To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hey, Mr. Snarky, this isn't really that complicated. If a concept a) is pretty obvious to begin with and b)has already been done by others over a decade before, you shouldn't be able to patent said concept and wield it like a weapon to stifle the innovation of competitors.
At best, what you're arguing is that Apple may end up winning by the letter of the law thanks to a bunch of greedy, overpaid lawyer-types. Whoopy do. All that proves is the law is overly complicated, not caught up with the 21st century, and no longer functioning within the spirit of the patent system (which was intended to FOSTER innovation).
To any reasonable-minded person, this video, the LG Prada, and downright common sense tells you that Apple should not be able to patent inertial scrolling.
*Edit: typo
Edited 2012-08-12 23:15 UTC
When you try to use the law (which is exactly what the prior art defense is) it couldn't hurt to understand the complexities in mounting such a defense.
Too many people wildly shout prior art and obviousness without understanding that its often not that simple.
Unfortunately, Samsung must operate and defend itself using the law, and not your subjective moral code. Therefore it is more productive to spend time analyzing defenses they can realistically use.
So snarky? Sure. But it gave this article some much needed realism.





Member since:
2005-11-29
Samsung is lucky to have you on their counsel, with your expert analysis and careful presentation of case law, presenting this as prior art, and overcomeing the nuances that are involved in patent invalidation.
Slam dunk, Apple loses. Why didn't they hire you sooner?