MacNN Forums (
-   Mac News (
-   -   Apple keynote video used to invalidate 'bounce' patent in Germany (

NewsPoster Sep 27, 2013 02:45 AM
Apple keynote video used to invalidate 'bounce' patent in Germany
In a nearly-perfect example of how strange and convoluted patent law can become, an Apple patent on the "bounceback" effect when scrolling -- part of the family of patents known as "rubber-banding" technologies -- has been <a href=" &utm_campaign=Feed:+fosspatents/zboT+(FOSS+Patents)" rel='nofollow'>ruled invalid</a> in Germany because Jobs demonstrated the effect during the iPhone announcement from January 2007, five months before the company applied for the patent. The law in Europe classifies this as "prior art" even though it is from the same company.<br />
<br />
Patent laws in the United States say that an inventor has a 12-month "grace period" to file a patent document after coming up with the idea. European law doesn't have this provision, reports <em>AppleInsider</em>, meaning that the video -- presented by counsel for Google in a patent dispute case against Samsung -- is legally considered "a pre-filing disclosure" and thus "prior art" that weighs against Apple's own claims of the validity of the patent. Apple's lawyers were nonetheless able to get the same judge to rule that the technique was novel compared to prior art from other companies, including AOL and Microsoft.<br />
<br />
The absurdity of a company undermining its own patent by showing it publicly before filing for a patent has cost Apple some of its ammunition against rivals, at least in Germany. The court invalidated the patent for a "portable electronic device for photo management" (EP2059868) that uses the bounce-back implementation -- rejecting arguments from Apple attorneys that the European patent was "colorably different" from the technology shown on stage.<br />
<br />
The ruling is not a total loss for Apple, but a serious setback. Luckily the company also has a German "utility patent" of more limited life that covers the same bounce-back effect. For those patents, there is a grace period of six months -- meaning the Jobs video can't be used to invalidate it. However, utility patents are "second-class" in nature compared to full patents, and also expire after 10 years. The fact that the judge ruled that the AOL and MS prior art didn't invalidate the European bounce-back patent may even work out to Apple's advantage in some scenarios -- for example, restarting a claim against Samsung for infringement, and possibly suing other infringing companies until the utility patent expires in 2017.<br />
<br />
The fact that the only German-ruled "valid" prior art nullifying the European patent is a video from the same company that invented and patented the technology is also not likely to hold much sway in non-European courts, and may eventually be overturned in a different EU court if rival companies attempt to challenge Apple's patent. Samsung has asked the German Patent Office to invalidate the patent outright, but the GPO hasn't yet responded. The ruling from the German court was the basis of a stay in the case of Apple's claims of infringement of that particular patent against Samsung and Google's Motorola Mobility.<br />
<br />
A YouTube video (seen below) shows Jobs demonstrating the effect as part of the photo-gallery feature of the original iPhone (first seen at about the 33:40 mark). Apple has used this specific bounce-back patent in successful actions against Samsung in the Netherlands, and against Motorola Mobility in Germany, both in 2012. Both companies have attempted other avenues to get the patent invalided -- in effect admitting that they were infringing it -- and the first Samsung ruling was stayed while the nullity hearing took place.<br />
<br />
Apple will almost certainly appeal the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court) ruling on the photo-gallery patent, reports patent analyst Florian Mueller, but in the meantime may use its partial victory -- the exoneration of the AOL and MS prior art as not invalidating the patent, and the ruling that the photo-gallery patent overall represented a novel invention -- to bolster its current cases against Samsung and Google in European courts for the next few years. If Apple can win on appeal or at least save the bounce-back portion of the photo-gallery patent, it can ask to have the stayed Samsung lawsuit reinstated.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe width="500" height="281" src="//" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
Spheric Harlot Sep 27, 2013 02:48 AM
Wow, that's bizarre.
smacker Sep 27, 2013 03:12 AM
Yeah, stupid.
msuper69 Sep 27, 2013 08:18 AM
IIRC, if you are in an auto accident in the EU, both drivers involved are guilty because the accident wouldn't have happened if either had not been there. Now that is bizarre!
Spheric Harlot Sep 27, 2013 09:17 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by msuper69 (Post 4250034)
IIRC, if you are in an auto accident in the EU, both drivers involved are guilty because the accident wouldn't have happened if either had not been there. Now that is bizarre!
No. That only happens if the fault for the accident cannot be blamed entirely on one party - same as in the US. I know this for a fact because I've been in an accident, where the other party violated my right of way, and had to pay all damage no proceedings, while I had no cost whatsoever.

You ARE automatically at (at least partial) fault as a driver if you hit a pedestrian, since it is your responsibility to look out for weaker members of traffic.

I am not entirely sure whether this is governed by EU laws, though, or whether it's Germany. We are, however, in the EU.

You may be thinking of Japan. Which is not in the EU.
Flying Meat Sep 27, 2013 01:16 PM
By that dumb as dirt perspective, then all descriptions, prototypes, communications, and even the patent application itself could be used as evidence of prior art. It's plainly ridiculous.
Spheric Harlot Sep 27, 2013 02:18 PM
These laws don't get conjured up at random. While the way this case is playing out is obviously ridiculous, I'm curious as to how this law was written in the first place, and why this particular distinction between proper patent and utility patent was originally calle for.
Zanziboy Sep 27, 2013 08:05 PM
Wow! Maybe all patents should be invalid in the EU. To complete the forms, you need to have implemented an idea. Since the idea existed before you completed the forms, it's invalid due to prior art.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2