When writing on Slashdot - where we talk informally - I don't care about the process of disproving a patent - although I believe that due process is necessary for those that want to formally disprove it in court.

Yes, I can find it in prior art. Handheld devices (handheld device itself is a vague term which I don't like) have existed for thousands of years. I believe the process of going from large to small (and small may be handheld - but not always) is obvious across every field of human endeavour. So the element existed, and the process of transferring software to that smaller device was in full swing across the board. To me, it (a handheld device) does not pass go and it should never be allowed as part of a patent in the first place.

When I referred to trivial it is to bring attention to the fact that there is a curve that you can plot that shows the relationship between complexity and obviousness. Complex systems are in general much less obvious and can be a factor when proving non-obviousness (or the reverse - triviality can show obviousness).

I don't like that bogus patents are being granted that hinder innovation (and not just for Apple - I'm not an Apple hater). I don't like that patent examiners don't have the technical expertise to be able to trash bullshit patents or individual claims within patents. I really don't like that software patents are allowed at all.

This patent isn't valid in half of the world - where they recognise that Apple did not invent anything new.

"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid." vs "That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."

To a lot of people here, Apple is just rehashing an already existing technology in it's entirety.

"because everything can be considered obvious in hindsight." But that doesn't mean it wasn't actually obvious in that previous point in time.

"So why should it matter whether it was on a handheld device? Because "handheld device" is in the claim. It's an element. That means you can't just ignore it, even if you think it's trivial, just like you can't ignore the inputs to a function. Go find that trivial element in the prior art. If it's truly trivial, then finding it should be easy, right?"

How does that defeat the non-obvious clause?

It is both trivial (to implement) and obvious (anything you can put on a large computer you can put on a small computer).

"I have not spent any serious time looking into this patent, the specification, or any of the dependent Claims."

It is pretty obvious that is not true.

"Disclaimer: I am a patent attorney, but I am not your patent attorney."

The call to authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... You must be right then.

"Simply because I know the law doesn't mean that I'm biased."

You have a very limited knowledge of the law.

You are biased in favour of patents, just as I'm biased in favour of getting rid of patents - that much is obvious (and there is nothing wrong with that of course - it is how it is).

Prior art is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Please note the opening line: "Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."

Obvious is the corollary of non-obvious, a requirement under US law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Note: there is no point in arguing with me on this - go argue with wikipedia.

"Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image."

That device was portable. Just not as portable as a phone from 17 years later. As everyone knew it would be (so no innovation there).

You're interpreting single image incorrectly. The Microsoft implementation is "single image". Apple's animation is smooth, Microsoft's animation reflects the state of computer resources of the day and is jerky.

"No, I'm going to great lengths to justify my analysis. And why should I not? Why would I post an observation I couldn't (or wouldn't) defend?"

Not many people like to be wrong.

"because this video makes an excellent case"

They don't argue that case at all in the video. Nor can the video be construed as a de facto argument in favor of patents.

"this is just HILARIOUS"

You took the words right out of my mouth - but not in the way you intended.

Yes the video shows toggling between two states. It shows toggling between arbitrary states for arbitrary functions. So it can be on/off, up/down/, yes/no, etc. and it can be for any function eg. turn lights on?, save document?, turn on screen saver?

Apple's implementation switches between states as well. Function = unlock the screen? State = on/off. Note: it only implements half of the function in that it can't reverse states by the reverse motion.

Ahh, the call to captain hindsight. That we can use hindsight now doesn't make it non-obvious at a previous point in time.

"why didn't someone else do it before"

Firstly because there always has to be a first person.

Secondly because no-one else was asked to provide a solution, so they were not given a chance to give a solution to a problem they were not thinking about (i.e. in 1990, only a small group of people were thinking about this).

Thirdly because touch screens weren't a dime a dozen commodity. They were an expensive specialised piece of equipment, restricting their use and research to a select few (e.g. a multi-billion dollar corporation).

She and her cohorts were presented with a problem and came up with close to a dozen ways of solving it. These particular ways mimicked real life objects. If these particular solutions are not obvious to you, it doesn't mean they aren't obvious to the rest of us.

So, is macromors.com biased towards showing Apple in a good light or is it a completely unbiased news source?

Let me guess...

Aha, "vaguely similar". If you can't see that Apple apes this Microsoft demonstration, then that is no fault of everyone else.

How about incredibly similar to the point that a prominent patent expert is suggesting it may be useful in invalidating Apple's non-patent worthy invention.

Note: the animation shows slide to toggle between states for arbitrary functions - because of this, slide to toggle between states for any function becomes irrelevant since it has been shown that it can be for any arbitrary function, like for example unlocking or locking one's phone (which is a computer).

I mean a scientific paper. Or industry whitepaper. If you please - you're not obliged - I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers.