Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Aug 2012 21:15 UTC, submitted by Torbjorn Vik Lunde
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless One of the major patents being discussed in the Apple vs. Samsung cases all around the world is inertia scrolling. Apple claims to have invented it, but in fact, Sun was working on a PDA in the early '90s called the Star7, which had inertia scrolling. In a demonstration posted to YouTube, you can see this device in action, including the touch screen inertial scrolling. James Gosling (yup, that one), the narrator of the video, even mentions it specifically. This looks like a case of prior art for this patent, and serves to demonstrate that, no, despite all these grandiose claims, Apple did not invent this at all, which further illustrates the complete and utter lunacy of the patent system in the software world. The Star7's interface is reminiscent of Microsoft Bob, and makes me want to forcefully introduce my head to my recently-painted walls. Still, it's an interesting device; 1992 is when the first fully touchscreen PDA was released (the Tandy Zoomer, by what would eventually become Palm), and a year before the Newton arrived on the scene. Luckily for us, the Star7 never made it to market. That interface gives me nightmares...
Thread beginning with comment 530873
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Nelson
by red_devel on Sun 12th Aug 2012 23:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

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

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 12th Aug 2012 23:22 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by allanregistos on Mon 13th Aug 2012 02:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
allanregistos Member since:

Unfortunately, Samsung must operate and defend itself using the law, and not your subjective moral code.

So we need to fix(law).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by nej_simon on Mon 13th Aug 2012 08:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
nej_simon Member since:

Then perhaps you can enlighten us how the law works?

In particular why samsung realistically can't use this example of prior art to invalidate Apple's patent on inertial scrolling.

Reply Parent Score: 4