美專利局認(rèn)定喬布斯最得意的發(fā)明無(wú)效
????
????摘自蘋果訴三星案陪審團(tuán)表格
|
????許多人都表示，這項(xiàng)專利是喬布斯最關(guān)心的一項(xiàng)專利,。根據(jù)喬布斯自傳記載,，正是智能屏幕設(shè)計(jì)，讓喬布斯相信蘋果公司（Apple）能夠生產(chǎn)出一款必將獲得成功的手機(jī),。 ????蘋果高級(jí)副總裁斯科特?福斯特表示,，這項(xiàng)決議可能破壞蘋果與三星（Samsung）的談判。他在初審供詞中稱：“具體細(xì)節(jié)我記得不是很清楚,。但我記得是史蒂夫這樣說(shuō)過(guò)：有些是我們發(fā)明的東西,。不要模仿。不要剽竊,?！?/p> ????今年9月蘋果訴三星案中，陪審團(tuán)主要關(guān)注五項(xiàng)專利,，該專利便是其中之一,。當(dāng)時(shí)，谷歌（Google）最大的安卓手機(jī)制造商被判賠償10.5億美元,。 ????目前,，美國(guó)專利與商標(biāo)局（U.S. Patent and Trademark Office）宣布所謂381號(hào)專利無(wú)效，不過(guò)專利網(wǎng)站FOSS Patents的弗洛里安?穆勒認(rèn)為,，這并不是最終的判決,。 ????第7,469,381號(hào)美國(guó)專利第19條要求涉及蘋果的“慣性滾屏”效果,，但在審判期間則被稱為“橡皮筋”效果。福斯特在供詞中這樣說(shuō)道： ????“進(jìn)行滾屏操作滾至末尾時(shí),，如果手指繼續(xù)把文件或圖片推出觸屏外,，松開手后，它們能彈回原位,?！?/p> ????美國(guó)專利和商標(biāo)局臨時(shí)判決第19號(hào)要求無(wú)效，因?yàn)橹疤峤坏膬身?xiàng)專利已經(jīng)預(yù)測(cè)到了這項(xiàng)技術(shù),，即路易吉?里拉2003年提交的一份歐洲專利和巴斯?奧丁與斯科特?福斯特等人2010年提交的蘋果專利,，后面這一點(diǎn)頗具諷刺意味。 ????因?yàn)閵W丁本人就是蘋果的用戶界面設(shè)計(jì)師,，是他最先向史蒂夫?喬布斯展示,，如何讓過(guò)度滾動(dòng)的列表像橡皮筋一樣彈回來(lái)。 ????美國(guó)專利和商標(biāo)局為什么能夠根據(jù)蘋果之前的工藝判定這同一家公司的專利無(wú)效的呢,？這是美國(guó)專利制度眾多謎題中的一個(gè),。筆者弄清真相后將會(huì)發(fā)布最新發(fā)現(xiàn)。 ????與此同時(shí),，三星也迅速提交了一項(xiàng)動(dòng)議,，請(qǐng)求法院撤銷與此相關(guān)的侵權(quán)判決。 ????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓 |
????It was, by several accounts, one of the patents Steve Jobs cared most deeply about. ????According to his biographer, it was the clever screen trick that convinced Jobs that Apple (AAPL) could make a successful cellphone. ????According to Scott Forstall, it was a deal-breaker in the company's negotiations with Samsung. "I don't remember specifics," the Apple senior vice president said in a pre-trial deposition. "I think it was just one of the things that Steve said, here's something we invented. Don't -- don't copy it. Don't steal it." ????And it was one of five patents the Apple v. Samsung jury focused on in September when it hit the leading manufacturer of Google (GOOG) Android phones with $1.05 billion in damages. ????Now, in what FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller calls a "non-final" ruling, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has declared the so-called '381 patent invalid. ????Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No, 7,469,381 covered what Apple called "inertial scrolling," but which came to be known during the trial as the "rubber band" effect. Here's how Forstall described it in his deposition: ????"Say you are scrolling something and you get to the end of it, as your finger descends down you pull it farther away from the edge and then when you let go, it bounces back." ????The USPTO has tentatively ruled that claim 19 is invalid because it was anticipated by two previously filed patents: A European one filed in 2003 by Luigi Lira and -- ironically -- a 2010 Apple patent filed by, among others, Bas Ording and Scott Forstall. ????Ording, it turns out, was the Apple user interface designer who first showed Steve Jobs how to make an over-scrolled list bounce like a rubber band. ????How the USPTO can rule an Apple patent invalid based on the company's own prior art is one of those mysteries of the U.S. patent system. If I figure out how that works I'll post an update. ????Meanwhile, Samsung wasted no time filing a motion asking the court to throw out that part of its infringement judgement. |
最新文章