It's also not the only way to implement this concept as the newer Samsungs, LGs and HTCs all have their own version of it.
2. Real world things bounce. Copying the way something works in the real world and emulating that in software and sticking an Apple logo on it is not inventing something. That's just... building things.
3. I don't mean to misrepresent the first part of your argument, but "it's a good idea" doesn't cut it for patenting consumer software / hardware. There are real criteria (mentioned by others) that this doesn't meet.
Changing topic slightly, how is a jury supposed to decide "non obvious to a person skilled in the art", anyway? Does the jury consist only of hardware engineers? Because that would be the only way it would be fair. I can no more wonder what would be obvious or not to a doctor, teacher, lawyer, fireman etc. as they could wonder what would be obvious to an engineer.
To your first point: On the desktop there are three ways to scroll: the scrollbar, the mousewheel, the trackpad. Of those three, only the scrollbar makes it obvious when you've reached the end of a document. Also, it's not all that different – Apple has brought the same bounce-back behavior to the desktop when scrolling with a trackpad.
To your second point: Some real world things bounce. Balls bounce, and rubber bands do in a sense too. Documents don't. They aren't emulating real-world behavior at all.
Whether the patents are good/valid is up to a whole other set of (apparently very arbitrary) rules. But the points you make to refute taligent's are very weak.
> Changing topic slightly, how is a jury supposed to
> decide "non obvious to a person skilled in the art",
> anyway?
Note that the article says the Korean case was decided by a panel of three judges, not by a jury.
Actually, there's the small detail of knowing what part of the myriad details of reality to imitate. If you the secret or principle that tells us that, please post it here.
The original purpose of patents was to serve as an alternative to trade secrets for the benefit of society, not merely to reward whoever can think of the most "non-obvious" concepts. Behavior patents such as elastic-overscroll or one-click-purchase do not serve this purpose.
There are tons of great, non-intuitive, ideas which aren't patentable (and this is very intentional).
[Apple has a lot of these, which is why their constant complaints about copying, while understandable, are not particularly meaningful. Copying ideas is OK (and indeed, good for society)...]
It is the people who want to excuse violating the patents who claim the patents are on ideas or behaviors.
Of course, if you'd actually read the patents in question you'd know this.
You can't patent and idea, or even a behavior.
So the question is, why are you guys lying about the patent system to get google off the hook for violating patents?
Notice there was no cry to "reform" patents before google decided to copy the iPhone.
Because it's obvious. No person skilled in the art would ever have to refer to the teachings of the patent in order to implement a bouncing scrollable list.
I'm going to get downvoted for this, but Jonathan Ive said it best: great design makes the solution seem obvious in hindsight. This is why so many people (wrongly) take issue with Apple's patents: they seem obvious. But the fact is that if they were so obvious, then how come Apple was (in many cases) the first to successfully implement them?
Take your pick:
1) Because somebody had to be first.
2) Because no other major consumer electronics executives had the Jedi-level reality distortion skills needed to negotiate with the cellular carriers.
3) Because bouncing menus need a convergence of two technologies in order to make sense: a very fast CPU or GPU, and a fast, responsive touchscreen that can detect swipes. Resistive touchscreens were never going to work well for the purpose; only Apple had the foresight to move aggressively the second that capacitive multitouch tech became feasible.
As the other poster mentioned, ideas are worth jack shit. Implementation is all that matters. If Apple hadn't done it, someone else would have. Their reward for acting quickly is self-evident, isn't it? They sold 100,000,000+ iOS devices before they ever set foot in a courtroom.
Artificial market distortion in the form of patents on trivial "innovations" is demonstrably unnecessary for Apple's success.
The implementation (that which might be patentable), on the other hand is typically something any bozo could code up in half an hour without referencing anything, and thus "obvious."
What if someone decided to patent text fields? Or dropdown menus? It gets so crazy if absolutely every design feature becomes patentable.