4 ms·

"""Even beyond plainly bad logic (you patent every "obvious" idea you have?!)""" If it's a multi-million making idea, why wouldn't I? (In my case, though, a li

"""Even beyond plainly bad logic (you patent every "obvious" idea you have?!)""" If it's a multi-million making idea, why wouldn't I? (In my case, though, a little Googling reveals that someone else has thought of it first.) You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just throwing them away? ""it's contradicted by a continuous stream of "bad patent with prior art" stories on this site and a hundred others.""" How does this contradicts it? It cuts both ways, you know. If anything, it makes it even easier for someone else, like Opera, to patent something, if they can still patent it while prior art exists. """Because that's is the whole point of patent law, according to the US constitution at least.""" The whole point of the patent law is that ...the public should benefit by something X invented by bypassing X and getting it from their competitors?!!!! You're reading it totally backwards. The whole point of the patent system is to PROTECT X invention. """Apple isn't trying to make sure we get pinch-zoom from them, they're trying to make sure that web applications cannot get pinch-zoom at all.""" Wrong again. Web applications get it in mobile Safari and Safari OS X. So, yes, they're trying to make sure we get it "from them".

tensor 15y ago
You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just throwing them away? As a matter of fact, I do. Let me present to you a very popular example, pinch to zoom: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html I'm sure you are confused, because Apple has a patent on this because they invented it, right? Not quite. Apple has a very narrow patent on it for using it in conjunction with a particular technology. To most people, applying pinch to zoom on a capacitive screen verses some other type of screen is pretty obvious, it works in any situation where you have multiple touch points. None of this stopped Apple from patenting it. It didn't stop the patent system from granting the patent. And perhaps worst of all, it doesn't stop Apple from using this patent to claim that they did all sorts of work and pioneered multitouch with gestures like pinch to zoom. The problem many of have with Apple stems from exactly this type of situation. While this is one of the most talked about, I have no doubt that you can find many other examples of Apple enforcing trivial patents granted in a narrow band, or in some caes like the Apple vs Samsung, not so narrow. You don't typically see people complaining about patents on Latent Semantic Indexing, Page Rank, or other complex algorithms that are truly non-obvious. If our society truly believes that minor tweaks on existing ideas are grand innovations worthy of patent protection, that's a very sad statement on the human condition.
- echaozh 15y ago
  I don't know if it counts as invention, but surely we've seen such technologies in science fiction movies like the Minority Report. The idea must have existed before.
ajross 15y ago
'You're reading it totally backwards. The whole point of the patent system is to PROTECT X invention.' Don't know where you live, but the constitution of my nation is pretty damn clear that the whole point of the patent system is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I don't see anything in there about "protection". (edit with a little less snark: you're misreading what I said. Patents provide protection as a means to an end. What I was saying is that the goal of the patent system is very much to get inventions into the hands of the public, and into the hands of other inventors who can improve them. Apple's attempts to kill off web standards here is very much in violation of that principle.)
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Don't know where you live""" Half a world away. """but the constitution of my nation is pretty damn clear that the whole point of the patent system is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I don't see anything in there about "protection".""" Yes, because a one line "mission plan" summary totally summarizes the law and how it's used. """Patents provide protection as a means to an end. What I was saying is that the goal of the patent system is very much to get inventions into the hands of the public, and into the hands of other inventors who can improve them.""" That goal could be accomplished without the patent system altogether. Just make everything open. That would get inventions to the hands of the public and other inventors even faster. The actual use of the patent system is to present barriers to the copying of inventions, to allow the one who come up with it to profit. Now this is supposed to encourage R&D, and thus the party line about "advancement" etc (which is totally secondary and only comes as a side effect of patenting, whereas restriction of copying is the immediate effect). So, yeah, Apple's attempts are against the abstract principle behind the patent office, but much in line with it's pragmatic use.
DanBC 15y ago
> You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just throwing them away? Minority Report - 2002 iPhone - announced Jan 2007

tensor 15y ago

You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just throwing them away? As a matter of fact, I do. Let me present to you a very popular example, pinch to zoom: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html I'm sure you are confused, because Apple has a patent on this because they invented it, right? Not quite. Apple has a very narrow patent on it for using it in conjunction with a particular technology. To most people, applying pinch to zoom on a capacitive screen verses some other type of screen is pretty obvious, it works in any situation where you have multiple touch points. None of this stopped Apple from patenting it. It didn't stop the patent system from granting the patent. And perhaps worst of all, it doesn't stop Apple from using this patent to claim that they did all sorts of work and pioneered multitouch with gestures like pinch to zoom. The problem many of have with Apple stems from exactly this type of situation. While this is one of the most talked about, I have no doubt that you can find many other examples of Apple enforcing trivial patents granted in a narrow band, or in some caes like the Apple vs Samsung, not so narrow. You don't typically see people complaining about patents on Latent Semantic Indexing, Page Rank, or other complex algorithms that are truly non-obvious. If our society truly believes that minor tweaks on existing ideas are grand innovations worthy of patent protection, that's a very sad statement on the human condition.

echaozh 15y ago
I don't know if it counts as invention, but surely we've seen such technologies in science fiction movies like the Minority Report. The idea must have existed before.

ajross 15y ago

'You're reading it totally backwards. The whole point of the patent system is to PROTECT X invention.' Don't know where you live, but the constitution of my nation is pretty damn clear that the whole point of the patent system is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I don't see anything in there about "protection". (edit with a little less snark: you're misreading what I said. Patents provide protection as a means to an end. What I was saying is that the goal of the patent system is very much to get inventions into the hands of the public, and into the hands of other inventors who can improve them. Apple's attempts to kill off web standards here is very much in violation of that principle.)

dextorious 15y ago
"""Don't know where you live""" Half a world away. """but the constitution of my nation is pretty damn clear that the whole point of the patent system is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I don't see anything in there about "protection".""" Yes, because a one line "mission plan" summary totally summarizes the law and how it's used. """Patents provide protection as a means to an end. What I was saying is that the goal of the patent system is very much to get inventions into the hands of the public, and into the hands of other inventors who can improve them.""" That goal could be accomplished without the patent system altogether. Just make everything open. That would get inventions to the hands of the public and other inventors even faster. The actual use of the patent system is to present barriers to the copying of inventions, to allow the one who come up with it to profit. Now this is supposed to encourage R&D, and thus the party line about "advancement" etc (which is totally secondary and only comes as a side effect of patenting, whereas restriction of copying is the immediate effect). So, yeah, Apple's attempts are against the abstract principle behind the patent office, but much in line with it's pragmatic use.

DanBC 15y ago

> You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just throwing them away? Minority Report - 2002 iPhone - announced Jan 2007