Apple patents the page turn

I'm a little surprised to see the NY Times perpetuating the hysteria that typically follows patent issues with exaggeration of their scope and claims.<p>This is a <i>design patent</i>, meaning that Apple has protection for <i>this specific animation</i> and not page-turn animations in general. Note that many of the references cited (a good one is the O'Reilly article from 2004) depict page-turn animations, but differ from <i>this specific one</i>.

A prime example of a difference between Google and Apple both on HN front page at the same time. "Google Books team open sources a book scanner": <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4793974" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4793974</a>.

The Register hints at an interesting new development - name and shame the "innovators":<p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/apple_page_turn_design_patent/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/apple_page_turn_desi...</a><p>"This massively complex concept required three inventors to craft it: Elizabeth Caroline Cranfill, Mikio Inose, and Stephen Lemay."

It's a design patent. They own this specific design/style for page turn animations, much like a trademark. Same goes for the music app icon.<p>The article also mentions the Apple Store's glass stairs and the iPhone packaging patents as if they are something ridiculous, when in reality both were very innovative (the stairs are still an unmatched engineering feat). The iPhone packaging went on to be imitated by everyone, right now I'm sitting beside an Asus laptop packaging that looks exactly like the iPad's.

It's an ugly skeuomorph (much like the ugly bookshelf skeuomorph). I won't be sad to see it not implemented by competitors.

To start with its ugly. Also this has been used in Flash since around 2005. It would be a shame if Apple is granted this patent.

I seem to remember Amazon own a patent for just this.<p>edit: It was Microsoft: <a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&#38;Sect2=HITOFF&#38;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&#38;r=1&#38;f=G&#38;l=50&#38;d=PG01&#38;p=1&#38;S1=20100175018.PGNR.&#38;OS=dn/20100175018&#38;RS=DN/20100175018" rel="nofollow">http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&#38;Sec...</a>

It's a design patent, not an utility patent.

dated:2002 <a href="http://www.actionscript.org/showMovie.php?id=459" rel="nofollow">http://www.actionscript.org/showMovie.php?id=459</a> shout yourself Apple

You mean that page turn that was in no other reading apps before iBooks and is now in the Kindle app for iPhone? The one that doesn't exist on Sony e-Readers, Amazon Kindles, Kindle apps besides the iPhone one, Nooks, or any other reading device?<p>So... Apple doesn't own page turning, or animating the turning of a page, just this specific implementation of it in this context. Which, for the record is something they did invent. Nobody else in the market was using a page turn animation, and it's the first thing people show off about iBooks.<p>Yeah I'm just not feeling the outrage. I am getting more and more sick of this "Damn you patent system &#38; Apple!" bullshit though.

The photoshop plugins: Kai power tools and alien skin. Already did page turn effects back in +-92.

Apple patents the page turn. At first I read "Apple turns the patent page." But I guess this is not likely to happen any time soon...

Apparently it increases pageviews to talk about patents and Apple in the same post. It doesn't even need to be accurate.

Call me crazy, but it seems like the internet will correct the patent system by calling duds like this one. As specific patents get publicly criticized (be it design or utility), it not only helps correct examiner errors, but also puts pressure on patenters to file only worthy patents.

I can't say I mind too much. I'll be surprised if the book analogy stays around for much longer.

Would this be prior art for an animated buggy whip interface when accelerating an automobile?

Am I being punked?