Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Patents EU Iphone Apple

Steve Jobs Video Kills Apple Patent In Germany 100

An anonymous reader writes "Today the Federal Patent Court of Germany shot down an Apple photo gallery bounce-back patent over which Cupertino was/is suing Samsung and Motorola. A panel of five judges found the patent invalid because the relevant patent application was filed only in June 2007 but Steve Jobs already demoed the feature in January 2007 (video). While this wouldn't matter in the U.S., it's a reason for a patent to be invalidated in Europe. For different reasons someone thought the iPhone presentation was a mistake. It now turns out that when Steve Jobs said "Boy have we patented it!" his company forgot that public disclosure, even by an inventor, must not take place before a European patent application is filed. But Apple can still sue companies over the Android photo gallery: in addition to this patent it owns a utility model, a special German intellectual property right that has a shorter term (10 years) and a six-month grace period, which is just enough to make sure that history-making Steve Jobs video won't count as prior art."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Jobs Video Kills Apple Patent In Germany

Comments Filter:
  • Story title should be:

    We don't think that Apple is the most innovative innovater in the innovative history of innovating innovaters (which is in itself an innovation).

    and the summary should be:

    Boy, have we made sure to make this story fanboy/troll bait!

  • Android Gallery (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @02:30PM (#44963039) Homepage Journal

    But Apple can still sue companies over the Android photo gallery:

    Please do! Maybe then, they'll replace the aforementioned crash-and-bug-laden POS with something, I dunno, functional.

    • I had basically forgotten about the Android photo gallery. Worthless piece of garbage to the point where I don't even think about it, since I just treat the phone as if it doesn't have one. I installed a comics reader, but no general photo gallery app.

      • I just wish viewing photos with stock software on Android wasn't so goddamn limited to the GPU texture size limits on the device. My 7 year old dell PDA can view images in their full quality through creative use of screen space, instead of keeping the whole image loaded in a downsized capacity where zooming in just shows a bunch of muddled pixels stretched across the screen.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Never once had a problem. G1, G2 or Galaxy S3.

    • 1. Install ES File explorer
      2. Set default to ES Gallery
      3. Profit
  • Needs to be reversed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    public disclosure, even by an inventor, must not take place before a European patent application is filed

    This should be reversed: no patent can be granted before the inventor has demonstrated that it really works.

    • by thaylin ( 555395 )
      You dont have to demonstrate it works in public, you do it in private to the patent body.
  • Screwy rule (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )

    Not being able to tell people what you have before you tell the government? i guess that is so they can keep the creme of the crop on ideas.

    • Re:Screwy rule (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2013 @02:59PM (#44963357)

      If you want to keep it as some uber-special method that no-one else can use without paying you, that makes sense. If you go around to the world, showing a new technique, then later on say "oh yeah, remember that thing I told you about, if you use it you have to pay me" you get laughed at.

      See how that now makes sense when it's phrased properly.

      • by nurb432 ( 527695 )

        Its still you that invented it. I don't see a problem with telling people 'hey, its mine and im first'

        If you want to keep it secret you don't even apply for a patent.

        • Problem is that you can have two persons working on a same thing where one does public presentation and does not want to patent the invention. Second one can then after this fact file patent for the invention and sue the former even if the invention was actually done first by the one who didn't want to file a patent for it. For open source and open ideas it's better to have a system where inventions can be made un-patentable without expensive legal process so I prefer the European system.

    • Re:Screwy rule (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grieviant ( 1598761 ) * on Thursday September 26, 2013 @02:59PM (#44963359)
      Yea, but what's more screwy in this case is that the 'bounce back' effect was actually accepted as a valid patent. C'mon, is that what qualifies for innovation worthy of protection nowadays? What a joke.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26, 2013 @02:58PM (#44963337)

    German apples kill Steve Jobs.

    Or something like that.

  • why link to an admitted shill's website?

    • by Sique ( 173459 )
      Because also a shill can be factually correct?
      • by Xest ( 935314 )

        But probably not, and that's the problem.

        Like The Daily Mail, Florian Mueller has so little credibility at this point that it's impossible to trust anything he says with any degree of confidence.

        Much better to go elsewhere, to somewhere with a track record of genuinely being able to report factually with some consistency.

  • The "bounce" is just the natural step response of an underdamped second order system []. You cannot patent, or at least you should not be able to patent fundamental mathematical principles. The only people who think this is in any way novel or patent-worthy are those who've never taken a higher level math or physics course. But ignorance of the natural laws of math and physics is not an excuse.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CajunArson ( 465943 )

      Yeah so all icons and user displays since the dawn of computing are fundamentally underdamped second order systems and bounce has been an inherent property of all those systems... or not.

      Guess what: almost everything can be described mathematically to some degree, and, by definition, absolutely everything obeys the laws of physics. That doesn't mean that everything *is* math or *is* the laws of physics though. By your definition, the only things that should receive patents are things that can't exist... (Ye

      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @05:25PM (#44964945)
        You're missing what I'm saying. The bounce behavior is completely natural, ordinary, obvious, and should not be patentable.

        If Apple wants to patent a specific algorithm which generates a bouncing behavior, then they should be able to as long as it's a novel method and nobody's done it that way before. What they should not be able to do is get a patent which prohibits anyone else from implementing any bouncing, which is exactly what's happened. At that point, the fact that this behavior is a natural consequence of some simple mathematical laws and has been known about for centuries becomes prior art.
    • Simulating momentum has been a UI gimmick almost as long as there have been UIs. I remember when it was all the rage for ANSI viewers to do accelerated scrolling. I think some of them even bounced when you got to the top or bottom.

      But no, Apple invented everything.

  • Of course, that statement was specifically and uniquely directed at the multi-touch technology and the iphone screen, which has nothing to do with this patent issue. But meh... What would be a good headline without a bit of missinformation.

  • by John Pfeiffer ( 454131 ) on Thursday September 26, 2013 @05:13PM (#44964789) Homepage

    Even from the grave he's his own worst enemy...

  • There was far too much prior art on the concept that had already been disclosed so the patent would not have stood. I believe it isn't even valid in the US any longer.

  • This brings up a VERY interesting question. How does Peter Molyneux patent anything? He makes stuff up on the fly during the live press releases for Fable games then goes back and tells his developers to add it to the game.
  • Hola que tal, excelente nota mil respetos para Steve Jobs el siempre será el padre de la tecnología []

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.