The pull-to-refresh patent(dcurt.is)
dcurt.is
The pull-to-refresh patent
http://dcurt.is/pull-to-refresh
24 comments
The idea of "intellectual property" has been so ingrained in many people that they simply cannot or will not recognize any difference between copying/distributing an idea (or a digital work) and stealing physical property. Generally, their (faulty) logic is that putting time and effort into creating something necessarily gives you absolute ownership of that thing, even if it's just an idea or a string of bytes.
I don't think you're giving the modern population enough credit. I'd argue that most people understand that there are cases where you can take something, and the original owner still has it. What's ingrained, rather, is a respect for the inventors, creators, originators of the world. We look to them with awe and, rightly or not, feel some low-level need to recognize and uphold that they came first with their creation.
As someone who has tried to argue against the idea of "intellectual property", this is the response I usually receive. Unfortunately, creating something and enforcing property rights on the ideas to "reward" the author doesn't make the system any better.
There's that idea in software development that it doesn't matter who came up with the idea first, but who executed it better. I actually think this is how the world should work. Who cares if you came up with an idea if you never acted on it? Why should you have the right to hold up innovation in that field?
Just get rid of "intellectual property" (at least patents) and let the people decide with their wallets.
There's that idea in software development that it doesn't matter who came up with the idea first, but who executed it better. I actually think this is how the world should work. Who cares if you came up with an idea if you never acted on it? Why should you have the right to hold up innovation in that field?
Just get rid of "intellectual property" (at least patents) and let the people decide with their wallets.
> "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron.
Do you also disagree with the other types of intellectual property rights such as trademarks & copyrights, or are you just talking in the context of patents?
Do you also disagree with the other types of intellectual property rights such as trademarks & copyrights, or are you just talking in the context of patents?
Trademarks are fairly clear cut. A trademark needs to be registered and it generally takes the form of something that isn't an existing word or phrase. It's easy to find out if someone has registered a particular trademark and not generally a big deal if they have (typically this is just a branding issue).
There is legal recourse if the trademark enters the common lexicon (as happened to aspirin [1]).
Basically I have no problem with trademarks except when people decide to trademark what is the generally accepted phrase, as happened with the ugg boot [2], which has long since been a generic term in Australia.
Copyright is a little greyer but basically OK. It just needs to be protected from copyright trolls like Righthaven [3]. The danger here is that lots of low-quality or automatically generated text will be used as the basis of copyright violation lawsuits. Generally speaking, it's extremely difficult to independently come up with the same exact text as someone else for anything nontrivial in length.
The problem with patents is that two people can (and do) come up with the same idea completely independently and that many of those ideas are completely obvious (eg I remember seeing an early GPU trademark that related to applying 2 or more textures to a pixel in a cycle instead of 1).
I can write a computer program and it will quite possibly violate any number of patents. I can write a book and it almost certainly won't (randonmly) violate anyone else's copyright. If I want to trademark something it's easy enough to find out if it's already been trademarked and to trademark it myself.
Software patents are beyond moronic.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Trademark
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots#Trademark_disputes
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven
There is legal recourse if the trademark enters the common lexicon (as happened to aspirin [1]).
Basically I have no problem with trademarks except when people decide to trademark what is the generally accepted phrase, as happened with the ugg boot [2], which has long since been a generic term in Australia.
Copyright is a little greyer but basically OK. It just needs to be protected from copyright trolls like Righthaven [3]. The danger here is that lots of low-quality or automatically generated text will be used as the basis of copyright violation lawsuits. Generally speaking, it's extremely difficult to independently come up with the same exact text as someone else for anything nontrivial in length.
The problem with patents is that two people can (and do) come up with the same idea completely independently and that many of those ideas are completely obvious (eg I remember seeing an early GPU trademark that related to applying 2 or more textures to a pixel in a cycle instead of 1).
I can write a computer program and it will quite possibly violate any number of patents. I can write a book and it almost certainly won't (randonmly) violate anyone else's copyright. If I want to trademark something it's easy enough to find out if it's already been trademarked and to trademark it myself.
Software patents are beyond moronic.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Trademark
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots#Trademark_disputes
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven
Although you are correct that trademarks and copyright are a different story, the state of events in those is still not satisfying.
A couple of examples:
1. Trademarks - Facebook recently insisted on owning trademark of word "book". Although not 100% successfully, but some companies settled. What next - trademark "luck", "suck" and "fuck"?
2. If I recall correctly copyright is 75 years + life of descendants. So if I (and say 1000 more people) would like to buy/read a book, that was published 15 years ago and was since abandoned by the author, there is no practical way to do so even if people would be eager to pay royalty. The path/copyright ownership for hits is clear, but what about long tail?
A couple of examples:
1. Trademarks - Facebook recently insisted on owning trademark of word "book". Although not 100% successfully, but some companies settled. What next - trademark "luck", "suck" and "fuck"?
2. If I recall correctly copyright is 75 years + life of descendants. So if I (and say 1000 more people) would like to buy/read a book, that was published 15 years ago and was since abandoned by the author, there is no practical way to do so even if people would be eager to pay royalty. The path/copyright ownership for hits is clear, but what about long tail?
It's not that government-enforced monopolies on copying or using certain pieces of information are never justified, just that they aren't property.
Your right to drive as indicated by a driving licence is not 'property', your planning permission for a building is not 'property', your FCC permission to use a particular part of the EM spectrum is not 'property'. And your right to make copies of a particular piece of information isn't 'property' either. These are all abstract legal rights/privileges.
If you drive without a licence, broadcast in a band reserved for someone else, or copy a copyrighted work, then you are 'driving without a licence', 'breaking FCC regulations', and 'infringing copyright', respectively. Calling any of those things stealing is inaccurate, which is the kind of mistake you end up making if you think of them as property.
Your right to drive as indicated by a driving licence is not 'property', your planning permission for a building is not 'property', your FCC permission to use a particular part of the EM spectrum is not 'property'. And your right to make copies of a particular piece of information isn't 'property' either. These are all abstract legal rights/privileges.
If you drive without a licence, broadcast in a band reserved for someone else, or copy a copyrighted work, then you are 'driving without a licence', 'breaking FCC regulations', and 'infringing copyright', respectively. Calling any of those things stealing is inaccurate, which is the kind of mistake you end up making if you think of them as property.
It strikes me that Loren's "pull to refresh" really was an invention of a new UI concept. Do we see no place for patents in true UI innovation?
On a side-note, is it ironic that this post is from a guy who was recently upset when someone else appropriated his own innovative UI?
On a side-note, is it ironic that this post is from a guy who was recently upset when someone else appropriated his own innovative UI?
One of the main purposes of patents is (ostensibly) to allow innovators a temporary monopoly to recoup their R&D investment. From that perspective, a UI patent that isn't specific to applications in your niche seems like a bad idea. If I'm not competing directly with Tweetie, how are they harmed by my use of their UI technology? If they're not harmed by my use, why are they being protected?
Because their UI being innovative and one of a kind might well be a corner stone of their product marketing plan. You and I copy it, and they can't market, sell and recoup the expenses as planned. Though in this case I suspect this is one of a "valuation booster / acquisition facilitator" patents rather than anything else.
Would you then own all future interface interactions?
It combined a known, existing event (scrolling), with a known, existing action (refreshing). It would be akin to be patenting the ability to right click, hold that right click, and then have a different menu appear.
So, what you do is take all know actions, and all known events, and put them on a big table so you can cross reference them. See which ones you like, and there you go!
In fact, that's so ingenious, (a mechanism to develop knew UI concepts), I could probably patent it under our own system!
So, what you do is take all know actions, and all known events, and put them on a big table so you can cross reference them. See which ones you like, and there you go!
In fact, that's so ingenious, (a mechanism to develop knew UI concepts), I could probably patent it under our own system!
Have you read Charles Stross' Accelerando? The main character holds the patent for "using genetic algorithms to patent everything they can permutate from an initial description of a problem domain". I really, really hope it counts as Clarkeian prior art.
The book is here: www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html
The book is here: www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html
Please do this.
Patents are also supposed to be non-trivial. Something that someone else of "ordinary" skill level wouldn't have come up with by himself.
Which brings us to argue subjectivity. Is this example trivial or not? There's no scientific way to point that, each one of us will have different opinion. I personally think this patent is ridiculously trivial, but a judge might disagree, and it's their argument from authority that matters.
The best argument against software patents, imho, is that it's too impractical to clearly define what is and isn't trivial in software without causing more harm than good.
Which brings us to argue subjectivity. Is this example trivial or not? There's no scientific way to point that, each one of us will have different opinion. I personally think this patent is ridiculously trivial, but a judge might disagree, and it's their argument from authority that matters.
The best argument against software patents, imho, is that it's too impractical to clearly define what is and isn't trivial in software without causing more harm than good.
For me, this fails the non-obvious criterion. Even a tiny bit of user testing would show people trying to scroll past the current limit to see if there's anything new. That behavior is so common that the Unix pager less has had the equivalent feature for years and years.
We have had infinite scrolling - webpages refreshing in the opposite direction (google reader is the first example I saw) for a long time.
Pull to refresh is exactly the same thing.
Pull to refresh is exactly the same thing.
(It's obviously not ironic if he doesn’t call for or wants to use legal protections. Being outraged about something doesn't mean you want to make it illegal. That’s an important difference and I'm not sure why so many people are ignorant of that difference.)
It is worth noting that he repeatedly used words like "stealing" and "theft" while outraged and those words have strong legal connotations. That at least suggests (but, to be clear, does not prove) that he thinks there should be some sort of relevant legal protection.
Stealing and theft is often used to refer to things that are not stealing or theft in the legal sense. This is especially prevalent when talking about ideas and designs. The speakers usually do not want laws to change, they don't want to sue.
You cannot take the use of such words alone as an indication. That just makes no sense. Stealing and theft aren’t legal terms, not first and foremost. They only happen to also refer to legal concepts.
No irony nowhere.
You cannot take the use of such words alone as an indication. That just makes no sense. Stealing and theft aren’t legal terms, not first and foremost. They only happen to also refer to legal concepts.
No irony nowhere.
Patents don't exist to protect people's work, per se, they exist to "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Protecting people's work is a means to that end.
In this case it seems obvious, to me, that this is not promoting innovation at all. Would this technique never have been developed were it not for the fact that it could be patented? Would other people copying the technique in any way dilute its benefit to Twitter?
In this case it seems obvious, to me, that this is not promoting innovation at all. Would this technique never have been developed were it not for the fact that it could be patented? Would other people copying the technique in any way dilute its benefit to Twitter?
The UI is the language with which people communicate with the computer. UI patents makes as much sense as a patent on "WTF". Having such a patent is the same antisocial behavior as trying to own the "ceiling cat" meme.
Maybe it is a new UI concept, but should we deny Loren the use of drop-down menus, scroll bars, split-buttons, sliders and all the other UI elements in use today? Patenting this is a morally bankrupt move.
> Do we see no place for patents in true UI innovation?
I don't know. Do you? I personally don't. If your software's differentiating factors are your UI innovations you might feel differently.
If it was appropriated into a competitive application I can understand being upset, but as long as the app the UI innovation is used in isn't competing with your app, who cares? You came up with a good paradigm and people liked it and used it elsewhere. Isn't that enough?
I don't know. Do you? I personally don't. If your software's differentiating factors are your UI innovations you might feel differently.
If it was appropriated into a competitive application I can understand being upset, but as long as the app the UI innovation is used in isn't competing with your app, who cares? You came up with a good paradigm and people liked it and used it elsewhere. Isn't that enough?
Perhaps the real question is does allowing the patenting of UI innovation encourage greater innovation, or stifle it?
Can an architect patent design features when building a house?
Great question!
Apparently, yes. http://www.archdaily.com/197061/architectural-patents-on-wha...
Apparently, yes. http://www.archdaily.com/197061/architectural-patents-on-wha...
I'm all for patents (bye karma. but keep reading). that's what allow us humans to invent new things and improve our way of life.
now... about patent enforcement today that's another issue.
Main goal of patents WAS to promote innovation. it started in a time when everyone had trade secrets. So if you wanted to fix your fridge yourself, thought luck. it's a trade secret. you could even go to jail if you are found with schematics to fix it.
instead, patents. you publish your trade secret, everyone can read and learn from it. Then if someone want to use it for making money, they pay you a fee to cover your research and move on to invent new things
what happen today? patents crush hobbyists. everyone spend 10x R&D to invent the same thing in a way not covered by some patent. companies avoid useful stuff because they are afraid of being hostage of the patent holder (as is the case here, apple could pay a license fee to twitter, it's not the royalties that are game here).
Today you release something open source that is covered in a patent you never saw (hey, it's so obvious monkeys could came up with the same solution) you go to jail, just the sort of thing patents were supposed to PREVENT!
anyway, patents good. way it's enforced bad.
now... about patent enforcement today that's another issue.
Main goal of patents WAS to promote innovation. it started in a time when everyone had trade secrets. So if you wanted to fix your fridge yourself, thought luck. it's a trade secret. you could even go to jail if you are found with schematics to fix it.
instead, patents. you publish your trade secret, everyone can read and learn from it. Then if someone want to use it for making money, they pay you a fee to cover your research and move on to invent new things
what happen today? patents crush hobbyists. everyone spend 10x R&D to invent the same thing in a way not covered by some patent. companies avoid useful stuff because they are afraid of being hostage of the patent holder (as is the case here, apple could pay a license fee to twitter, it's not the royalties that are game here).
Today you release something open source that is covered in a patent you never saw (hey, it's so obvious monkeys could came up with the same solution) you go to jail, just the sort of thing patents were supposed to PREVENT!
anyway, patents good. way it's enforced bad.
> I'm all for patents (bye karma. but keep reading). that's what allow us humans to invent new things and improve our way of life.
Yeah. So the guy who implemented the "pull to refresh" totally did it because he wanted a goddamn patent.
On a side note, I pity the non-innovative free loaders who roamed this planet before patents. It's not like they invented or innovated. How could they, we didn't have patents.
Yeah. So the guy who implemented the "pull to refresh" totally did it because he wanted a goddamn patent.
On a side note, I pity the non-innovative free loaders who roamed this planet before patents. It's not like they invented or innovated. How could they, we didn't have patents.
"that's what allow us humans to invent new things and improve our way of life."
I don't think this can be stated as fact.
I don't think this can be stated as fact.
Do you really think humans invent different things because they are afraid of infringing someone else's patent?
I don't believe you can find a way to enforce patents such that our current system isn't the result, but I'm open to being educated. How would you enforce them to keep this from happening?
I agree. It's kind of like saying "I agree with keeping drugs illegal, I just think enforcing the laws has been done in a bad way, and that's why the war on drugs failed".
Maybe it's time to take a step back and realize that the decades or centuries of patent legislation can be proof enough that they are not necessary to promote innovation, and in fact it has stifled it. In any market where patents have been disregarded, and heavy copying was done, innovation has increased (by wanting to stay a step ahead of competition), prices have dropped, and the quality of the products have increased.
The bigger the patent enforcement, and copying restrictions, the bigger the monopolies, higher prices, less quality products. And what is "competition" anyway? When you say a competing product or service for X, aren't you really thinking about a similar product or service; a product that copies a good portion of what X has? Or are you thinking about something that is completely unique and has no relation to X? At that point it's already in an entirely different product category.
Maybe it's time to take a step back and realize that the decades or centuries of patent legislation can be proof enough that they are not necessary to promote innovation, and in fact it has stifled it. In any market where patents have been disregarded, and heavy copying was done, innovation has increased (by wanting to stay a step ahead of competition), prices have dropped, and the quality of the products have increased.
The bigger the patent enforcement, and copying restrictions, the bigger the monopolies, higher prices, less quality products. And what is "competition" anyway? When you say a competing product or service for X, aren't you really thinking about a similar product or service; a product that copies a good portion of what X has? Or are you thinking about something that is completely unique and has no relation to X? At that point it's already in an entirely different product category.
not allowing uneducated patents like this one
The value of a UX convention is mostly destroyed if it doesn't become an accepted convention.
Consider this. Company X develops an interaction. They use it in all their software which commands 30% of the market and they prevent others using using the threat of patent litigation.
The rest of the industry settles on an alternative which is patent-free.
Which is the better interaction? You can argue that it's the second one simply by virtue of being used in 70% of cases. Even if it is initially less familiar or in general less efficient - it's eventual familiarity outweighs both concerns.
Consider this. Company X develops an interaction. They use it in all their software which commands 30% of the market and they prevent others using using the threat of patent litigation.
The rest of the industry settles on an alternative which is patent-free.
Which is the better interaction? You can argue that it's the second one simply by virtue of being used in 70% of cases. Even if it is initially less familiar or in general less efficient - it's eventual familiarity outweighs both concerns.
Looking at the prosecution history on the USPTO's PAIR, the patent was granted on the first try -- the Examiner didn't cite any reference against it and granted it right away. That's pretty rare (and weighs toward there being novelty here). Also, note this is a utility patent, not a design patent -- so 20 years of a right-to-exclude from the filing date.
The filing date (and priority date in this case) is April 8, 2010. i.e. that's the date someone would need to find prior art that reads on the claims of the patent. (Unless Twitter can establish an earlier invention date -- which would likely occur in the course of an actual lawsuit about the patent; e.g. a Git checkin of the first implementation, or a drawing in a notebook with a date on it).
As for the claims, the two independent claims are:
A method claim: 1. A method, comprising: displaying a content area; receiving input associated with a first command, the first command including a request to scroll the content area; and based on the first command, performing a second command, the second command being independent of the first command.
And a device claim: 20. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method, comprising: displaying a scrollable list of content items, the scrollable list of content items including a plurality of discrete content items arranged chronologically; receiving input associated with a scroll command, the input representing touch-based user input; based on the scroll command, displaying a scrollable refresh trigger configured to scroll with the scrollable list of content items; in response to determining that the scrollable refresh trigger is fully displayed, providing an instruction associated with activating the scrollable refresh trigger; in response to determining that the scroll command was completed while the scrollable refresh trigger was fully displayed, refreshing the scrollable list of content items; and in response to determining that the scrollable list of content items has been refreshed, automatically scrolling the scrollable list of content items such that the scrollable refresh trigger is not displayed.
The filing date (and priority date in this case) is April 8, 2010. i.e. that's the date someone would need to find prior art that reads on the claims of the patent. (Unless Twitter can establish an earlier invention date -- which would likely occur in the course of an actual lawsuit about the patent; e.g. a Git checkin of the first implementation, or a drawing in a notebook with a date on it).
As for the claims, the two independent claims are:
A method claim: 1. A method, comprising: displaying a content area; receiving input associated with a first command, the first command including a request to scroll the content area; and based on the first command, performing a second command, the second command being independent of the first command.
And a device claim: 20. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method, comprising: displaying a scrollable list of content items, the scrollable list of content items including a plurality of discrete content items arranged chronologically; receiving input associated with a scroll command, the input representing touch-based user input; based on the scroll command, displaying a scrollable refresh trigger configured to scroll with the scrollable list of content items; in response to determining that the scrollable refresh trigger is fully displayed, providing an instruction associated with activating the scrollable refresh trigger; in response to determining that the scroll command was completed while the scrollable refresh trigger was fully displayed, refreshing the scrollable list of content items; and in response to determining that the scrollable list of content items has been refreshed, automatically scrolling the scrollable list of content items such that the scrollable refresh trigger is not displayed.
>Looking at the prosecution history on the USPTO's PAIR, the patent was granted on the first try
Are you looking at the proper case number, because this application (20100199180 or 12/756,574) says it has not even been looked at yet: "Status: Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination"
Are you looking at the proper case number, because this application (20100199180 or 12/756,574) says it has not even been looked at yet: "Status: Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination"
You're absolutely correct. It hasn't been examined yet, though the application has been published.
Correction:
This is a patent APPLICATION. It is not a patent. It hasn't been granted (let alone on the first try).
The Examiner hasn't even looked at the application yet.
The Examiner hasn't even looked at the application yet.
prior art should be too hard to find, the whole concept of scrolling up to refresh is exactly the same concept as infinite-scrolling. if you scroll below the bottom of a list, it finds the next n older items. if you scroll above the top of a list, it finds the next n newer items. what's the difference?
There are several differences. Firstly it's only triggered when you pull past a certain threshold, and secondly it refreshes all new items - not just the ones that cover the uncovered scroll region. It's also cancellable before you reach a certain threshold, and clear feedback is given about this.
Regardless of where you stand on patents, this is certainly not the same as infinite scrolling.
Regardless of where you stand on patents, this is certainly not the same as infinite scrolling.
There's a distinct tactile feel to the pull to refresh that is distinct from infinite-scrolling. I remember the first time I saw it, I was surprised, but understood what it meant almost immediately.
except that feelings are not patentable. mechanisms are. it's the same mechanism and the same technology.
specifically, the patent covers updating what's on the screen depending on what portion of the screen is displayed. that's exactly infinite scrolling.
specifically, the patent covers updating what's on the screen depending on what portion of the screen is displayed. that's exactly infinite scrolling.
Worth noting that the inventor has said that he won't enforce this patent. https://twitter.com/#!/lorenb/status/21684045608
(That said, as commenters below correctly point out, Twitter, not Loren, owns the patent and gets to decide whom to enforce it against).
(That said, as commenters below correctly point out, Twitter, not Loren, owns the patent and gets to decide whom to enforce it against).
Patents are like the toxic waste of innovation. You promise yourself to keep them safely contained, but its hard to do in the real world and once they spill, they contaminate everything around them, making the ground uninhabitable for 20 odd years.
Interestingly, as he no longer works at Twitter, he no longer owns or controls the patent.
Assuming the patent is Twitter's and not Loren's personal property.
The patent is ATEBITS LLC's, and I understand Atebits is now a subsidiary of Twitter. So the patent would indeed be Twitter's, Loren is listed as the inventor but is not the assignee.
He probably shouldn't have been promising not to use a patent he didn't own anymore, then. Not cool, unless there's a private agreement requiring his consent for patent usage.
Either this, or negotiated/set a better expectation that he isn't going to bring certain inventions with him to Twitter. Granted, this probably would have made it harder for an agreement on terms regarding his place at Twitter to come into existence.
The correct way to do that would have been to just release it without patenting it, no? He was the first one to do it, so his prior art would invalidate any future patents, and we'd all be free to use it without any fear.
I really wish patents worked that way. Unfortunately, they don't.
If something is patented, then no one else can patent it -- that's pretty clear and the patent office enforces it fairly well. If something is "obvious" (to one of ordinary skill) or if something has already been done, then it SHOULD not be patentable... but it is quite common for such things to be patented anyway. To be fair, it is unreasonable for the patent office to know about every thing which has ever been done, but still these things get patented.
Once a patent is issued, there is a presumption by the courts that it is valid. You can contest this, and use prior art to invalidate the patent but it will require litigation and will be VERY EXPENSIVE. You can "use it without fear" as long as you don't mind paying a trivial $100,000 or more in litigation costs.
I would be very pleased if someone knowledgeable about the practice of patent law would write in to correct me -- I really wish it didn't work like this -- but from what I have seen I believe that there IS a real danger that things which have been "released" wind up patented later.
If something is patented, then no one else can patent it -- that's pretty clear and the patent office enforces it fairly well. If something is "obvious" (to one of ordinary skill) or if something has already been done, then it SHOULD not be patentable... but it is quite common for such things to be patented anyway. To be fair, it is unreasonable for the patent office to know about every thing which has ever been done, but still these things get patented.
Once a patent is issued, there is a presumption by the courts that it is valid. You can contest this, and use prior art to invalidate the patent but it will require litigation and will be VERY EXPENSIVE. You can "use it without fear" as long as you don't mind paying a trivial $100,000 or more in litigation costs.
I would be very pleased if someone knowledgeable about the practice of patent law would write in to correct me -- I really wish it didn't work like this -- but from what I have seen I believe that there IS a real danger that things which have been "released" wind up patented later.
If something is patented, then no one else can patent it
I wish that were also true. In reality patents overlap hugely, and a line of trolls can form for the same feature. You have to spend the same 100k to show that another patent, issued earlier, also covered this idea, even if that patent was yours.
I wish that were also true. In reality patents overlap hugely, and a line of trolls can form for the same feature. You have to spend the same 100k to show that another patent, issued earlier, also covered this idea, even if that patent was yours.
One solution to this problem is a defensive publication: basically you write a patent application, send it to the patent office (so they can use it as prior art), but don't ask for it to be patented. Unfortunately, writing the application has a nontrivial cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registratio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registratio...
I'm a big believer in making incremental improvements to the patent system instead of throwing the whole thing away (which doesn't seem likely). Removing (or reducing) the nontrivial costs of these defensive publications would be a great step in the right direction. I can even imagine a campaign to file for "not-patents" on a bunch of things to definitively establish prior art to make it harder to get a bogus patent to begin with.
Yeah, I have seen this in use for some time in high profile applications - seemingly indicating that it is not being enforced.
The Android Facebook app has this pull-to-refresh on its news feed - has for the last handful of updates. Pulse News also has used this same behavior for quite some time... It would seem that either these (and others) have been overlooked or the patent is indeed not being enforced at this time.
The Android Facebook app has this pull-to-refresh on its news feed - has for the last handful of updates. Pulse News also has used this same behavior for quite some time... It would seem that either these (and others) have been overlooked or the patent is indeed not being enforced at this time.
He said that he wasn't planning on it - that's non-binding and ambiguous.
After the stink dcurtis raised about svbtle vs. obtvse, it seems inconsistent to me that he's opposed to legal protection for novel design ideas.
The relationship between Apple and Twitter seems very good to me, so I think the reason Apple doesn't use pull-to-refresh is that they want to be conservative in their UI rather than they are afraid of a patent lawsuit from Twitter.
I think that's a very optimistic take on the situation. Given the amount of VC money sunk into Twitter, and the amount of cash Apple has, I think it's a prudent move on Apple's part to stay well clear of infringement.
I feel that replacing the word Twitter with the word Google and moving the clock back to 2007 would make that statement just as valid... and just as dangerous.
I did this scroll bar thing 8 years ago at a job.
It's quite an obvious strategy. You don't load all the data, but only what the user can actually see, with a bit of buffer space in both directions. When the user moves the scrollbar you go and fetch more data.
Not surprised that (1) somebody filed a patent on it and (2) it actually got accepted.
Also maybe someone can show me where this "apparatus" cited in the in patent is to be found.
It's quite an obvious strategy. You don't load all the data, but only what the user can actually see, with a bit of buffer space in both directions. When the user moves the scrollbar you go and fetch more data.
Not surprised that (1) somebody filed a patent on it and (2) it actually got accepted.
Also maybe someone can show me where this "apparatus" cited in the in patent is to be found.
I'm more sympathetic than usual to the part of the patent he screenshotted. At least pull to refresh is novel.
But this broad construction? It attempts to patent any interaction where you start out scrolling then trigger something else: http://cl.ly/0U3t391I3n1O2p2g0r2a
But this broad construction? It attempts to patent any interaction where you start out scrolling then trigger something else: http://cl.ly/0U3t391I3n1O2p2g0r2a
Contrary to what people are saying I actually believe that a patent should be granted for the "pull to refresh" feature.
The inventor obviously thought very deeply about the problem, and implemented an elegant, intuitive solution to solve it.
What I don't agree with is that the patent is valid FOR 14 YEARS. Patents are meant to reward inventors for the behaviour I outlined above, but 14 years is a lifetime for a software patent.
If the patent period was reduced to 1 or maybe 2 years, that should be more than enough time to capitalize on a novel refresh method.
The inventor obviously thought very deeply about the problem, and implemented an elegant, intuitive solution to solve it.
What I don't agree with is that the patent is valid FOR 14 YEARS. Patents are meant to reward inventors for the behaviour I outlined above, but 14 years is a lifetime for a software patent.
If the patent period was reduced to 1 or maybe 2 years, that should be more than enough time to capitalize on a novel refresh method.
First, I am a little surprised at the number of people that laud this UX. The only time I have encountered it was in the Facebook for Android app and I found it not to be intuitive. Even once I understood the behavior, it is not always obvious what will happen when you drag down since there is no indication that you are at the top of the stream. You essentially have overloaded the pull-down action.
As to when this is patent worthy, I would argue no. Pull-down is as basic an action as you can do. The patent is equivalent to patenting the concept (as opposed to the engineering implementation) of selecting an item on a screen that a user points to with their hand. Or the concept of performing an action when you click on an item on your desktop (since clicking is as basic on a mouse as swiping is on a touch screen).
To be fair, it is difficult to argue where to draw the line for patents and some people would probably argue that my examples should be patentable (regardless of whether they are - I don't actually know). It just strikes me that rewarding people for these "innovations" does exactly nothing to increase people's effort to figure out a good UX for their product.
As to when this is patent worthy, I would argue no. Pull-down is as basic an action as you can do. The patent is equivalent to patenting the concept (as opposed to the engineering implementation) of selecting an item on a screen that a user points to with their hand. Or the concept of performing an action when you click on an item on your desktop (since clicking is as basic on a mouse as swiping is on a touch screen).
To be fair, it is difficult to argue where to draw the line for patents and some people would probably argue that my examples should be patentable (regardless of whether they are - I don't actually know). It just strikes me that rewarding people for these "innovations" does exactly nothing to increase people's effort to figure out a good UX for their product.
I hate patents. I see them as a reason why true innovation slowed down. I think ALL patents should be thrown out.
However, claiming that this patent is ridiculous is ridiculous, at least if you take a look at how it is similar to patents in other fields. This patent is every bit as valid as the patent that describes a water sprinkler that uses water flow as a timer.
However, claiming that this patent is ridiculous is ridiculous, at least if you take a look at how it is similar to patents in other fields. This patent is every bit as valid as the patent that describes a water sprinkler that uses water flow as a timer.
I'm sure if Apple really wanted to incorporate this into their apps they would either a) license the patent or b) just do it anyway.
Apple already uses 'pull to refresh' in loads of their internal iOS apps.
True. Surprisingly enough, they also use the Android style connect-the-dots unlocking UI for some of them.
And iOS 4 copied Android's "window shade" style notifications.
I am having a hard time figuring out where Apple would ever implement this. They don't have any news apps or readers or anything that could really benefit from this. The only app I can really see is Mail, since it does have a refresh button that could be replaced, but Apple doesn't really like to depend on gestures.
This is not a patent; this is a patent application. Anyone can write anything they like and file it as an application, and that is a good thing.
If a patent is ever granted from this application, I guarantee you those claims will be nowhere near as broad as they are now.
If a patent is ever granted from this application, I guarantee you those claims will be nowhere near as broad as they are now.
This is not a patent.
This is a patent application.
It has not been granted. It hasn't even been reviewed by an Examiner yet. All that's happened thus far is that the application has been submitted to the Patent Office and published. That's it.
This is a patent application.
It has not been granted. It hasn't even been reviewed by an Examiner yet. All that's happened thus far is that the application has been submitted to the Patent Office and published. That's it.
This seems like it really depends on the way Apple implemented scrolling, where you can pull past the end and then have it spring back. I don't know if this was new with Apple though.
I don't know whether it is new or not, but Apple has patented it.
It is one of the patents Apple has been pummeling Samsung with in Europe, since they implemented spring-back scrolling in a few places. I remember the photo gallery, but I think there might have been another patent involved there. This patent is also the reason that stock Android (and most non-Samsung skins, I believe) flash a light when you hit a scrolling boundary instead of springing back.
Twitter presumably has some sort of license (via the iOS SDK or whatever) to use spring-back scrolling in the iOS Twitter app. However, there is also spring-back scrolling in the Android Twitter app. I wonder if Twitter has a license for that or if Apple is merely letting it go because of their current friendly relations.
It is one of the patents Apple has been pummeling Samsung with in Europe, since they implemented spring-back scrolling in a few places. I remember the photo gallery, but I think there might have been another patent involved there. This patent is also the reason that stock Android (and most non-Samsung skins, I believe) flash a light when you hit a scrolling boundary instead of springing back.
Twitter presumably has some sort of license (via the iOS SDK or whatever) to use spring-back scrolling in the iOS Twitter app. However, there is also spring-back scrolling in the Android Twitter app. I wonder if Twitter has a license for that or if Apple is merely letting it go because of their current friendly relations.
That 'rubber band' scrolling is present in many other environments, such as Windows Phone 7
Microsoft and Apple have a relatively broad cross-licensing agreement, so I suspect that case has been covered.
[deleted]
The Google Voice app on iOS has a pull-to-refresh feature. Is this patent infringement then?
In USA, maybe. Depends on the implementation. I think there is a room to copy the functionality without breaking the patent (I haven't see the app). There's also a possibility that the Google has some sort of agreement and can use that patent.
Somewhat off-topic, but this site slowed my browser to a crawl.
This is fairly ridiculous and serves as a showcase for the need of software patent reform.
Software patents deter innovation in general and are a scourge, however I think it's odd that of all the trivial patents that are being enforced, this is the one chosen for ridicule.
It is clearly a novel implementation. People want to copy it, and want to see it copied, because it has value. Isn't that the purpose of patents?
I would compare it with multitasking gestures in iOS. I love them on the iPad. Yet I could trivialize them and say that they should also be on my Android tablet because it's just doing things with your finger so why not?
Software patents deter innovation in general and are a scourge, however I think it's odd that of all the trivial patents that are being enforced, this is the one chosen for ridicule.
It is clearly a novel implementation. People want to copy it, and want to see it copied, because it has value. Isn't that the purpose of patents?
I would compare it with multitasking gestures in iOS. I love them on the iPad. Yet I could trivialize them and say that they should also be on my Android tablet because it's just doing things with your finger so why not?
> Isn't that the purpose of patents?
Well, . . . The purpose of patents is to get things invented that would not otherwise be invented -- if something costs significant time/effort/etc. to invent and those costs would be difficult to recover by selling copies of implementations, patents increase the profit margin of sales and hence help cover costs. (That is the theoretical proposition anyway: it is not really proven by evidence.)
So would this particular invention have been made without patent support? (assuming the standard theoretical model) That is the question.
Well, . . . The purpose of patents is to get things invented that would not otherwise be invented -- if something costs significant time/effort/etc. to invent and those costs would be difficult to recover by selling copies of implementations, patents increase the profit margin of sales and hence help cover costs. (That is the theoretical proposition anyway: it is not really proven by evidence.)
So would this particular invention have been made without patent support? (assuming the standard theoretical model) That is the question.
> "The purpose of patents is to get things invented that would not otherwise be invented"
The purpose of patents is to advance public knowledge. It was understood that people would invent regardless (as people always had). But without patents inventors obfuscated, sealed devices, etc. And when they died, chunks of knowledge often died with them.
But inventors were reluctant to make their secrets publicly available for everyone to see and possibly copy. Hence the temporary monopoly was extended, not to make their job in the market easier, but as payment for sharing their knowledge with the public.
The purpose of patents is to advance public knowledge. It was understood that people would invent regardless (as people always had). But without patents inventors obfuscated, sealed devices, etc. And when they died, chunks of knowledge often died with them.
But inventors were reluctant to make their secrets publicly available for everyone to see and possibly copy. Hence the temporary monopoly was extended, not to make their job in the market easier, but as payment for sharing their knowledge with the public.
Which means that UIs should not be patentable. They're inherently public already.
In either case, UI is transparent and there's no need to patent it because public knowledge won't be advanced.
> The purpose of patents is to advance public knowledge.
IIRC, the primary purpose of patents, since they were invented in 15th century Venice, has been to eliminate the monopoly of trade guilds. This was an issue well into the 20th century. But has software ever had this problem?
IIRC, the primary purpose of patents, since they were invented in 15th century Venice, has been to eliminate the monopoly of trade guilds. This was an issue well into the 20th century. But has software ever had this problem?
> "has been to eliminate the monopoly of trade guilds"
Exactly. By making their knowledge public.
> "But has software ever had this problem?"
While the history of software looks nothing like Renaissance Italy, the future may -- particularly in a hypothetical world without software patents.
Historically, the root of even arguably-patentable software is expressly unpatentable math that has largely been developed by publicly-funded institutions. So that even when, say, the Fraunhofer Institute was granted patents over parts of the mp3 codec, even absent the patent disclosure, it drew attention to the root math and gave rise to alternatives.
But looking forward the situation is more worrisome. As public funding has failed to keep pace, only the potential to patent research has brought in the private funds that have continued to drive innovation. Without that patent potential, there'd be little reason for anything beyond the hint of promising research to be shared publicly. It would be pursued privately, without published articles, without any public disclosure on the other end.
And given the trend for modern software research to manifest as internet-accessible services, it doesn't seem like there would even be an opportunity to reverse-engineer or decompile the ultimate products that such research generated. To say nothing of the rapidly increasing complexity of modern software and the increasing rate at which it's tied to custom silicon.
Consider an example: How in the world would someone be able to reverse engineer Siri in a world without software patents or the potential to patent publicly-funded core research?
The public has no access to the server-side source. We have very limited access to the client-side source. We have even less access to the client-side custom silicon [1]. Even if it were plausible for a not-for-profit effort to untangle a project of that magnitude, they simply do not have the access necessary.
[1] Though client side silicon is less integral in the current implementation, it's no stretch to imagine that Apple will continue to refine and accelerate its algorithms through heavier use of custom DSPs. Nor is it news to say that it approaches the implausible for not-for-profit efforts to reverse engineer modern silicon. And the relentless pace of fabrication promises to only make things more difficult going forward.
Exactly. By making their knowledge public.
> "But has software ever had this problem?"
While the history of software looks nothing like Renaissance Italy, the future may -- particularly in a hypothetical world without software patents.
Historically, the root of even arguably-patentable software is expressly unpatentable math that has largely been developed by publicly-funded institutions. So that even when, say, the Fraunhofer Institute was granted patents over parts of the mp3 codec, even absent the patent disclosure, it drew attention to the root math and gave rise to alternatives.
But looking forward the situation is more worrisome. As public funding has failed to keep pace, only the potential to patent research has brought in the private funds that have continued to drive innovation. Without that patent potential, there'd be little reason for anything beyond the hint of promising research to be shared publicly. It would be pursued privately, without published articles, without any public disclosure on the other end.
And given the trend for modern software research to manifest as internet-accessible services, it doesn't seem like there would even be an opportunity to reverse-engineer or decompile the ultimate products that such research generated. To say nothing of the rapidly increasing complexity of modern software and the increasing rate at which it's tied to custom silicon.
Consider an example: How in the world would someone be able to reverse engineer Siri in a world without software patents or the potential to patent publicly-funded core research?
The public has no access to the server-side source. We have very limited access to the client-side source. We have even less access to the client-side custom silicon [1]. Even if it were plausible for a not-for-profit effort to untangle a project of that magnitude, they simply do not have the access necessary.
[1] Though client side silicon is less integral in the current implementation, it's no stretch to imagine that Apple will continue to refine and accelerate its algorithms through heavier use of custom DSPs. Nor is it news to say that it approaches the implausible for not-for-profit efforts to reverse engineer modern silicon. And the relentless pace of fabrication promises to only make things more difficult going forward.
It's worth noting that the application isn't only for "pull to refresh". The first independent claim covers "scroll past the extant content area to do something else".
Scrolling to the left of the iOS home screen to bring up the search interface runs afoul of that claim as written.
As does scrolling in the built-in Google Maps app.
This kind of patent is bad for the industry because it is absurdly broad. Whether patents on UI are a good idea, or whether this is truly novel and not just an extension of the 'infinite scroll' of things like Google Maps, is almost irrelevant in comparison.
Scrolling to the left of the iOS home screen to bring up the search interface runs afoul of that claim as written.
As does scrolling in the built-in Google Maps app.
This kind of patent is bad for the industry because it is absurdly broad. Whether patents on UI are a good idea, or whether this is truly novel and not just an extension of the 'infinite scroll' of things like Google Maps, is almost irrelevant in comparison.
I think more(1) would qualify as prior art in that case.
That particular claim just sounds like the touch screen version of moving your mouse cursor to the edge of the screen.
The first independent claim covers "scroll past the extant content area to do something else".
This is common among most patents -- overly broad claims that then specialize down to specific implementations. Most patent holders know not to claim infringement on the broad claims because it has a 100% chance of being invalidated.
This is common among most patents -- overly broad claims that then specialize down to specific implementations. Most patent holders know not to claim infringement on the broad claims because it has a 100% chance of being invalidated.
It's novel. Does that mean it should be illegal for someone to do this in their UI for the next 14 years, unless they pay license fees?
Assuming the patent holder chooses to license it at all. Perceived competitors may not get the chance.
(I'm assuming this is a design patent. If not, it's 20 years, not 14.)
Assuming the patent holder chooses to license it at all. Perceived competitors may not get the chance.
(I'm assuming this is a design patent. If not, it's 20 years, not 14.)
>Does that mean it should be illegal for someone to do this in their UI for the next 14 years, unless they pay license fees?
I feel very strongly against software patents. My only comment is choosing this to complain about. As far as software behaviors go, it is more novel than most.
I feel very strongly against software patents. My only comment is choosing this to complain about. As far as software behaviors go, it is more novel than most.
Gotcha. Fair enough point.
I didn't mean to imply to imply you were for them, though I see now that's what my wording did. Sorry about that!
I didn't mean to imply to imply you were for them, though I see now that's what my wording did. Sorry about that!
Is it novel? How many sites had infinite scroll that worked in essentially the same way when this patent was filed?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=pull+to+refresh
That isn't infinite scroll, and it's pretty clear that the sudden awareness of this interface technique rose quite quickly.
That isn't infinite scroll, and it's pretty clear that the sudden awareness of this interface technique rose quite quickly.
Infinite scroll allows you to scroll past the bottom to see older content. Pull to refresh allows you to scroll past the top to see newer content. I'm having a hard time finding the non-obvious aspect of the invention.
After looking around a bit, it seems like the non-obvious use people are employing is applying the concept even where the content isn't a list which will expand at the top when you refresh, but rather some other form of content that will be replaced with the up-to-date version when you refresh.
After looking around a bit, it seems like the non-obvious use people are employing is applying the concept even where the content isn't a list which will expand at the top when you refresh, but rather some other form of content that will be replaced with the up-to-date version when you refresh.
This is a silly patent. Imagine that you're looking at the months view of any calendar app in existence. Scroll, tap, swipe left? Older months. Scroll, tap, swipe right? Newer months.
Rotate 90 degrees and this concept is novel? Egads.
Rotate 90 degrees and this concept is novel? Egads.
Your comparison has quite literally nothing to do with this patent, beyond beyond a method of touch interface. It is not simply rotated 90 degrees.
Further it's interesting how people could claim the obviousness of this despite the fact that there isn't a single known use before twitter started doing it (where it was then picked up by others). That's a pretty remarkably clear indication that it isn't obvious.
99% of software patents are bullshit that should never have been granted, with this patent being among them. However this patent is no worse, and is arguably better, than most that so many actually defend on here (hyperlinking phone numbers, for instance).
Further it's interesting how people could claim the obviousness of this despite the fact that there isn't a single known use before twitter started doing it (where it was then picked up by others). That's a pretty remarkably clear indication that it isn't obvious.
99% of software patents are bullshit that should never have been granted, with this patent being among them. However this patent is no worse, and is arguably better, than most that so many actually defend on here (hyperlinking phone numbers, for instance).
[deleted]
This isn't a ridiculous patent. Lots of really awesome innovations seem like no brainers once they're out in the wild but if it was so obvious and trivial why wasn't it implemented on ios from the start?
This isn't an example for why we need patent reform, I see it as making a case for why patents can be useful. Now that some have the fear of being sued for using this technique hopefully we'll see more, even more innovative ways implementing refresh behavior. Constraints breed innovation while lack of constraints breeds a lot of copycat technology.
Now, if you want to talk about how long the patent lasts then that's a different story but I see no reason for this patent not to exist.
This isn't an example for why we need patent reform, I see it as making a case for why patents can be useful. Now that some have the fear of being sued for using this technique hopefully we'll see more, even more innovative ways implementing refresh behavior. Constraints breed innovation while lack of constraints breeds a lot of copycat technology.
Now, if you want to talk about how long the patent lasts then that's a different story but I see no reason for this patent not to exist.
How does it benefit society that nobody besides Twitter can implement this fewature in any touch UI for the next 20 years?
It's a double edged sword. It may suck if you want to implement it yourself but it benefits society by creating a constraint. That constraint will force people to work around it to possibly create new and better implementations of the refresh behavior.
Also, I wasn't aware that the patent expires in 20 years. That does seem like a long time but compared to the perpetual copyright we have it's not as bad. I'll agree that the term patents are given is too long but I'm one of the few around here that is in favor of them. Not absolutely but to a reasonable degree. The patent system has flaws (major ones) but the idea of patents is something I support. I truly believe that it really does foster innovation. It's an incentive to innovate.
If Twitter let's others use it and collects royalties then it's not like Twitter alone is able to implement it and when the patent expires others can for free. Facebook on iOS has had this behavior for a while now.
I think people much like yourself are thinking of patents in absolute terms like they're all good or all bad. It's more complicated than that. They're a good thing that can be abused like prescription medication or guns. If we could just be sane about what gets to be patented, how long, and just generally use patents sanely we'd have no problem. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Also, I wasn't aware that the patent expires in 20 years. That does seem like a long time but compared to the perpetual copyright we have it's not as bad. I'll agree that the term patents are given is too long but I'm one of the few around here that is in favor of them. Not absolutely but to a reasonable degree. The patent system has flaws (major ones) but the idea of patents is something I support. I truly believe that it really does foster innovation. It's an incentive to innovate.
If Twitter let's others use it and collects royalties then it's not like Twitter alone is able to implement it and when the patent expires others can for free. Facebook on iOS has had this behavior for a while now.
I think people much like yourself are thinking of patents in absolute terms like they're all good or all bad. It's more complicated than that. They're a good thing that can be abused like prescription medication or guns. If we could just be sane about what gets to be patented, how long, and just generally use patents sanely we'd have no problem. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
How does it benefit society that nobody besides Twitter can implement this feature in any touch UI for the next 15 years?
[deleted]
Read Ben Franklin [1] on the subject.
Everyone should familiarize with the nascent days of the aviation industry when the Wright brothers' patent on the three-axis control method used in planes left the United States completely unable to produce planes when it entered World War One [2], ultimately forcing Congress to intervene [3].
"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron.
[1]: http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patent...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#...