After a quick look at those patents, they seem to be just about allowing the user to scroll past the edge, and moving the document back when the touch is released, not about the actual curve that should be used (and of course, I assume it can't be possible to patent the laws of physics anyway). I think that if this new implementation violates it, then the previous implementation would violate it just as much.But then again, it seems the patent has been ruled invalid anyway, because of prior art:But I'm no lawyer either, so maybe someone else can look at this?Regards,Lieven.On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Hashem Nasarat <hnasarat gmail com> wrote:Ah ok. Thanks for the tip. I suppose replies to this thread should only
CC legal-list gnome org then.
On 05/05/2014 10:09 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 10:04 -0400, Hashem Nasarat wrote:
>> Sweet feature! But....
>>
>> Is this legal to implement? As far as I know, doesn't a portion of the
>> Apple v Samsung trial have to do with the way Samsung implemented touch
>> scrolling? Also, aren't apple's patents the reason why Android doesn't
>> have the bounce animation in their scrolling lists?
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but these two patents seem to describe what you have
>> implemented (and to a lesser degree, the pre-existing touch physics in
>> GTK+).
>
> Don't discuss, or link to patents on the developer list. The less we
> know, the less we are likely to infringe, or the less likely we are to
> be condemned for infringing if that were to be the case.
>
> It's the same reason why we don't go scouring patent archives when
> implementing or designing new features.
>
> Cheers
>