2 ms·

If google tried to invalidate this based on prior art, or use it to argue for reforming patents, I'd 100% agree. But if apple has a patent on it because they w

If google tried to invalidate this based on prior art, or use it to argue for reforming patents, I'd 100% agree. But if apple has a patent on it because they were the first to invent it, then it became ubiquitous because others copied apple. To say multitouch gestures like (inch/zoom, and slide-to-unlock are "essential" shows a lack of imagination in what a phone could be. Apple didn't make a fundamental discovery, they just made a cool product feature.

DeepDuh 14y ago
IMO there is a fundamental difference between pinch-to-zoom and slide-to-unlock. The pinch gesture -) has quite a bit of prior art, most notably minority report -) is similarly self-evident on a multi touch surface as drag-and-drop using a mouse or modifier keys on a keyboard Meanwhile slide-to-unlock is a simulation of a real world object on a multi touch surface. I'd also argue that it's an idea Apple has clearly introduced with the iPhone with not much prior art. Conclusion: Those gestures should be analyzed separately when one has to decide whether a design is infringing or not.
- ybother 14y ago
  Skeuomorphism was around in a lot of interfaces before Apple "invented" it. It's a very common feature in videogame interfaces. My old ThinkPad had to slide to unlock switch to the laptop screen. So you take the exact same device and make a digital version of it and it's patentable?
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Neonode N1m
fpgeek 14y ago
Google almost certainly will try to invalidate these patents, using prior art and other arguments, when it comes to a trial (see: Oracle v Google). Unfortunately, one of the problems with the current patent system is that it isn't in Google's interest to do that before it comes to a trial. The first problem is that using prior art before a trial is legally risky. If you fail to invalidate a patent (and you might fail on a technicality like not documenting the prior art in exactly the way the patent office wants to see it), you don't get to bring up that prior art later. Second, good prior art searches (necessary if you want to have the best chance at a challenge) aren't cheap. They could easily waste their effort on patents that turn out not to be an issue at trial (patents that are relatively easy to work around, become less important because of the way the market evolves, dropped during the legal process because they seem to be relatively weaker claims and so on). The companies suing generally throw lots of patents at the wall to see what will stick. There's no sense in helping them sort that out before you have to.

DeepDuh 14y ago

IMO there is a fundamental difference between pinch-to-zoom and slide-to-unlock. The pinch gesture -) has quite a bit of prior art, most notably minority report -) is similarly self-evident on a multi touch surface as drag-and-drop using a mouse or modifier keys on a keyboard Meanwhile slide-to-unlock is a simulation of a real world object on a multi touch surface. I'd also argue that it's an idea Apple has clearly introduced with the iPhone with not much prior art. Conclusion: Those gestures should be analyzed separately when one has to decide whether a design is infringing or not.

ybother 14y ago
Skeuomorphism was around in a lot of interfaces before Apple "invented" it. It's a very common feature in videogame interfaces. My old ThinkPad had to slide to unlock switch to the laptop screen. So you take the exact same device and make a digital version of it and it's patentable?
fpgeek 14y ago
Neonode N1m

fpgeek 14y ago

Google almost certainly will try to invalidate these patents, using prior art and other arguments, when it comes to a trial (see: Oracle v Google). Unfortunately, one of the problems with the current patent system is that it isn't in Google's interest to do that before it comes to a trial. The first problem is that using prior art before a trial is legally risky. If you fail to invalidate a patent (and you might fail on a technicality like not documenting the prior art in exactly the way the patent office wants to see it), you don't get to bring up that prior art later. Second, good prior art searches (necessary if you want to have the best chance at a challenge) aren't cheap. They could easily waste their effort on patents that turn out not to be an issue at trial (patents that are relatively easy to work around, become less important because of the way the market evolves, dropped during the legal process because they seem to be relatively weaker claims and so on). The companies suing generally throw lots of patents at the wall to see what will stick. There's no sense in helping them sort that out before you have to.