Apple licensed iOS scrolling patent to Nokia and possibly Samsung

The ongoing legal battle between both Samsung and Apple could have experienced a temporary ceasefire, after reports of Apple offering a patent license to Samsung have appeared. The company also licensed the patent to Nokia, as The Verge reports in extreme detail.

The patent licensed concerns scrolling in iOS, and the 'overshoot' that is available when scrolling to reveal a gradient background. While it may seem like a rather unusual patent to have, it is reported to be real. Last Summer, Apple and Samsung managed to come to a previous settlement where Apple paid a one-time check and gave royalties to Nokia. 

If information is to be believed, Apple has licensed the iOS scrolling patent they have to both IBM and Nokia, and previously offered it to Samsung during the legal battle last year. By itself this could be taken as Apple conceding a loss, since the company is notoriously unwilling to share its patents with anyone, especially when it relates to something as important as iOS. 

A previous battle with Nokia, where the Finnish company sued Apple over ten GSM, UMTS and WiFi patents infringed upon in the iPhones, may have spurred the Apple decision to offer patents to the company.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

CD Projekt refuses to add DRM to The Witcher 2

Next Story

Gaming News Round-Up: Dec. 2-4

21 Comments

View more comments

If they simply researched who's IP it was before using it, and negotiating up front for a license to use the Intellectual Property, they would save money and stop paying the lawyers who cost more than the licenses.

Seriously.. Intellectual Property is only free when you claim it to be and offer it to all. But you cannot include stolen IP in free or open source as it's someone else's Intellectual Property.

I agree that patents need to be somewhat reformed, but fairs fair..
If you use someone's IP that is licensable then pay up.

rxsoob said,
If they simply researched who's IP it was before using it, and negotiating up front for a license to use the Intellectual Property, they would save money and stop paying the lawyers who cost more than the licenses.

Seriously.. Intellectual Property is only free when you claim it to be and offer it to all. But you cannot include stolen IP in free or open source as it's someone else's Intellectual Property.

I agree that patents need to be somewhat reformed, but fairs fair..
If you use someone's IP that is licensable then pay up.

So by your logic every linux user has intellectual property rights to pay.... Uh huh...

rxsoob said,
If they simply researched who's IP it was before using it, and negotiating up front for a license to use the Intellectual Property, they would save money and stop paying the lawyers who cost more than the licenses.

Seriously.. Intellectual Property is only free when you claim it to be and offer it to all. But you cannot include stolen IP in free or open source as it's someone else's Intellectual Property.

I agree that patents need to be somewhat reformed, but fairs fair..
If you use someone's IP that is licensable then pay up.

You do realize that the bouncing Icons inside a tray when clicked was around in the days of KDE 2.0 well before OS X ...
So whom would Apple pay to licence that.feature

That over shoot scroll has been in many Flash interfaces for years... it seem that jsut because you put it on a small screen it can be patented... yes these kinds of patents seriously need to stop. Companies should be fined for attempts to patent crap like this...

random_n said,
The squishy effect in WP7 amuses me a very great deal. And I still don't think it deserves a patent.

Yeah the squishy effect is a lot better implementation.

random_n said,
The squishy effect in WP7 amuses me a very great deal. And I still don't think it deserves a patent.

Yeah, I like that a lot too. lol

why does the article focus on code sharing? they dont really have to, to license the thing, since the others came up with their own copycat versions I believe?

The true sad part about most of this is that -- It is really up to the Lawyers how much each patent is researched. If you look deep enough after 20 years some patents are duplicated in some form. Not to mention- the fact that in most cases there were prior evidence of use. Such as the slide to unlock that Apple holds dear- There are about 3 different devices prior to Apples Patent that used it. The only difference is one called it a "method of unlocking a phone with a finger" versus " finger gesture to unlock phone" Apple I believe has the patent of finger gesture --It is the vagueness and the fact that a lot of patents go unchallenged. Heck just think if the guy who owns the patent on the Internet should ask Apple to pay for its use... Just a thought... sorry if I rant.

Jarrichvdv said,
It's disgusting that companies are able to patent scrolling.

It isn't just scrolling, but scrolling and the overshoot feedback. That overshoot feedback is definitely an Apple thing and is a fair patent IMO. Why do these companies think they can implement features in the exact same way Apple has them and not expect to pay something for that?

They could have implemented scrolling without the overshoot/bounce back effect. That effect has some usefulness but ultimately is eye candy.

Shadrack said,

It isn't just scrolling, but scrolling and the overshoot feedback. That overshoot feedback is definitely an Apple thing and is a fair patent IMO. Why do these companies think they can implement features in the exact same way Apple has them and not expect to pay something for that?

They could have implemented scrolling without the overshoot/bounce back effect. That effect has some usefulness but ultimately is eye candy.

why is it an apple thing? It just seems like a common sense user friendly feature that anyone is capable of coming up with but just because apple have the money to throw around can patent any simple concept that other people can implement when they get around to building a similar device

Again, many of these UI features I have seen in Flashed based web apps and not by hardcore programmers either. These sorts of things should not be patentable. It does not take big research budgets to program these interfaces; however, I will concede that it might cost money to figure out what users respond to best.

Anything that you can visually disect and design should not be patentable... one of the common purposes is to patent something that is not otherwise obvious. The point is if you can emulated from sight it is obvious. If there is a complex process that governs it, then I say that should be patented, otherwise we are just selling rights to ideas and allow big businesses to make us pay for something we can recreate by looking at it with our own two eyes. Apple might have put it on a Mobile device first, but it was already done. Just like multitouch... that was around already. I just say yuck. It sucks even more to be a small busniess, because you could not start off with something easy to create becasue of the fee. Does anyone know how much it Apple is charging to be allowed to implement this UI "feature"?

Commenting is disabled on this article.