Guys you have to differentiate a bit when it comes to implementing existing ideas, especially when refining them.
For one, as correctly stated above: Ideas are not Patents.
Secondly, we all have to consider that interaction is kind of limited. Obviously we will have similar functionality with similar behaviour or appearance. Competitors will pick that up, refine it, adjust it to their own need and style and implement it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As such, there is nothing wrong with Apple implementing a view (in this case notifications) which are triggered by a top down gesture. Implementing notifications like this was a good idea and Apple picked that one up, made it look like their own and everyone's happy.
The same is true for Google's stock Android pull down or "rubberband" effect. It takes up on Apple's idea of overextending dynamically, depending on the users touches, simulating a feeling of force, however it is styled and implemented differently. Instead of making the view bounce and extend outside the visible screen area, Google's implementation displays a highlight once the scrollable area's end is reached. This highlight grows in size and intensity as the user keeps on pulling, also suggesting a kind of force being applied to the view by the user.
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is obvious Google took this idea from Apple, however they implemented it their own way and that's fine.
Now, Samsung is obviously another case, they mostly try to steal one to one and this is what this is all about.
It is however stupid to argue that all interface elements have to be completely unique because this is simply impossible. All ideas currently in use obviously date back as far as graphical user interfaces date back. Most of what we see and use nowadays is simply a different implementation. If we were to argue like this, we could go all the way back to XEROX and essentially Apple, since they acquired that GUI and accuse everyone else of stealing buttons. We could even make this more ridiculous by accusing the whole invention of the GUI as one huge theft since text based command line interfaces have been trying to emulate things like GUIs (dialogs, buttons, progress indicators, etc) for quite a while before that.
Obviously you don't understand patents. A representation of a physical phenomena in digital form is completely different. Does real-world physics cause those effects on a screen? Wow...
I think you're missing the point. Apple software engineers made code of their own to cause the rebound effect, but the idea was not novel. The idea was something discovered hundreds of years ago. Making a virtual copy of something that is a natural phenomenon is not now and never will be novel.
Doesn't really matter since Google would be highly unlikely to initiate a lawsuit over any of them. They studiously avoid IP lawsuits, having only filed one so far in their 15 years.
Thieves, as a general rule, are not in the habit of calling the police...
Not a stretch at all. The UI is a virtual sheet inside a virtual box, reacting to a virtual wall with a virtual rebound.
You're manufacturing a "real-world" example to back up your assertion. As I mentioned in my edit to my other post, why would I be reading a letter in a box again?
Oh, I get it, because the iOS device is the "box". /s
I think you're missing the point. Apple software engineers made code of their own to cause the rebound effect, but the idea was not novel. The idea was something discovered hundreds of years ago. Making a virtual copy of something that is a natural phenomenon is not now and never will be novel.
You're still missing the point. Our ideas about the rebound effect didn't bring it into existence. The effect simply exists. Just like nothing was invented when we realized that we could describe rebound mathematically, nothing was invented when those equations were applied to software.
You're manufacturing a "real-world" example to back up your assertion. As I mentioned in my edit to my other post, why would I be reading a letter in a box again?
Oh, I get it, because the iOS device is the "box". /s
You're right that I'm using a real world example, but I'm not making it up to describe Apple's software. It's the other way around. Apple software engineers mimicked that real world phenomenon in software.
And you don't have to read a letter in a box. You brought up the letter, so I showed you when that letter would rebound in a way analogous to the software rebound.
You're right that I'm using a real world example, but I'm not making it up to describe Apple's software. It's the other way around. Apple software engineers mimicked that real world phenomenon in software.
And you don't have to read a letter in a box. You brought up the letter, so I showed you when that letter would rebound in a way analogous to the software rebound.
Ok, let's think about what rebounds with the rubber-band effect in iOS. An email message (hence why I used a letter as a real-world example), an article on a webpage (hence my newspaper example) or just a list in a menu or something. When I used to read letters from my brother when he was in the army, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reach the end. When I read the newspaper article, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reached the end. When I reach the end of the menu at the restaurant, it likewise doesn't bounce back no matter how hard I try to look for one more page hoping my favorite meal will be on it.
You "manufactured" the letter in the box (see bold section above) to fit your assertion. I was trying to use real-world examples of things we do on our iOS devices that don't rebound in the real, physical world.
The rubber-band effect in real life, in and of itself, is not novel. The way Apple's software engineers use the effect to indicate the end of a document or page, etc. is. The latest ruling by the USPTO would seem to agree.
Ok, let's think about what rebounds with the rubber-band effect in iOS. An email message (hence why I used a letter as a real-world example), an article on a webpage (hence my newspaper example) or just a list in a menu or something. When I used to read letters from my brother when he was in the army, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reach the end. When I read the newspaper article, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reached the end. When I reach the end of the menu at the restaurant, it likewise doesn't bounce back no matter how hard I try to look for one more page hoping my favorite meal will be on it.
You "manufactured" the letter in the box to fit your assertion. I was trying to use real-world examples of things we do on our iOS devices that don't rebound in the real, physical world.
The rubber-band effect in real life in and of itself is not novel, the way Apple's software engineers use the effect to indicate the end of a document or page, etc. is. The latest ruling by the USPTO would seem to agree.
I won't dispute what you're saying about reading a letter, but reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. Let's move away from the reading part since the UI wouldn't rebound when you finished reading the page unless you were flicking it. Just think of the on-screen image as an object, any object will do (including a letter!). When any object is moving and hits another object, it rebounds. Absolutely anything will rebound unless it converts all of its energy into something other than kinetic energy upon impact
The UI is a virtual object that Apple has designed to rebound off another virtual object.
I won't dispute what you're saying about reading a letter, but reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. Let's move away from the reading part to make the argument clear. Just think of the on-screen image as an object, any object will do (including a letter!). When any object is moving and hits another object, it rebounds. Absolutely anything will rebound unless it converts all of its energy into something other than kinetic energy upon impact
The UI is a virtual object that Apple has designed to rebound off another virtual object.
Hey, you just proved my point! Reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. This is exactly why the application of the rubber-band effect is novel. Generalizing it by making it into an object that rebounds off another object proves nothing and misses the point. That is not how a letter behaves when you read it.
For it to fit your original assertion that Apple engineers were just emulating the real world by using the rebound effect, the things that rebound in iOS would have to do the same in the physical world. You have yet to demonstrated this, despite your physics lesson.
Not a stretch at all. The UI is a virtual sheet inside a virtual box, reacting to a virtual wall with a virtual rebound.
Rebounding off a barrier is not the effect that is being simulated by iOS at all. The closest analogy is in the name: rubber banding.
But no real-world object works quite that way. There is no real-world object being imitated by iOS rebound. Unless the very idea of deceleration (which exists in the world in many forms) makes everything that involves deceleration unpatentable.
Furthermore, the rebound in iOS conveys useful information. That's the whole point of it, and is what makes it so ingenious. It's why other companies want to have it! (And Apple has shown willingness to license UI innovations to Android companies--they do so already.)
Hey, you just proved my point! Reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. This is exactly why the application of the rubber-band effect is novel. Generalizing it by making it into an object that rebounds off another object proves nothing and misses the point. That is not how a letter behaves when you read it.
For it to fit your original assertion that Apple engineers were just emulating the real world by using the rebound effect, the things that rebound in iOS would have to do the same in the physical world. You have yet to demonstrated this, despite your physics lesson.
You missed the part about reading your screen not causing a rebound. Try it. Read to the bottom of your screen and see if the image rebounds. Now flick the UI object and see if it rebounds.
Rebounding off a barrier is not the effect that is being simulated by iOS at all. The closest analogy is in the name: rubber banding.
But no real-world object works quite that way. There is no real-world object being imitated by iOS rebound. Unless the very idea of deceleration (which exists in the world in many forms) makes everything that involves deceleration unpatentable.
Furthermore, the rebound in iOS conveys useful information. That's the whole point of it, and is what makes it so ingenious. It's why other companies want to have it! (And Apple has shown willingness to license UI innovations to Android companies--they do so already.)
Perhaps your explanation will get through. I don't seem to be having much success.
Comments
Guys you have to differentiate a bit when it comes to implementing existing ideas, especially when refining them.
For one, as correctly stated above: Ideas are not Patents.
Secondly, we all have to consider that interaction is kind of limited. Obviously we will have similar functionality with similar behaviour or appearance. Competitors will pick that up, refine it, adjust it to their own need and style and implement it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As such, there is nothing wrong with Apple implementing a view (in this case notifications) which are triggered by a top down gesture. Implementing notifications like this was a good idea and Apple picked that one up, made it look like their own and everyone's happy.
The same is true for Google's stock Android pull down or "rubberband" effect. It takes up on Apple's idea of overextending dynamically, depending on the users touches, simulating a feeling of force, however it is styled and implemented differently. Instead of making the view bounce and extend outside the visible screen area, Google's implementation displays a highlight once the scrollable area's end is reached. This highlight grows in size and intensity as the user keeps on pulling, also suggesting a kind of force being applied to the view by the user.
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is obvious Google took this idea from Apple, however they implemented it their own way and that's fine.
Now, Samsung is obviously another case, they mostly try to steal one to one and this is what this is all about.
It is however stupid to argue that all interface elements have to be completely unique because this is simply impossible. All ideas currently in use obviously date back as far as graphical user interfaces date back. Most of what we see and use nowadays is simply a different implementation. If we were to argue like this, we could go all the way back to XEROX and essentially Apple, since they acquired that GUI and accuse everyone else of stealing buttons. We could even make this more ridiculous by accusing the whole invention of the GUI as one huge theft since text based command line interfaces have been trying to emulate things like GUIs (dialogs, buttons, progress indicators, etc) for quite a while before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Obviously you don't understand patents. A representation of a physical phenomena in digital form is completely different. Does real-world physics cause those effects on a screen? Wow...
I think you're missing the point. Apple software engineers made code of their own to cause the rebound effect, but the idea was not novel. The idea was something discovered hundreds of years ago. Making a virtual copy of something that is a natural phenomenon is not now and never will be novel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental
Exactly. Because everyone knows how much credibility the USPTO has had in recent years... /s
Have you seen the copious amounts of news about US patent reform, coming straight from the top?
By "top" I assume you mean "the president"?
Look up the definition of the word "corporatism" and you'll begin to understand who is best served by "patent reform".
Thieves, as a general rule, are not in the habit of calling the police...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Not a stretch at all. The UI is a virtual sheet inside a virtual box, reacting to a virtual wall with a virtual rebound.
You're manufacturing a "real-world" example to back up your assertion. As I mentioned in my edit to my other post, why would I be reading a letter in a box again?
Oh, I get it, because the iOS device is the "box". /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I think you're missing the point. Apple software engineers made code of their own to cause the rebound effect, but the idea was not novel. The idea was something discovered hundreds of years ago. Making a virtual copy of something that is a natural phenomenon is not now and never will be novel.
IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.
IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.
IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.
IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.
IDEAS ARE NOT PATENTS.
You're still missing the point. Our ideas about the rebound effect didn't bring it into existence. The effect simply exists. Just like nothing was invented when we realized that we could describe rebound mathematically, nothing was invented when those equations were applied to software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
You're manufacturing a "real-world" example to back up your assertion. As I mentioned in my edit to my other post, why would I be reading a letter in a box again?
Oh, I get it, because the iOS device is the "box". /s
You're right that I'm using a real world example, but I'm not making it up to describe Apple's software. It's the other way around. Apple software engineers mimicked that real world phenomenon in software.
And you don't have to read a letter in a box. You brought up the letter, so I showed you when that letter would rebound in a way analogous to the software rebound.
Teleportation's not going to impress you too much when it happens after watching Star Trek, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Teleportation's not going to impress you too much when it happens after watching Star Trek, eh?
Star Trek didn't discover the math behind it, so yes I'll be impressed.
Still waiting on you to explain why this should be patentable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
You're right that I'm using a real world example, but I'm not making it up to describe Apple's software. It's the other way around. Apple software engineers mimicked that real world phenomenon in software.
And you don't have to read a letter in a box. You brought up the letter, so I showed you when that letter would rebound in a way analogous to the software rebound.
Ok, let's think about what rebounds with the rubber-band effect in iOS. An email message (hence why I used a letter as a real-world example), an article on a webpage (hence my newspaper example) or just a list in a menu or something. When I used to read letters from my brother when he was in the army, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reach the end. When I read the newspaper article, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reached the end. When I reach the end of the menu at the restaurant, it likewise doesn't bounce back no matter how hard I try to look for one more page hoping my favorite meal will be on it.
You "manufactured" the letter in the box (see bold section above) to fit your assertion. I was trying to use real-world examples of things we do on our iOS devices that don't rebound in the real, physical world.
The rubber-band effect in real life, in and of itself, is not novel. The way Apple's software engineers use the effect to indicate the end of a document or page, etc. is. The latest ruling by the USPTO would seem to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
Ok, let's think about what rebounds with the rubber-band effect in iOS. An email message (hence why I used a letter as a real-world example), an article on a webpage (hence my newspaper example) or just a list in a menu or something. When I used to read letters from my brother when he was in the army, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reach the end. When I read the newspaper article, it didn't "rubber-band" when I reached the end. When I reach the end of the menu at the restaurant, it likewise doesn't bounce back no matter how hard I try to look for one more page hoping my favorite meal will be on it.
You "manufactured" the letter in the box to fit your assertion. I was trying to use real-world examples of things we do on our iOS devices that don't rebound in the real, physical world.
The rubber-band effect in real life in and of itself is not novel, the way Apple's software engineers use the effect to indicate the end of a document or page, etc. is. The latest ruling by the USPTO would seem to agree.
I won't dispute what you're saying about reading a letter, but reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. Let's move away from the reading part since the UI wouldn't rebound when you finished reading the page unless you were flicking it. Just think of the on-screen image as an object, any object will do (including a letter!). When any object is moving and hits another object, it rebounds. Absolutely anything will rebound unless it converts all of its energy into something other than kinetic energy upon impact
The UI is a virtual object that Apple has designed to rebound off another virtual object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
They're not going to answer my question.
Then you kinda have to stew in your own juice, don'tcha...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Then you kinda have to stew in your own juice, don'tcha...
Looks like it since you can't seem to explain it to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
The effect simply exists.
Yep. Let's not patent 'touch' on a glass screen, since it's nothing more than what our fingers do anyway....
/s (just in case you missed it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Yep. Let's not patent 'touch' on a glass screen, since it's nothing more than what our fingers do anyway....
/s (just in case you missed it).
Nobody patented touching a screen. A screen with a touch-sensitive layer was something novel and patentable, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I won't dispute what you're saying about reading a letter, but reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. Let's move away from the reading part to make the argument clear. Just think of the on-screen image as an object, any object will do (including a letter!). When any object is moving and hits another object, it rebounds. Absolutely anything will rebound unless it converts all of its energy into something other than kinetic energy upon impact
The UI is a virtual object that Apple has designed to rebound off another virtual object.
Hey, you just proved my point! Reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. This is exactly why the application of the rubber-band effect is novel. Generalizing it by making it into an object that rebounds off another object proves nothing and misses the point. That is not how a letter behaves when you read it.
For it to fit your original assertion that Apple engineers were just emulating the real world by using the rebound effect, the things that rebound in iOS would have to do the same in the physical world. You have yet to demonstrated this, despite your physics lesson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Not a stretch at all. The UI is a virtual sheet inside a virtual box, reacting to a virtual wall with a virtual rebound.
Rebounding off a barrier is not the effect that is being simulated by iOS at all. The closest analogy is in the name: rubber banding.
But no real-world object works quite that way. There is no real-world object being imitated by iOS rebound. Unless the very idea of deceleration (which exists in the world in many forms) makes everything that involves deceleration unpatentable.
Furthermore, the rebound in iOS conveys useful information. That's the whole point of it, and is what makes it so ingenious. It's why other companies want to have it! (And Apple has shown willingness to license UI innovations to Android companies--they do so already.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
Hey, you just proved my point! Reading a letter has nothing to do with rebound. This is exactly why the application of the rubber-band effect is novel. Generalizing it by making it into an object that rebounds off another object proves nothing and misses the point. That is not how a letter behaves when you read it.
For it to fit your original assertion that Apple engineers were just emulating the real world by using the rebound effect, the things that rebound in iOS would have to do the same in the physical world. You have yet to demonstrated this, despite your physics lesson.
You missed the part about reading your screen not causing a rebound. Try it. Read to the bottom of your screen and see if the image rebounds. Now flick the UI object and see if it rebounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Rebounding off a barrier is not the effect that is being simulated by iOS at all. The closest analogy is in the name: rubber banding.
But no real-world object works quite that way. There is no real-world object being imitated by iOS rebound. Unless the very idea of deceleration (which exists in the world in many forms) makes everything that involves deceleration unpatentable.
Furthermore, the rebound in iOS conveys useful information. That's the whole point of it, and is what makes it so ingenious. It's why other companies want to have it! (And Apple has shown willingness to license UI innovations to Android companies--they do so already.)
Perhaps your explanation will get through. I don't seem to be having much success.