
The pull-to-refresh patent - beggi
http://dcurt.is/pull-to-refresh
======
cletus
Reading some of the comments on this thread it astounds me how many people
still buy into lie that patents foster innovation, particularly as it applies
to software.

Read Ben Franklin [1] on the subject.

Everyone should familiarize with the nascent days of the aviation industry
when the Wright brothers' patent on the three-axis control method used in
planes left the United States completely unable to produce planes when it
entered World War One [2], ultimately forcing Congress to intervene [3].

"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

[1]: [http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-
patent...](http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/08/31/ben-franklin-on-patents/)

[2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war>

[3]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#The_patent_pool_solution)

~~~
btucker
> "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron.

Do you also disagree with the other types of intellectual property rights such
as trademarks & copyrights, or are you just talking in the context of patents?

~~~
cletus
Trademarks are fairly clear cut. A trademark needs to be registered and it
_generally_ takes the form of something that isn't an existing word or phrase.
It's easy to find out if someone has registered a particular trademark and not
generally a big deal if they have (typically this is just a branding issue).

There is legal recourse if the trademark enters the common lexicon (as
happened to aspirin [1]).

Basically I have no problem with trademarks except when people decide to
trademark what is the generally accepted phrase, as happened with the ugg boot
[2], which has long since been a generic term in Australia.

Copyright is a little greyer but basically OK. It just needs to be protected
from copyright trolls like Righthaven [3]. The danger here is that lots of
low-quality or automatically generated text will be used as the basis of
copyright violation lawsuits. Generally speaking, it's extremely difficult to
independently come up with the same exact text as someone else for anything
nontrivial in length.

The problem with patents is that two people can (and do) come up with the same
idea completely independently and that many of those ideas are completely
obvious (eg I remember seeing an early GPU trademark that related to applying
2 or more textures to a pixel in a cycle instead of 1).

I can write a computer program and it will quite possibly violate any number
of patents. I can write a book and it almost certainly won't (randonmly)
violate anyone else's copyright. If I want to trademark something it's easy
enough to find out if it's already been trademarked and to trademark it
myself.

Software patents are beyond moronic.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Trademark>

[2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots#Trademark_disputes>

[3]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven>

~~~
daemon13
Although you are correct that trademarks and copyright are a different story,
the state of events in those is still not satisfying.

A couple of examples:

1\. Trademarks - Facebook recently insisted on owning trademark of word
"book". Although not 100% successfully, but some companies settled. What next
- trademark "luck", "suck" and "fuck"?

2\. If I recall correctly copyright is 75 years + life of descendants. So if I
(and say 1000 more people) would like to buy/read a book, that was published
15 years ago and was since abandoned by the author, there is no practical way
to do so even if people would be eager to pay royalty. The path/copyright
ownership for hits is clear, but what about long tail?

------
btucker
It strikes me that Loren's "pull to refresh" really was an invention of a new
UI concept. Do we see no place for patents in true UI innovation?

On a side-note, is it ironic that this post is from a guy who was recently
upset when someone else appropriated his own innovative UI?

~~~
fusiongyro
One of the main purposes of patents is (ostensibly) to allow innovators a
temporary monopoly to recoup their R&D investment. From that perspective, a UI
patent that isn't specific to applications in your niche seems like a bad
idea. If I'm not competing directly with Tweetie, how are they harmed by my
use of their UI technology? If they're not harmed by my use, why are they
being protected?

~~~
huhtenberg
Because their UI being innovative and one of a kind might well be a corner
stone of their product marketing plan. You and I copy it, and they can't
market, sell and recoup the expenses as planned. Though in this case I suspect
this is one of a "valuation booster / acquisition facilitator" patents rather
than anything else.

------
andybak
The value of a UX convention is mostly destroyed if it doesn't become an
accepted convention.

Consider this. Company X develops an interaction. They use it in all their
software which commands 30% of the market and they prevent others using using
the threat of patent litigation.

The rest of the industry settles on an alternative which is patent-free.

Which is the better interaction? You can argue that it's the second one simply
by virtue of being used in 70% of cases. Even if it is initially less familiar
or in general less efficient - it's eventual familiarity outweighs both
concerns.

------
dominik
Looking at the prosecution history on the USPTO's PAIR, the patent was granted
on the first try -- the Examiner didn't cite any reference against it and
granted it right away. That's pretty rare (and weighs toward there being
novelty here). Also, note this is a utility patent, not a design patent -- so
20 years of a right-to-exclude from the filing date.

The filing date (and priority date in this case) is April 8, 2010. i.e. that's
the date someone would need to find prior art that reads on the claims of the
patent. (Unless Twitter can establish an earlier invention date -- which would
likely occur in the course of an actual lawsuit about the patent; e.g. a Git
checkin of the first implementation, or a drawing in a notebook with a date on
it).

As for the claims, the two independent claims are:

A method claim: 1\. A method, comprising: displaying a content area; receiving
input associated with a first command, the first command including a request
to scroll the content area; and based on the first command, performing a
second command, the second command being independent of the first command.

And a device claim: 20\. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a
processor, cause the processor to perform a method, comprising: displaying a
scrollable list of content items, the scrollable list of content items
including a plurality of discrete content items arranged chronologically;
receiving input associated with a scroll command, the input representing
touch-based user input; based on the scroll command, displaying a scrollable
refresh trigger configured to scroll with the scrollable list of content
items; in response to determining that the scrollable refresh trigger is fully
displayed, providing an instruction associated with activating the scrollable
refresh trigger; in response to determining that the scroll command was
completed while the scrollable refresh trigger was fully displayed, refreshing
the scrollable list of content items; and in response to determining that the
scrollable list of content items has been refreshed, automatically scrolling
the scrollable list of content items such that the scrollable refresh trigger
is not displayed.

~~~
notatoad
prior art should be too hard to find, the whole concept of scrolling up to
refresh is _exactly_ the same concept as infinite-scrolling. if you scroll
below the bottom of a list, it finds the next n older items. if you scroll
above the top of a list, it finds the next n newer items. what's the
difference?

~~~
MartinCron
There's a distinct tactile feel to the pull to refresh that is distinct from
infinite-scrolling. I remember the first time I saw it, I was surprised, but
understood what it meant almost immediately.

~~~
notatoad
except that feelings are not patentable. mechanisms are. it's the same
mechanism and the same technology.

specifically, the patent covers updating what's on the screen depending on
what portion of the screen is displayed. that's exactly infinite scrolling.

~~~
wildgift
There have been look-and-feel patent fights.

~~~
notatoad
there have been, but this is not a design patent. it's a technical patent.

------
dominik
Worth noting that the inventor has said that he won't enforce this patent.
<https://twitter.com/#!/lorenb/status/21684045608>

(That said, as commenters below correctly point out, Twitter, not Loren, owns
the patent and gets to decide whom to enforce it against).

~~~
dcurtis
Interestingly, as he no longer works at Twitter, he no longer owns or controls
the patent.

~~~
ceejayoz
Assuming the patent is Twitter's and not Loren's personal property.

~~~
masklinn
The patent is ATEBITS LLC's, and I understand Atebits is now a subsidiary of
Twitter. So the patent would indeed be Twitter's, Loren is listed as the
inventor but is not the assignee.

~~~
ceejayoz
He probably shouldn't have been promising not to use a patent he didn't own
anymore, then. Not cool, unless there's a private agreement requiring his
consent for patent usage.

~~~
iamdave
Either this, or negotiated/set a better expectation that he isn't going to
bring certain inventions with him to Twitter. Granted, this probably would
have made it harder for an agreement on terms regarding his place at Twitter
to come into existence.

------
mayoff
After the stink dcurtis raised about svbtle vs. obtvse, it seems inconsistent
to me that he's opposed to legal protection for novel design ideas.

------
beggi
The relationship between Apple and Twitter seems very good to me, so I think
the reason Apple doesn't use pull-to-refresh is that they want to be
conservative in their UI rather than they are afraid of a patent lawsuit from
Twitter.

~~~
kenshi
I think that's a very optimistic take on the situation. Given the amount of VC
money sunk into Twitter, and the amount of cash Apple has, I think it's a
prudent move on Apple's part to stay well clear of infringement.

~~~
rdl
Apple could presumably license it under favorable terms from Twitter, if
they're in fact that friendly.

------
linuxhansl
I did this scroll bar thing 8 years ago at a job.

It's quite an obvious strategy. You don't load all the data, but only what the
user can actually see, with a bit of buffer space in both directions. When the
user moves the scrollbar you go and fetch more data.

Not surprised that (1) somebody filed a patent on it and (2) it actually got
accepted.

Also maybe someone can show me where this "apparatus" cited in the in patent
is to be found.

------
phil
I'm more sympathetic than usual to the part of the patent he screenshotted. At
least pull to refresh is novel.

But this broad construction? It attempts to patent any interaction where you
start out scrolling then trigger something else:
<http://cl.ly/0U3t391I3n1O2p2g0r2a>

------
jklp
Contrary to what people are saying I actually believe that a patent should be
granted for the "pull to refresh" feature.

The inventor obviously thought very deeply about the problem, and implemented
an elegant, intuitive solution to solve it.

What I don't agree with is that the patent is valid FOR 14 YEARS. Patents are
meant to reward inventors for the behaviour I outlined above, but 14 years is
a lifetime for a software patent.

If the patent period was reduced to 1 or maybe 2 years, that should be more
than enough time to capitalize on a novel refresh method.

------
scottmp10
First, I am a little surprised at the number of people that laud this UX. The
only time I have encountered it was in the Facebook for Android app and I
found it not to be intuitive. Even once I understood the behavior, it is not
always obvious what will happen when you drag down since there is no
indication that you are at the top of the stream. You essentially have
overloaded the pull-down action.

As to when this is patent worthy, I would argue no. Pull-down is as basic an
action as you can do. The patent is equivalent to patenting the concept (as
opposed to the engineering implementation) of selecting an item on a screen
that a user points to with their hand. Or the concept of performing an action
when you click on an item on your desktop (since clicking is as basic on a
mouse as swiping is on a touch screen).

To be fair, it is difficult to argue where to draw the line for patents and
some people would probably argue that my examples should be patentable
(regardless of whether they are - I don't actually know). It just strikes me
that rewarding people for these "innovations" does exactly nothing to increase
people's effort to figure out a good UX for their product.

------
_seininn
I hate patents. I see them as a reason why true innovation slowed down. I
think ALL patents should be thrown out.

 _However_ , claiming that this patent is ridiculous is ridiculous, at least
if you take a look at how it is similar to patents in other fields. This
patent is every bit as valid as the patent that describes a water sprinkler
that uses water flow as a timer.

------
lukeredpath
I'm sure if Apple really wanted to incorporate this into their apps they would
either a) license the patent or b) just do it anyway.

~~~
madeofpalk
Apple already uses 'pull to refresh' in loads of their internal iOS apps.

~~~
alexfringes
True. Surprisingly enough, they also use the Android style connect-the-dots
unlocking UI for some of them.

~~~
cpeterso
And iOS 4 copied Android's "window shade" style notifications.

------
cwe
I am having a hard time figuring out where Apple would ever implement this.
They don't have any news apps or readers or anything that could really benefit
from this. The only app I can really see is Mail, since it does have a refresh
button that could be replaced, but Apple doesn't really like to depend on
gestures.

------
justinsb
This is not a patent; this is a patent application. Anyone can write anything
they like and file it as an application, and that is a good thing.

If a patent is ever granted from this application, I guarantee you those
claims will be nowhere near as broad as they are now.

------
dominik
This is not a patent.

This is a patent application.

It has not been granted. It hasn't even been reviewed by an Examiner yet. All
that's happened thus far is that the application has been submitted to the
Patent Office and published. That's it.

------
dubya
This seems like it really depends on the way Apple implemented scrolling,
where you can pull past the end and then have it spring back. I don't know if
this was new with Apple though.

~~~
fpgeek
I don't know whether it is new or not, but Apple has patented it.

It is one of the patents Apple has been pummeling Samsung with in Europe,
since they implemented spring-back scrolling in a few places. I remember the
photo gallery, but I think there might have been another patent involved
there. This patent is also the reason that stock Android (and most non-Samsung
skins, I believe) flash a light when you hit a scrolling boundary instead of
springing back.

Twitter presumably has some sort of license (via the iOS SDK or whatever) to
use spring-back scrolling in the iOS Twitter app. However, there is also
spring-back scrolling in the Android Twitter app. I wonder if Twitter has a
license for that or if Apple is merely letting it go because of their current
friendly relations.

~~~
madeofpalk
That 'rubber band' scrolling is present in many other environments, such as
Windows Phone 7

~~~
fpgeek
Microsoft and Apple have a relatively broad cross-licensing agreement, so I
suspect that case has been covered.

------
sherwin
The Google Voice app on iOS has a pull-to-refresh feature. Is this patent
infringement then?

~~~
rplnt
In USA, maybe. Depends on the implementation. I think there is a room to copy
the functionality without breaking the patent (I haven't see the app). There's
also a possibility that the Google has some sort of agreement and can use that
patent.

------
mrich
How ironic would it be if Apple couldn't implement something because of a
ridiculous patent?

~~~
slantyyz
It shouldn't be a big deal. They paid Amazon for 1 click buy.

------
recursive
Somewhat off-topic, but this site slowed my browser to a crawl.

------
huggyface
_This is fairly ridiculous and serves as a showcase for the need of software
patent reform._

Software patents deter innovation in general and are a scourge, however I
think it's odd that of all the trivial patents that are being enforced, this
is the one chosen for ridicule.

It is clearly a novel implementation. People want to copy it, and want to see
it copied, because it has value. Isn't that the purpose of patents?

I would compare it with multitasking gestures in iOS. I love them on the iPad.
Yet I could trivialize them and say that they should also be on my Android
tablet because it's just doing things with your finger so why not?

~~~
roc
It's worth noting that the application isn't only for "pull to refresh". The
first independent claim covers "scroll past the extant content area to do
_something else_ ".

Scrolling to the left of the iOS home screen to bring up the search interface
runs afoul of that claim as written.

As does scrolling in the built-in Google Maps app.

This kind of patent is bad for the industry because it is absurdly broad.
Whether patents on UI are a good idea, or whether this is truly novel and not
just an extension of the 'infinite scroll' of things like Google Maps, is
almost irrelevant in comparison.

~~~
inopinatus
I think more(1) would qualify as prior art in that case.

------
billpatrianakos
This isn't a ridiculous patent. Lots of really awesome innovations seem like
no brainers once they're out in the wild but if it was so obvious and trivial
why wasn't it implemented on ios from the start?

This isn't an example for why we need patent reform, I see it as making a case
for why patents can be useful. Now that some have the fear of being sued for
using this technique hopefully we'll see more, even more innovative ways
implementing refresh behavior. Constraints breed innovation while lack of
constraints breeds a lot of copycat technology.

Now, if you want to talk about how long the patent lasts then that's a
different story but I see no reason for this patent not to exist.

~~~
guelo
How does it benefit society that nobody besides Twitter can implement this
fewature in any touch UI for the next 20 years?

~~~
billpatrianakos
It's a double edged sword. It may suck if you want to implement it yourself
but it benefits society by creating a constraint. That constraint will force
people to work around it to possibly create new and better implementations of
the refresh behavior.

Also, I wasn't aware that the patent expires in 20 years. That does seem like
a long time but compared to the perpetual copyright we have it's not as bad.
I'll agree that the term patents are given is too long but I'm one of the few
around here that is in favor of them. Not absolutely but to a reasonable
degree. The patent system has flaws (major ones) but the idea of patents is
something I support. I truly believe that it really does foster innovation.
It's an incentive to innovate.

If Twitter let's others use it and collects royalties then it's not like
Twitter alone is able to implement it and when the patent expires others can
for free. Facebook on iOS has had this behavior for a while now.

I think people much like yourself are thinking of patents in absolute terms
like they're all good or all bad. It's more complicated than that. They're a
good thing that can be abused like prescription medication or guns. If we
could just be sane about what gets to be patented, how long, and just
generally use patents sanely we'd have no problem. So let's not throw the baby
out with the bath water.

