5 ms·

I think pinch to zoom is pretty innovative and someone should get credit for coming up with that idea. Without it, I bet we'd see the classic magnifying glass i

I think pinch to zoom is pretty innovative and someone should get credit for coming up with that idea. Without it, I bet we'd see the classic magnifying glass in the bottom corner of every screen to zoom. Simple does not mean obvious. UX designers need to protect their work and creativity.

andybak 14y ago
Credit - yes. A pat on the back and maybe a nice statue somewhere. A 25 year monopoly with legally-enforceable rent? No.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  You can't recoup millions in R&D investments with a pat on the back. The system is designed to encourage investment and risk taking to create something with the reward of profit.
earnubs 14y ago
If you're the UX designer who came up with the human hand, by all means, patent away.
ghost91 14y ago
But pinch to zoom is not invented by Apple. Microsoft Surface implemented it before, also it was shown in some scifi movies way before then.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  That's true. Can't someone successfully contest it, then?
  - intended 14y ago
    Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: From the verdict: Patent invalidity, Samsung had to prove apple invalid - No, across the board for all patents brought up. Apple contested that 3 feature related patents and 4 design patents were infringed a) '381 - rubber band - valid / Samsung infringed b) ’915 - pinch to zoom or scroll - valid / Samsung infringed c) ’163 - multi-tap to zoom - valid / Samsung infringed Samsung also was found to be willfully infringing. d) '667 - iPhone front design - valid / infringed /willful e) '087 - iPhone back design - valid / infringed /willful f) '305 - iPhone home screen - valid / infringed /willful g) '889 - iPad design - no infringement Apple has only proven that the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress is protectable. Negative on the iPhone / iPad combo and the iPad / iPad 2 trade dress This is a pretty broad sweep of the verdict, a lot of the verdict breaks down onto whether Samsung Telecom America (STA), Samsung Electronics (SEC) and Samsung Engineering America (SEA). This is further broken down over each product which is found to be infringing. Sources: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-breakdown-which-samsung-tech-gadgets-infringe/5 http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-bre... http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-trial-loss-to-apple-has-a-silver-lining-for-the-industry/ http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-tria... yet another edit: Also to be noted is that none of Samsung's claims against Apple were found valid.
    - StavrosK 14y ago
      Thank you for that comment. I find it weird that the patent was not only not invalidated, but Samsung was found infringing, even with the Surface prior art clearly existing.
      - intended 14y ago
        Me too. IANAL, sadly; interpreting this thing would take a lot of time and effort for a lay man. I can understand them getting hit on willful infringement, but the way the verdict was read out, they got hit for infringement first, and then willful infringement. I'm confused too.
- andybak 14y ago
  I'm not clear on this and haven't got around to reading the patent to try and figure it out. This is the patent in question: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 This patent is more limited: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 as discussed here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-pat... However - it was granted after the first patent (2010 vs 2008)
  - m_eiman 14y ago
    That first one isn't related to multitouch, it's about bounce-back when scrolling with a single finger.
rocha 14y ago
The pinch gesture can be traced back to 1983: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
danmaz74 14y ago
Designers (UX or any other kind) should protect their work and creativity with copyright, not with patents. Or should any new idea be protected with a patent? Comedians come out with new funny ideas every day, should they get patents on them?
cageface 14y ago
Hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and an unprecedented leap to the top of the list of most valuable companies in the world seems like pretty good compensation already, no?
- lttlrck 14y ago
  so you mean after you reach a certain valuation all your IP should be taken away? WTF.
  - creamyhorror 14y ago
    No, he just means that Apple would have been well-rewarded by its innovation even if it hadn't been granted the patents in question, ergo, it wasn't necessary to grant the patents to encourage innovation. Patents should not be granted willy-nilly, and especially not on broad 'implementations' that essentially cover the whole concept, because then it just turns into a huge land grab. I'm already wondering if I should attempt to patent any half-cool idea I implement on my site, even though the idea of it stinks to me. With the way doubtful patents appear to be less spurious than expected, I'd be remiss not to grab my share of the land where I could. That's a crappy state of affairs, to have to attempt to patent everything that moves.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  The compensation is due to the system in place. Take that away and their ability to be compensated in the same way goes away.
fingerprinter 14y ago
I'm waiting for the producers of Minority Report (2002) to start suing everyone since that movie clearly demonstrated swipe, pinch-to-zoom and other "innovative" UI elements. </sarcasm> Nothing is ever truly innovative. Nearly everything, quite literally everything, is built on something else. Apple, at its core, is actually the BEST IN THE WORLD at not innovating, but perfecting someone else's design. And that is my problem with this whole farce. Apple isn't an innovative company, at all. Apple is, however, excellent at seeing what others are doing and out doing them at their own game. They don't 'invent', they never have. They tweak, they massage and they simplify (some could argue that this is innovative, but I'm going to use the term like it is being used in court...is they are actually inventing a concept that didn't exist before).
- kamjam 14y ago
  You know, I was just thinking the same thing about Minority Report. How does that not serve as prior art? I'm sure there are plenty of others before this as well. Someone commented on that blog about the TED talk that did a demo on "the pinch": http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    Uhh, because fictional representations of devices without sufficient information on how to actually construct them isn't prior art? I guarantee you, if you invent a matter/energy transporter you will be able to patent it despite Star Trek having put it on screen almost 50 years ago.
    - kamjam 14y ago
      Did you see the video I linked to? This was actually real and that video is dated 1 year before the iPhone was even announced, let alone released. Besides, as far as I've read (and I haven't read the details of the patents themselves) they are patenting the concept of the pinch-to-zoom, not the actual implementation, otherwise Samsung would just have a slightly different technical implementation of it right...
vibrunazo 14y ago
> UX designers need to protect their work and creativity. You're obviously not familiar with the spirit behind Intellectual Property. IP is supposed to protect consumers, not inventors. Protecting inventors is just a means to an end. When you say we should protect designers just out of protecting designers' sake. Then you're inverting the logic. We should only protect designers when doing so is in the best interest of users (meaning it will bring more innovation to the market). This is obviously not the case here. So no, designers do not need to protect their work, if that means abusing consumers.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  I suggest that you are not familiar with the spirit. It has nothing to do with protecting consumers. It has everything to do with encouraging innovation/invention that will eventually be freely available to the public. To achieve that goal, investors need time to make their R&D investment back, plus enough profit to make the venture/risk worthwhile.
hetman 14y ago
The purpose of patents is not to protect your clever ideas because you're special and you deserve it. That's what copyright is for (copyright carries certain restrictions however). Patents are in fact an exchange; something for something. Society gives you a temporary monopoly, that means society incurs a certain loss. However in exchange you reveal all your secrets about how you did it. On the balance of things both you and society are better off. This was one of the things that made guilds obsolete (which existed to protect trade secrets) and so gave us a much more open, fast paced, modern world. Now here's the problem. There is nothing secret about pinch-to-zoom! It makes sense to patent novel innovations in how a specific implementation of pinch-to-zoom works. But patenting a gesture that is so obvious you don't even need a scrap of expertise in the field to see? Ridiculous. This is why a lot of people are beginning to question just what society is getting in exchange for the types of patents being issued today.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  Now here's the problem. There is nothing secret about pinch-to-zoom! It makes sense to patent novel innovations in how a specific implementation of pinch-to-zoom works. But patenting a gesture that is so obvious you don't even need a scrap of expertise in the field to see? Ridiculous. You consider it obvious, the courts do not. Simple is not the same as obvious.
  - hetman 14y ago
    You're missing the point. Perhaps it was my fault for using a word that is already loaded with meaning in the context of the patent system, but it wasn't my intention for it to be used in the same way. What I was talking about has nothing to do with how original the idea might be. Let me explain. The problem with the secret guilds wasn't that they didn't create publicly available products. Of course they did. The point was that even upon seeing what they had created, the average expert would have a hard time figuring out how they did it. Patents made that knowledge available to everyone. There is no need for the disclosure of any secrets with something like pinch-to-zoom. You pinch. It zooms. Even a child can grasp that. This is why I said it might make sense to patent a specific implementation of pinch-to-zoom, but not the concept. Additionally, granting a patent here in no way even protects innovation. The patent holder would have implemented pinch-to-zoom whether they could monopolise it or not because it would sell their products. Society gains nothing it wouldn't anyway, and is forced to waste time enforcing stupid monopolies.
nathan_long 14y ago
>> someone should get credit for coming up with that idea If the execute well on that idea, they do get credit, in the form of business. If you come up with Korean tacos first, and they're good, you get lots of business. We don't have to start shutting down your competition and guaranteeing you're the only Korean taco stand in town in order for you to benefit from your work. >> UX designers need to protect their work and creativity. I don't know if you're in the U.S., but this is precisely the opposite of the rationale for intellectual property according to the US Constitution. It grants Congress power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". The goal is to promote progress; exclusive rights are a sacrifice, for a limited time only, made in order to benefit the public. If the public begins to lose out because of these monopolies, the Constitution would not support their existence.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  * If the execute well on that idea, they do get credit, in the form of business. If you come up with Korean tacos first, and they're good, you get lots of business. We don't have to start shutting down your competition and guaranteeing you're the only Korean taco stand in town in order for you to benefit from your work.* Invention and innovation cost a lot of money. The taco example won't work but if you invest a ton of money to develop something, you deserve a temporary monopoly on the innovation/invention so you could get a return on your investment. If anyone would be allowed to copy you, the margins go way down and you'll never profit on the investment. The goal is to promote progress; exclusive rights are a sacrifice, for a limited time only, made in order to benefit the public. I don't see the conflict here. The public gets to enjoy your innovation/invention after a period of time which is designed to give you incentive to innovate/invent. Without that temporary monopoly, no one would invest in major R&D.
nitrogen 14y ago
Pinch to zoom is a skeuomorphic gesture, similar to stretching a slab of silly putty to enlarge a pencil drawing. There are only a few ways of manipulating the apparent size of a physical object, such as changing your view to make the object seem larger, or stretching the object itself. Any engineer translating those to multitouch would come up with similar gestures. Also, when you mention that UX designers need to "protect" their designs, it sounds like you are arguing from an artist's perspective that all creative work "deserves" some kind of legal protection. That is what copyrights are for. However, this problem must be approached from an engineering perspective, as it deals with machines that serve a purpose, and can only be implemented in a very limited set of ways.
nchlswu 14y ago
As a UX designer (in training), I disagree with your sentiment when you say "UX designers need to protect their work and creativity" when it comes to a gesture like pinch to zoom. Our work may need to be protected, but when it comes to gestures, I'd want my work to be copied and become standardized. If I had invented pinch to zoom, becoming a standard would be the ultimate validation of my work, as I'd want to improve everyone's experience. That's just my personal philosophy, however.
forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
"I think pinch to zoom is pretty innovative and someone should get credit for coming up with that idea." Pinch to zoom is there since multitouch technology in the 1980s. Once you start experimenting with multitouch, pinch to zoom is obvious in 5 min. It was very common in the industry. I was using it for transforming(amplifying an rotating) and moving vertex of an "elastic"(tesselated) vector shape in the early 2000s, late 90s, and we were not the first to do it with wacom multitouch. The same with "bouncing effect" that is just adding elasticity force to elements. The problem is that someone could take what already exist in the desktop and patent it "on a mobile device", or "in the browser" and have a monopoly for 20 years. This is as simple as the US gov selling monopolies to the highest bidder.

andybak 14y ago

Credit - yes. A pat on the back and maybe a nice statue somewhere. A 25 year monopoly with legally-enforceable rent? No.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
You can't recoup millions in R&D investments with a pat on the back. The system is designed to encourage investment and risk taking to create something with the reward of profit.

earnubs 14y ago

If you're the UX designer who came up with the human hand, by all means, patent away.

ghost91 14y ago

But pinch to zoom is not invented by Apple. Microsoft Surface implemented it before, also it was shown in some scifi movies way before then.

StavrosK 14y ago
That's true. Can't someone successfully contest it, then?
- intended 14y ago
  Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: Iirc the groklaw point was that 1) Yes there is prior art but Samsung lost because 2) It was shown that Samsung was willfully trying to make its products similar to Apple's. There are some further murky corners to the verdict, one aspect which seems will be contested is the size of the damages. The Jury foreman stated that they valued the damages to be "more than a slap on the wrist". Whereas the instructions given clearly state that the jury is not to levy punitive damages, but to recoup losses incurred by the infringed. Edit: Going to double check just to be sure. Update: From the verdict: Patent invalidity, Samsung had to prove apple invalid - No, across the board for all patents brought up. Apple contested that 3 feature related patents and 4 design patents were infringed a) '381 - rubber band - valid / Samsung infringed b) ’915 - pinch to zoom or scroll - valid / Samsung infringed c) ’163 - multi-tap to zoom - valid / Samsung infringed Samsung also was found to be willfully infringing. d) '667 - iPhone front design - valid / infringed /willful e) '087 - iPhone back design - valid / infringed /willful f) '305 - iPhone home screen - valid / infringed /willful g) '889 - iPad design - no infringement Apple has only proven that the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress is protectable. Negative on the iPhone / iPad combo and the iPad / iPad 2 trade dress This is a pretty broad sweep of the verdict, a lot of the verdict breaks down onto whether Samsung Telecom America (STA), Samsung Electronics (SEC) and Samsung Engineering America (SEA). This is further broken down over each product which is found to be infringing. Sources: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-breakdown-which-samsung-tech-gadgets-infringe/5 http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/301948/apple-patent-bre... http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-trial-loss-to-apple-has-a-silver-lining-for-the-industry/ http://www.bgr.in/manufacturers/samsung/samsungs-patent-tria... yet another edit: Also to be noted is that none of Samsung's claims against Apple were found valid.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Thank you for that comment. I find it weird that the patent was not only not invalidated, but Samsung was found infringing, even with the Surface prior art clearly existing.
    - intended 14y ago
      Me too. IANAL, sadly; interpreting this thing would take a lot of time and effort for a lay man. I can understand them getting hit on willful infringement, but the way the verdict was read out, they got hit for infringement first, and then willful infringement. I'm confused too.
andybak 14y ago
I'm not clear on this and haven't got around to reading the patent to try and figure it out. This is the patent in question: http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 http://www.google.com/patents/US7469381 This patent is more limited: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 as discussed here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-pat... However - it was granted after the first patent (2010 vs 2008)
- m_eiman 14y ago
  That first one isn't related to multitouch, it's about bounce-back when scrolling with a single finger.

rocha 14y ago

The pinch gesture can be traced back to 1983: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

danmaz74 14y ago

Designers (UX or any other kind) should protect their work and creativity with copyright, not with patents. Or should any new idea be protected with a patent? Comedians come out with new funny ideas every day, should they get patents on them?

cageface 14y ago

Hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and an unprecedented leap to the top of the list of most valuable companies in the world seems like pretty good compensation already, no?

lttlrck 14y ago
so you mean after you reach a certain valuation all your IP should be taken away? WTF.
- creamyhorror 14y ago
  No, he just means that Apple would have been well-rewarded by its innovation even if it hadn't been granted the patents in question, ergo, it wasn't necessary to grant the patents to encourage innovation. Patents should not be granted willy-nilly, and especially not on broad 'implementations' that essentially cover the whole concept, because then it just turns into a huge land grab. I'm already wondering if I should attempt to patent any half-cool idea I implement on my site, even though the idea of it stinks to me. With the way doubtful patents appear to be less spurious than expected, I'd be remiss not to grab my share of the land where I could. That's a crappy state of affairs, to have to attempt to patent everything that moves.
MichaelApproved 14y ago
The compensation is due to the system in place. Take that away and their ability to be compensated in the same way goes away.

fingerprinter 14y ago

I'm waiting for the producers of Minority Report (2002) to start suing everyone since that movie clearly demonstrated swipe, pinch-to-zoom and other "innovative" UI elements. </sarcasm> Nothing is ever truly innovative. Nearly everything, quite literally everything, is built on something else. Apple, at its core, is actually the BEST IN THE WORLD at not innovating, but perfecting someone else's design. And that is my problem with this whole farce. Apple isn't an innovative company, at all. Apple is, however, excellent at seeing what others are doing and out doing them at their own game. They don't 'invent', they never have. They tweak, they massage and they simplify (some could argue that this is innovative, but I'm going to use the term like it is being used in court...is they are actually inventing a concept that didn't exist before).

kamjam 14y ago
You know, I was just thinking the same thing about Minority Report. How does that not serve as prior art? I'm sure there are plenty of others before this as well. Someone commented on that blog about the TED talk that did a demo on "the pinch": http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...
- twoodfin 14y ago
  Uhh, because fictional representations of devices without sufficient information on how to actually construct them isn't prior art? I guarantee you, if you invent a matter/energy transporter you will be able to patent it despite Star Trek having put it on screen almost 50 years ago.
  - kamjam 14y ago
    Did you see the video I linked to? This was actually real and that video is dated 1 year before the iPhone was even announced, let alone released. Besides, as far as I've read (and I haven't read the details of the patents themselves) they are patenting the concept of the pinch-to-zoom, not the actual implementation, otherwise Samsung would just have a slightly different technical implementation of it right...

vibrunazo 14y ago

> UX designers need to protect their work and creativity. You're obviously not familiar with the spirit behind Intellectual Property. IP is supposed to protect consumers, not inventors. Protecting inventors is just a means to an end. When you say we should protect designers just out of protecting designers' sake. Then you're inverting the logic. We should only protect designers when doing so is in the best interest of users (meaning it will bring more innovation to the market). This is obviously not the case here. So no, designers do not need to protect their work, if that means abusing consumers.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
I suggest that you are not familiar with the spirit. It has nothing to do with protecting consumers. It has everything to do with encouraging innovation/invention that will eventually be freely available to the public. To achieve that goal, investors need time to make their R&D investment back, plus enough profit to make the venture/risk worthwhile.

hetman 14y ago

The purpose of patents is not to protect your clever ideas because you're special and you deserve it. That's what copyright is for (copyright carries certain restrictions however). Patents are in fact an exchange; something for something. Society gives you a temporary monopoly, that means society incurs a certain loss. However in exchange you reveal all your secrets about how you did it. On the balance of things both you and society are better off. This was one of the things that made guilds obsolete (which existed to protect trade secrets) and so gave us a much more open, fast paced, modern world. Now here's the problem. There is nothing secret about pinch-to-zoom! It makes sense to patent novel innovations in how a specific implementation of pinch-to-zoom works. But patenting a gesture that is so obvious you don't even need a scrap of expertise in the field to see? Ridiculous. This is why a lot of people are beginning to question just what society is getting in exchange for the types of patents being issued today.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
Now here's the problem. There is nothing secret about pinch-to-zoom! It makes sense to patent novel innovations in how a specific implementation of pinch-to-zoom works. But patenting a gesture that is so obvious you don't even need a scrap of expertise in the field to see? Ridiculous. You consider it obvious, the courts do not. Simple is not the same as obvious.
- hetman 14y ago
  You're missing the point. Perhaps it was my fault for using a word that is already loaded with meaning in the context of the patent system, but it wasn't my intention for it to be used in the same way. What I was talking about has nothing to do with how original the idea might be. Let me explain. The problem with the secret guilds wasn't that they didn't create publicly available products. Of course they did. The point was that even upon seeing what they had created, the average expert would have a hard time figuring out how they did it. Patents made that knowledge available to everyone. There is no need for the disclosure of any secrets with something like pinch-to-zoom. You pinch. It zooms. Even a child can grasp that. This is why I said it might make sense to patent a specific implementation of pinch-to-zoom, but not the concept. Additionally, granting a patent here in no way even protects innovation. The patent holder would have implemented pinch-to-zoom whether they could monopolise it or not because it would sell their products. Society gains nothing it wouldn't anyway, and is forced to waste time enforcing stupid monopolies.

nathan_long 14y ago

>> someone should get credit for coming up with that idea If the execute well on that idea, they do get credit, in the form of business. If you come up with Korean tacos first, and they're good, you get lots of business. We don't have to start shutting down your competition and guaranteeing you're the only Korean taco stand in town in order for you to benefit from your work. >> UX designers need to protect their work and creativity. I don't know if you're in the U.S., but this is precisely the opposite of the rationale for intellectual property according to the US Constitution. It grants Congress power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". The goal is to promote progress; exclusive rights are a sacrifice, for a limited time only, made in order to benefit the public. If the public begins to lose out because of these monopolies, the Constitution would not support their existence.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
* If the execute well on that idea, they do get credit, in the form of business. If you come up with Korean tacos first, and they're good, you get lots of business. We don't have to start shutting down your competition and guaranteeing you're the only Korean taco stand in town in order for you to benefit from your work.* Invention and innovation cost a lot of money. The taco example won't work but if you invest a ton of money to develop something, you deserve a temporary monopoly on the innovation/invention so you could get a return on your investment. If anyone would be allowed to copy you, the margins go way down and you'll never profit on the investment. The goal is to promote progress; exclusive rights are a sacrifice, for a limited time only, made in order to benefit the public. I don't see the conflict here. The public gets to enjoy your innovation/invention after a period of time which is designed to give you incentive to innovate/invent. Without that temporary monopoly, no one would invest in major R&D.

nitrogen 14y ago

Pinch to zoom is a skeuomorphic gesture, similar to stretching a slab of silly putty to enlarge a pencil drawing. There are only a few ways of manipulating the apparent size of a physical object, such as changing your view to make the object seem larger, or stretching the object itself. Any engineer translating those to multitouch would come up with similar gestures. Also, when you mention that UX designers need to "protect" their designs, it sounds like you are arguing from an artist's perspective that all creative work "deserves" some kind of legal protection. That is what copyrights are for. However, this problem must be approached from an engineering perspective, as it deals with machines that serve a purpose, and can only be implemented in a very limited set of ways.

nchlswu 14y ago

As a UX designer (in training), I disagree with your sentiment when you say "UX designers need to protect their work and creativity" when it comes to a gesture like pinch to zoom. Our work may need to be protected, but when it comes to gestures, I'd want my work to be copied and become standardized. If I had invented pinch to zoom, becoming a standard would be the ultimate validation of my work, as I'd want to improve everyone's experience. That's just my personal philosophy, however.

forgottenpaswrd 14y ago

"I think pinch to zoom is pretty innovative and someone should get credit for coming up with that idea." Pinch to zoom is there since multitouch technology in the 1980s. Once you start experimenting with multitouch, pinch to zoom is obvious in 5 min. It was very common in the industry. I was using it for transforming(amplifying an rotating) and moving vertex of an "elastic"(tesselated) vector shape in the early 2000s, late 90s, and we were not the first to do it with wacom multitouch. The same with "bouncing effect" that is just adding elasticity force to elements. The problem is that someone could take what already exist in the desktop and patent it "on a mobile device", or "in the browser" and have a monopoly for 20 years. This is as simple as the US gov selling monopolies to the highest bidder.