- Patent #7,469,381 - Claims the perceived bounce back motion of a screen when you scroll past the edge of a document/screen.
- Patent #7,844,915 - Claims single-finger scrolling and two-finger zooming.
- Patent #7,864,163 - Claims tap-to-zoom.
- Patent #D618,677 - Claims the edge-to-edge glass, speaker slot and display border design of the iPhone.
- Patent #D593,087 - Claims rounded corners and home button design.
- Patent #D604,305 - Claims the grid-style icon layout of a mobile OS.
- Patent #D504,889 - Claims the edge-to-edge glass, rounded corners, and thin bezel of the iPad.
At first glance, these patents (especially the design ones) might seem defensible. After all, all manufacturers have the right to discourage competitors from blatantly copying their designs and causing consumer confusion for financial gain. Granted, many tech companies collaborate with other firms in their field to develop joint technologies or allow very basic patents to go royalty-free for the betterment of the industry, but it is technically their right to reserve all technologies for which they have received a patent.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, many patents have been issued for technologies which are so basic that they aren't really innovations/inventions, but rather standard features of any similar product. If one company is allowed to grab up patents for every process or feature associated with a certain product (even if they weren't the actual inventor of the process/feature), it basically grants them an unfair monopoly over the product by stifling innovation and discouraging competition. After all, why would one even attempt to create a competing product if the holder of the monopoly had almost unlimited resources and had a record of being very litigious?
To try to reveal the potential impact of this ruling, I think it's worth comparing it to Apple's longstanding competition with the Microsoft Windows operating system (OS). By many accounts, Apple's suit against Samsung is simply a proxy suit against Google's Android mobile OS, so I think the comparison is appropriate. For each claim in this trial, I've tried to think of a comparable feature/design in the PC realm.
Apple claimed feature: Single-finger scrolling.
Comparable computer feature: Clicking and dragging.
Apple claimed feature: Two-finger zooming.
Comparable computer feature: Scrolling with the edge of the navigation pad on a laptop.
Apple claimed feature: Tap to zoom.
Comparable computer feature: Right-click to bring up context menu.
These comparable features are so basic to a mouse-driven interface that they defy any logical attempt to justify a patent on them. I can't find any record of any, but if they exist and the holder demanded the same limitations as Apple is requesting on such basic navigation actions as scrolling and zooming, other computer OSs basically wouldn't be able to compete.
Imagine a coder being given a laptop and being told to develop an interface without the ability to click and drag to select multiple files/folders, scroll in any way by using the navigation pad, or bring up a context menu for a right-click. Pending appeals, this is the landscape in front of other mobile OS developers right now. Apple is claiming rights to features so fundamental to modern mobile OSs that other companies who developed them before Apple didn't even think to patent them: many devices made use of single-finger scrolling before the first iPhone's release in 2007.
Apple claimed feature: Bounce back motion.
Comparable computer feature: Animation when a window is minimized to/restored from the taskbar.
Neither of these features are functional: your phone doesn't work better with the bounce back motion and your computer isn't more productive because of the minimization/restore animation. These are simply tricks to make the interface more attractive, same as a gradient in the window title or the ability to add a custom background to the desktop. Again, an inherent part of the OS which doesn't grant one developer an advantage over the other.
Apple claimed designs: Edge-to-edge glass, speaker slot and display border design of the iPhone and edge-to-edge glass, rounded corners, and thin bezel of the iPad.
Comparable designs: Basic design of laptops and other mobile devices.
Imagine if a laptop manufacturer patented the design of a bordered flat panel display being attached via hinge to a thin, portable computer with an integrated keyboard and navigation device and sued anyone who developed even a similar device. Not only would it negatively affect competition in that marketplace by forcing other manufacturers to adopt inferior designs (since anyone with sense knows the original design fit the need best), but it would also stifle innovation by fracturing the designs, leading to different manufacturers trying to solve different problems associated with their specific design as opposed to everyone working on the same problems with a like design, not to mention the confusion in the third-party accessory market.
The goal of all displays is to maximize the amount of viewable space as a ratio of the overall device; this is why the borders of TVs are now measured in millimeters instead of inches. Smartphones have been striving for this for years, with the limiting factors being battery power and space needed for internal components. As battery technology has improved and manufacturers have designed smaller components, it has been possible to get the viewable/overall ratio higher and higher. For one company to claim rights to the design of the eventual goal of edge-to-edge glass is simply overreaching. The same argument is valid for the thin design: it's been the goal of every electronics manufacturer (laptops, mobile phones, tablets, e-readers, etc.) to make their devices as thin as possible for years.
Apple claimed design: Rounded corners and home button design.
Comparable design: Computer monitors.
Part of the qualifications for a patent is that it cannot be too vague; I have no idea how this managed to get through. Depending on how one interprets it, this could be used against any square-shaped tablet with a physical button. This would be akin to a company patenting the design of a rectangular monitor with an on/off button for computers and suing anyone else who made one, no matter that any reasonable person designing a monitor would invariably come up with that design.
Apple claimed design: Grid-style icon layout of a mobile OS.
Comparable design: Windows/OSX/Ubuntu/RedHat/Suse/any other computer operating system.
This is probably the most egregious claim: it attempts to patent the design of arranging icons for apps or other resources in a grid fashion on the screen. This would be like any operating system developer claiming they own the design for putting icons on a desktop. I wish I had to expound on that, but that's just how ridiculous this claim is. They are basically trying to patent the idea of any graphics-driven mobile operating system. If you needed any final proof of Apple's hubris, here you go.
A good quote by one of the videos attempting to make sense of this mess:
"Other companies...work together. They want to move things forward. Apple is holding the industry back by arguing over rectangles with curves edges and wedge-shaped laptops. It's absolutely ridiculous. "
No comments:
Post a Comment