate just plain wrong.

And in this case, there's no need for outrage. If people want to get outraged, they should pick one of the real instances.

Remember when Apple was the bright young computer company that was going to liberate us all from the dystopian Microsoft overlords?

This just in, Apple has patented douchbaggery.

DVS BSTrD:
So if predates don't stop Apple's legal team, what makes you think having an animation that is similar to their's will?

Also to the point here, Apple's won several cases against Samsung even where the existence of prior art has overturned some of their actual approved patents. Just because they lost in Mexico in this one case doesn't mean they'll be deterred, and they're likely to still get wins in other countries. They've beat several people on rulings over iPhrases that predated Apple's use in American courts. So...not exactly thinking this is gonna stop them.

OlasDAlmighty:
Remember when Apple was the bright young computer company that was going to liberate us all from the dystopian Microsoft overlords?

This just in, Apple has patented douchbaggery.

Wonder if they've patented fascism yet.

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

No thats not all they did, if thats all they did no one would give a shit about this patent, it's their damn history of frivolous IP lawsuits that breed the hatred. You can't honestly believe Apple spent so much time and money to have their lawyers draft this patent just to do nothing with it do you?

DVS BSTrD:

FEichinger:

DVS BSTrD:
How long before they try to use this to claim all page flipping animations are infringing on their patent?
Remember this the company that tried to make a judge believe that people couldn't see the difference between F and Ph

That is a nice strawman you have there. The judge actually agreed with Apple on the "F and Ph sound alike" part. Apple just didn't expect the judge to also agree that iFone predates them. ;)

So if predates don't bother Apple's legal team, what makes you think having an animation that is only similar to their's will?

Exactly. If Apple's legal team doesn't care about a predated trademark and tries to sue anyway, why wouldn't they try to sue a company that created a page-turning animation that is just similar to theirs? They may lose, but it won't stop them from trying if they think they can bully their way through.

I'm even more worried about the "Consistent backup of electronic information" mentioned in the article. Does this mean Apple can sue any company who uses Cloud storage? Carbonite backup is essentially a consistent backup of electronic information, so they must be violating Apple's patent. Wouldn't surprise me if they tried to sue.

Zachary Amaranth:

BreakfastMan:

It might, just might not be Apple hate here and instead it might be hate for the stupid, ludicrous patent wars between the tech giants that stifles innovation and creativity, of which this is patent just another part of. Just a thought.

People are still blowing up incorrectly, though. This is specific to this one instance, not page-turning as a whole, and people bitching that this is why the patent system is broken, or how Apple is patent trolling, etc, ate just plain wrong.

And in this case, there's no need for outrage. If people want to get outraged, they should pick one of the real instances.

They are not wrong because, as stated above, Apple and others have shown a willingness to use the patents as a bludgeon against products with any similarity. Part of the problem is how the patent is set up.

The granting of the patent may be for that specific animation, but when the lawyers get ahold of it, they will use any inspecific language as a way to apply to something else. Maybe Joe e-reader comes out in a year and has a totally different animation, except, it also turns from the bottom corner. Well, Apple then tries to claim that their patent includes a bottom corner opening as part of their animation so even though the entirety isn't the same, its familiar enough to warrant an injuction and lawsuit.

I mean, do you really think they got this patent because they think they will lose sales to another reader that has a similar page turn. Of course not. They do it for 2 reasons.
1) To potentially sue their competition or prevent their sales
2) To prevent their competition from doing the above to them.

If you don't see how being able to patent an animation of a real thing that everyone does is stupid, then I think you are the one "blowing up incorrectly". There are only so many ways to visualize a page turn.

Well this sounds just a little bit absurd. Have patenting wars gotten this bad? They patented the simulation of a page being turned? Jesus, they need to relax a bit. They just won't quit until they own the world will they? Soon every company will be sued just for turning a page.

NiPah:

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

No thats not all they did, if thats all they did no one would give a shit about this patent, it's their damn history of frivolous IP lawsuits that breed the hatred. You can't honestly believe Apple spent so much time and money to have their lawyers draft this patent just to do nothing with it do you?

In this case, yes I do. It's people like you who instantly expect the devil himself, because hey, it's a patent and it's Apple, who make this matter at all. They could just as well be sitting on this patent, for no reason other than protecting their UX from copying. It's well in their right to do so. Blowing this out of proportion to "APPLE PATENTS FLIPPING PAGES!!!!! PATENT TROLLING AGAINST ALL THOSE EBOOKREADERS INBOUND IN 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... !!!!!!" is just ridiculous. Yes, they may try such shit. They have tried such shit in the past. But thinking that's all they do and every single patent of theirs is going to be used for that purpose and that purpose only is ri. di. cu. lous.

FEichinger:

NiPah:

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

No thats not all they did, if thats all they did no one would give a shit about this patent, it's their damn history of frivolous IP lawsuits that breed the hatred. You can't honestly believe Apple spent so much time and money to have their lawyers draft this patent just to do nothing with it do you?

In this case, yes I do. It's people like you who instantly expect the devil himself, because hey, it's a patent and it's Apple, who make this matter at all. They could just as well be sitting on this patent, for no reason other than protecting their UX from copying. It's well in their right to do so. Blowing this out of proportion to "APPLE PATENTS FLIPPING PAGES!!!!! PATENT TROLLING AGAINST ALL THOSE EBOOKREADERS INBOUND IN 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... !!!!!!" is just ridiculous. Yes, they may try such shit. They have tried such shit in the past. But thinking that's all they do and every single patent of theirs is going to be used for that purpose and that purpose only is ri. di. cu. lous.

Actually, what's ridiculous is your apparent inability to recognize patterns. "Oh, gee, I know apple now has the legal power to do this, and a history of doing it on a nearly daily basis, but /this/ time I /know/ they won't misuse it!" Or to put it another way:

image

Edit: Not to mention, the problem is the patent itself, not any use of it that Apple will inevitably get up to. They should not be able to hold a patent on something that is A.) so obvious, and B.) so well represented by prior art. Those are two of the things that are supposed to prevent you from getting a patent in the first place, and actually do in countries outside of the US, where corporations have turned IP law into a gigantic weapon that they use against each other and their own customers, instead of the shield against attacks it's supposed to be.

Owyn_Merrilin:

FEichinger:

NiPah:

No thats not all they did, if thats all they did no one would give a shit about this patent, it's their damn history of frivolous IP lawsuits that breed the hatred. You can't honestly believe Apple spent so much time and money to have their lawyers draft this patent just to do nothing with it do you?

In this case, yes I do. It's people like you who instantly expect the devil himself, because hey, it's a patent and it's Apple, who make this matter at all. They could just as well be sitting on this patent, for no reason other than protecting their UX from copying. It's well in their right to do so. Blowing this out of proportion to "APPLE PATENTS FLIPPING PAGES!!!!! PATENT TROLLING AGAINST ALL THOSE EBOOKREADERS INBOUND IN 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... !!!!!!" is just ridiculous. Yes, they may try such shit. They have tried such shit in the past. But thinking that's all they do and every single patent of theirs is going to be used for that purpose and that purpose only is ri. di. cu. lous.

Actually, what's ridiculous is your apparent inability to recognize patterns. "Oh, gee, I know apple now has the legal power to do this, and a history of doing it on a nearly daily basis, but /this/ time I /know/ they won't misuse it!" Or to put it another way:

image

gotta agree with this, i know jobs is dead, but sweet jesus if apple isn't trying their very best to outlive his reputation of making money, and they are doing every single douchebag thing possible to make sure this happens.

These patents are just safeguards in case they aren't making bajillions of dollars this winter, they'll sue whoever to make up the difference.

FEichinger:

NiPah:

FEichinger:
Oh, all the sweet Apple hate. So delicious.

All they did, was patent this specific animation (which, in all honesty, looks ugly as fuck). Also: In this case, who the fuck cares? It's a simulation of a sheet of paper being flipped.

No thats not all they did, if thats all they did no one would give a shit about this patent, it's their damn history of frivolous IP lawsuits that breed the hatred. You can't honestly believe Apple spent so much time and money to have their lawyers draft this patent just to do nothing with it do you?

In this case, yes I do. It's people like you who instantly expect the devil himself, because hey, it's a patent and it's Apple, who make this matter at all. They could just as well be sitting on this patent, for no reason other than protecting their UX from copying. It's well in their right to do so. Blowing this out of proportion to "APPLE PATENTS FLIPPING PAGES!!!!! PATENT TROLLING AGAINST ALL THOSE EBOOKREADERS INBOUND IN 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... !!!!!!" is just ridiculous. Yes, they may try such shit. They have tried such shit in the past. But thinking that's all they do and every single patent of theirs is going to be used for that purpose and that purpose only is ri. di. cu. lous.

Expecting history to repeat itself is ridiculous? While they might not patent troll with it, this is a patent on the most asinine thing, the animation of a page turn. Why would we expect anything besides asshattery, considering that's what we get a majority of the time from these situations anyway?

This is whats coming in the future. Behold the link to our horrific and futaristic future, future... future.......
(In Web Comic form)
http://romanticallyapocalyptic.com/58

FEichinger:
They could just as well be sitting on this patent, for no reason other than protecting their UX from copying.

And that make is better how? Wait, hold on, back up their??? I...I think I need to lie down...

Apple really is abusing patents at this point.
Really, it's gone from the point of monetary protection to elimination of competition to the blatant stifling of technological development itself...

It still amazes me how the patent system allows you to patent stuff that has been done long before you did it. I thought one of the major hurdles of filin a patent was to prove that it hadn't been done before?

shintakie10:
It still amazes me how the patent system allows you to patent stuff that has been done long before you did it. I thought one of the major hurdles of filin a patent was to prove that it hadn't been done before?

In theory, and in the civilized world. In America, the patent office no longer receives funding from the government, leaving it to survive on the proceeds from patents. It kind of turned it into a rubber stamp factory.

I won't pretend to know much of anything about patent laws or what repercussions this might have for other companies, but I must say, this seems like an incredibly petty thing to patent.

Again, I don't know much about patenting, but is patenting this specific animation justified? They're not really inventing an animation, it's just a digital representation of what mankind has been doing for long before any of these corporate executives and patent lawyers were born. If the screen erupted in a display of strobe lights, wildflowers, and flaming zombie unicorns whenever you turned a page, then yeah, I could see the justification for patenting that. It would be original enough to warrant it, at least.

Tumedus:

They are not wrong because, as stated above, Apple and others have shown a willingness to use the patents as a bludgeon against products with any similarity.

And since this isn't such an instance, they are wrong.

Part of the problem is how the patent is set up.

No, it's pretty specific and sets up limitations. Besides, "lawyers will twist it" is inane, as lawyers will twist anything, from laws to verbal agreements to Constitutional amendments.

I mean, do you really think they got this patent because they think they will lose sales to another reader that has a similar page turn. Of course not.

Indeed. Such a belief is so ridiculous your refuting it almost sounds like a strawman.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked