The more I read about this sort of thing, the more I believe patents should be scrapped altogether. The ideas will still be developed and the products will still be sold because coming up with ideas sells products and selling products is their income stream. As it is, people are actually dying because of patents (not page turns of course) so they are essentially quite evil. On the copyright front, I reckon 30-50 years from publish date with some protection during writing. AND, I reckon as soon as a copyrighted work is not available for sale after the first 5 years, the patent should lapse automatically. Check the constitution, copyright is a monopoly granted for a time in consideration of the enrichment of society by authors, not a means to manipulate pricing by withholding supply. Finally, the copyright should be with the author only, not tradeable to one publishing house, so that the author gets his dues and there is still competition in the market. I just don't understand how the constitution can be so ignored by law makers.
I have seen so many animations for this for years on various different devices and there is nothing here that is not non-obvious except perhaps that nobody else has done it “exactly” like this.
If so, the patent wont stand in a trial. Why not try to invalidate the patent?
If nobody done "exactly" like this, but did otherwise means, you can still do it those ways without violating the patent. Then why are you worried about abuse?
Almost as ludicrous as the copyright of the "Happy Birthday" song which purportedly brings in $2m/year to Time Warner, which owns the rights. The good news is that is will return to public domain circa 2030 so we can legally start singing it again without it denting our wallets.
I can't wait.
Anybody ever watch commercial television? Digital video effects generators having page turns have been available for decades. I despise software patents. With their 17/20 year terms software patents are the enemy of innovation. There is no way for a coder to know when he is infringing and no way to avoid penalty if the infringement is revealed. He is not protected even if the infringing code is for personal use since fair use, as in copyrights, does not exist for patents.
Nothing wrong with patents, but this is really is the limit. In Europe we strived against software patents, and this is a perfect example why I am against software patents: They only do delay proper software development. Hey, don't you agree that is one of the reasons why we are stuck with lousy software products from Micro$oft? Talking about greed.... And for Apple: They at least do proper product and software engineering, but a lot of people are not happy with their patent policy.
EE Times electronic version comes with the page turner video and the sound of the page as well.
Will UBM have to fight this patent as well?
Also, don't fool yoursef that we don't pat for the lawyers and clerks! Price increase on the next version.
Stop buying their stupid products. If you give them money you just inspire their greed.
In todays's fast pace design cycle it is nearly impossible to come up with a new idea, let alone a unique product. If there is money involved, the idea/product will be stolen/copied.
Enforcing patents and copyrights is nearly impossible. To date, few perpatrators have been punished enough to discourage anyone else from trying. Maybe a mind wipe would work?
Just my opinion.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.