An important Apple patent is recognized as invalid

An important Apple patent is recognized as invalid

Over the past couple of days, just amazing news has appeared, which mean the full and unconditional victory of Samsung in a long lawsuit with Apple. The first news came from the USA. The USPTO Federal Patent Bureau recognized the Apple U patent completely invalid.S. Patent no. 7,469,381 “List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling, and Rotation On a Touch-Screen Display (lists, translating, scaling and scrolling on sensory screens)” Due to the “lack of novelty in solutions”, including paragraph 19, including paragraph 19, including paragraph 19.The name of the Rubber-Banding effect. It is in…

continuation of scrolling even beyond the boundaries of the object. For example, when scrolling a page in Safari for iOS until the end, scrolling does not stop, but continues, exposing the gray background. When the finger is released, the page returns to its place. It was this item that served as the reason for the proceedings in the California court, and then for the ban on sales Galaxy Tab. Thus, all Samsung accusations of violating this patent are automatically removed.

The second news did not come from somewhere, but from the Hague itself (the Netherlands). Back in September, the apple -fingered company filed an international court in the South Korean giant, accusing the latter of violating its patent on the fundamental function of all modern communicators – Multitouch (multitach. Today it became known that Apple lost its own lawsuit. The judges said that multi -taces are the main and wide -widespread function in smartphones and recognized Samsung innocence in violation of this patent. Representatives of the South Korean company said that they were warmly welcoming the court’s decision, and Apple, which was not surprising, refused to give any comments.

The patent system in its current form only inhibits innovation and the technical development of devices. Patents should protect developers and engineers, but should not interfere with conscientious competition and become tools for clarifying relations between large companies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *