3 ms·
Apparently it wasn't so obvious in 2007 when all the handset makers scoffed at the iPhone.
by bitsoda 14y ago
Apparently it wasn't so obvious in 2007 when all the handset makers scoffed at the iPhone.
- untog 14y agoI don't think anyone was scoffing because of pinch-to-zoom, though.
- mrcharles 14y agoPretty sure the big deal, if you break it down to component parts, was actually having a capacitive touch screen rather than resistive. Fingers instead of styluses opened a whole new world of phone interactions. If they had patents on multitouch hardware itself, power to them. But software patents? Meh.
- JoelSutherland 14y agoPinch and zoom in 2001 on a capacitive screen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&t=2m19s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waSXkJBKT1s&t=2m19s This was presented in the case. Apple argued it didn't represent prior art because: 1. The screen was a projector and therefor this showed two devices. (Capacitive CRTs have excited since the 80s) 2. Samsung didn't present the code for this implementation in time, so it could not be proved that this was either object oriented or event-based. So Apple's non-obvious extension of prior art was to 1. do this exact thing on a non-projector device, 2. use event-based code.
- mrcharles 14y agoSo, basic software development on new hardware. Gotcha.
- Kylekramer 14y agoIsn't scoffing at a new competitor just going through the motions required of you? No one is going to say "darn they beat us to it" to the press.