Did apple actually patented an CSS standard item?

[clevin]

In discussion about apple's latest patent attack. ROC found this gem

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/03/nightmare_on_in.html

Consider the first claim of patent 7,362,331:

1. A method for moving an object in a graphical user interface, comprising the steps of: a) determining a path of movement for the object along at least one axis, and a period of time for the movement along said path; b) establishing a non-constant velocity function along said axis for said period of time; c) calculating an instantaneous position for the object along said path in accordance with said function and the relationship of a current time value to said period of time; d) displaying said object at said calculated position; and e) iteratively repeating steps (c) and (d) during said period of time.

he asks:

any implementation of CSS transitions would infringe patent 7,362,331. I hope Apple isn't planning to sue implementers of CSS transitions for "stealing" their "technology".

 

[kdarling]

It's absolutely insane that Apple got a patent on a common non-linear visual transition.

Such methods have been around for years, in every conceivable form.

That patent just begs to be invalidated.

 

[ArrowSmith]

LTD will claim Apple owns the intellectual property on every concept known to man.

 

[rdowns]

LTD will claim Apple owns the intellectual property on every concept known to man.

and woman. [/*LTD*]

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Those in the technology industry get the most ridiculous patents.


Except Apple, of course, their patents are necessary. -LTD

 

[miles01110]

It's not patenting a standard CSS item, it's redefining the computing paradigm!!!!

 

[Mcgargle]

You guys need to read, or at least look at, the patent. It's not fairly represented by that quote. It applies specifically to the "genie" effect Mac OS X uses to minimize a window to the Dock.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=XTKpAAAAEBAJ

Patent claims do not stand alone. You can't just single out one and say "This is broad." Of course each individual claim is fairly broad; the thing that's being patented is the sum of all those claims put together.

You also need to notice that the patent application was filed in January 2001. In order for a patent application to be rejected on the grounds of prior art, the art has to be, y'know, prior.