Ok guys I know this is all sensationalism but lets put some perspective into this.
This is a "Design Patent" not Process or Utility Patent. I know, as I've applied before.
http://www.muktware.com/tags/d670-713
It's specific to the Claims inherent in the Patent regardless of the "Title" which does not grant umbrella to all page turning as owned by Apple.
In this case, this specific design patent shows illustrations of EXACTLY what they are patenting. which is the VISUAL STYLE of page turning. Not all designs of page turning.

For example Microsoft could have put in a design patent for the "Design" of that File transfer paper plane animation when copying a file in windows. That's what design patents are for. completely different from Utility Patents. I could go further but hopefully you get the point.
That said this is still stupid to grant, with the mounds of prior art. With what they actually "Claimed in their design", half if not all the eBook reader software companies are about to get sued foir something they've been using for years.
This is a "Design Patent" not Process or Utility Patent. I know, as I've applied before.
http://www.muktware.com/tags/d670-713
It's specific to the Claims inherent in the Patent regardless of the "Title" which does not grant umbrella to all page turning as owned by Apple.
In this case, this specific design patent shows illustrations of EXACTLY what they are patenting. which is the VISUAL STYLE of page turning. Not all designs of page turning.
For example Microsoft could have put in a design patent for the "Design" of that File transfer paper plane animation when copying a file in windows. That's what design patents are for. completely different from Utility Patents. I could go further but hopefully you get the point.
That said this is still stupid to grant, with the mounds of prior art. With what they actually "Claimed in their design", half if not all the eBook reader software companies are about to get sued foir something they've been using for years.










