Go Rumors reports, “In the application, Microsoft writes: ‘One or more pages are displayed on a touch display. A page-turning gesture directed to a displayed page is recognized. Responsive to such recognition, a virtual page turn is displayed on the touch display. The virtual page turn actively follows the page-turning gesture. The virtual page turn curls a lifted portion of the page to progressively reveal a back side of the page while progressively revealing a front side of a subsequent page. A lifted portion of the page is given an increased transparency that allows the back side of the page to be viewed through the front side of the page. A page-flipping gesture quickly flips two or more pages.'”
Go Rumors reports, “To be fair, virtual page curling is neither Apple’s nor Microsoft’s innovation. At least as far as I can remember, the functionality was already available on the iPhone app named Classics.”
Full article, with Microsoft’s patent application illustrations, here.
MacDailyNews Take: A patent application is not a patent granted.
How can they patent this when they don’t even have a working version of it that I know of. FU Microsoft.
I wonder if this is why Apple does not permit the use of the page curling API.
We’re doomed! Doomed, I say!
BFD. The two companies will cross-license patents over lunch.
These kinds of stories make my head hurt.
This is an example of why most software patents should not be awarded. This is an obvious visual tool that does not bring any functionality to a device. It would be “anticipated” by the classic movie cartoons of the 1930’s and 40’s which used similar visual clues for turning a page of a book.
This is NOT innovation. I think the recent US Supreme court Bilski decision (or non-decision as some may see it) will be used to reject this application.
funny. Microsoft got away with duplicating the entire Mac UI, and this patent over this inconsequential little wussy animation would be honored?
The “Classics” app had this long before iBooks and long before January 2009, and I’m sure someone else had it before them.
There is all sorts of previous art on this one. Perhaps not exactly the same, but enough to kill this one.
As noted above, there is previous art, such as the page curl transitions in DVE units back in the ’80s and later implemented in every NLE under the sun. I don’t know if that qualifies, as a video transition is not an interactive interface, but it’s hardly original.
Prior art WAY before…5 years ago I used to teach my multimedia students how to build interfaces with curling page turns using…wait for it…Flash!
I seem to recall a magazine application called zinio (something like that anyway) doing this YEARS before 2009, like 5…
Is everyone forgetting that this feature has been in use in the Maps app since 2007 on the original iPhone?
I forgot one other bit of previous art — the bent page corner as the standard icon for “document.”
MDN:
A patent application submitted is ample IP protection while pending.
Isn’t there ‘prior art’ in physical books?
@ Mac4lfe
Lol… welcome to the world of patent law.
@ Truth
I use zinio on my iPad, but the app does not curl pages like iBooks does.
If a patent for something so trivial is granted, I am quitting the country.
Oh no, how can one live without page curling graphic? So just eliminate it. Kind of unimportant anyway. Of course then it would be on the nightly news, in all the papers, like we get every day re the iPhone?
Apple and msft have a mutual patent cross-licensing agreement from 96/97. Apple never sues msft and vis versa.
Waste of space article by stupid hack.
Perhaps they should sue Ampex for their page curl video FX on ADO or Quantel for similar on Mirage, both of which predate this by over twenty years.
Microsoft – stifling innovation for over thirty years.
=:~)
Too bad the guy who invented the typewriter did not patent the technology of “a set of physical keys when pressed by fingers render words on a separate visible area.”
Geez, Balmer is at it again. Prior art will kill this patent.
Online magazines have been using “curling” of corners from somewhere around 4 years by my remembering back on reading them.
There is so much prior art on this that It would not effect Apple or anyone else.
If granted it will show just how much the Patent system in the US is broken and how badly we need a revamp and rewrite of the Patent codes.
“A patent application filed by Microsoft back in January 2009 describes the page curl feature – exactly the way it is implemented on the iPad’s iBooks app”
Similar to the fact that no one can patent nature or natural systems, this thing will eventually be thrown out. How can one patent the turning of a page in a book, real or virtual?
Meanwhile, lawyers will make money no doubt.
If I’m wrong: I still see grounds for Apple gaining their own patent via innovation beyond the patent of Microsoft. One example will be Apple’s implementation of being able to hold a page in any position during the turning. No way Microsoft patented that feature.
> The virtual page turn curls a lifted portion of the page to progressively reveal a back side of the page while progressively revealing a front side of a subsequent page.
Disgraceful.
It should be “to reveal progressively”.