9 ms·

All the cited apple patents on multitouch gestures appear to be filed since Jeff Han's TED talk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ http://www.youtube.

by ktizo 14y ago

All the cited apple patents on multitouch gestures appear to be filed since Jeff Han's TED talk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ - which clearly demonstrates many of the patented techniques. I find it really hard to understand how any of these patents were awarded. [edit] Some of the quotes from his 2006 presentation are quite relevant to this... ... "Now, multi-touch sensing isn't anything- isn't completely new, I mean, people like Bill Buxton have been playing around with it in the '80s." ... ... "Now this is a photographer's light box application. Again, I can use both of my hands to kind of interact and move photos around. But, what's even cooler- (uses fingers to 'grab' two corners of one of the photos and 'pulls' it to full screen size) is that, if I have two fingers, I can actually grab a photo and then stretch it out like that really easily. I can pan, zoom, and rotate it effortlessly. (slides piles of photos around) I can do that grossly with both of my hands, (pulls photo out of stack & enlarges it) or if I can do it just with two fingers on each of my hands together. (grabs empty space around photos & zooms in and out of canvas) If I grab the canvas I can kind of do the same thing- stretch it out- I can do it simultaneously, where I'm holding this down- (holds pile of photos down while pulling out another) -and gripping on another one, stretching this out like this. Again, the interface just disappears here. There's no manual. This is exactly what you kind of expect, especially if you haven't interacted with a computer before." ... Which sort of begs the question that if an expert in the field thinks the gesture is exactly what you would expect, even if you had no expertise whatsoever, then how does that not qualify as obvious?

makomk 14y ago
Apple probably got a patent on using those gestures on a handheld device, which no-one had demonstrated before because the touchscreen technology required to achieve it wasn't available yet. Apple didn't invent that technology, any more than they invented the gestures themselves, but because they were the first ones to take the obvious step of combining the two they get to patent it and have a monopoly on it for the next two decades.
- ktizo 14y ago
  I suppose it is a bit like wondering how Boeing got to own using the moon's gravity for orbital maneuvers. - http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down... I should stop looking for signs of any kind of sanity in the decision making processes of faceless bureaucracies, as it is entirely pointless and only causes me stress.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Industry sources have told SpaceDaily that the patent is regarded as legal "trite", as basic physics has been rebranded as a "process", and that the patent wouldn't stand up to any significant level of court scrutiny and was only registered at the time as "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters". thanks for posting this. quoted text from the link.
mtgx 14y ago
I'm surprised Samsung didn't use this at the lawsuit. Or did they? Because I find this evidence of prior art better than that touch table they showed.
- thebooktocome 14y ago
  The jury completely ignored prior art anyway, because it was "bogging them down."
  - jussij 14y ago
    More detail: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl...
  - Terretta 14y ago
    That's breathless headline BS. The actual statement is quite clear that to keep making progress they'd move on from what was bogging them down and come back to it later.
    - jkn 14y ago
      The actual statement is ambiguous: After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art." "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." Unsurprisingly, the ambiguity leads to people reading what they want from it.
      - Terretta 14y ago
        Granted, this excerpt seems ambiguous at first. A different quote had the phrase about coming back to it later. There's more context here though: "We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough... we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated." Even without context, what you quoted is not really that ambiguous. He says they debated it, so much debate that it was "bogging them down". That's not skipping it in the sense most people think skipping it means. So "skipped it" in his words seems to just mean they moved on. Then since the question was answered on the verdict, they did clearly did come back to it to form a group consensus later.
Samuel_Michon 14y ago
“All the cited apple patents on multitouch gestures appear to be filed since Jeff Han's TED talk” FingerWorks, a pioneer in multitouch gestures, filed for (and received) boatloads of patents. Apple bought FingerWorks in 2005, inheriting its intellectual property. The scientists came to work for Apple and continued to file patents for the research that they had done since the nineties. “In June 2005, FingerWorks officially announced they were no longer in business. The founders continued to file and process patents for their work through late 2007. And as of August 2008 they still filed patents for Apple, Inc.” [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
- ktizo 14y ago
  Just had a look at their patents, and found this line in their gesture patent - Identification and classification of intuitive hand configurations and motions - http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Fingerworks.AS.&OS=AN/Fingerworks&RS=AN/Fingerworks http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se... How is the use of intuitive gestures not obvious, entirely by definition?
  - kamaal 14y ago
    Don't finger print readers violate this patent? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  - statictype 14y ago
    I believe the patent is for a specific implementation of identifying those intuitive gestures and generating corresponding user interface commands. That's what follows in the description of the algorithm and circuitry.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      It isn't. Which is why it has this line in it - [0046] It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictive of the invention as claimed.
epo 14y ago
This is just a feeble attempt at discrediting Apple, pathetic really. "how does that not qualify as obvious?" If it was indeed so obvious for so long why did we have to wait until Apple did it for every one to realise it? Either Apple innovated or everyone else is an idiot for not doing what was obvious. In either case the me-too idiots didn't realise how to implement control interfaces for touch screens until Apple showed them how to, at which point they tried to copy what the bright kid had done.
- phillmv 14y ago
  The point isn't that Apple didn't innovate. The point is whether Apple's ideas are worth granting a monopoly over. I recall playing with a Microsoft Surface the year before the iPhone got released, and lots of the mechanics were very similar. Pinch-and-zoom is the 'one-click-shopping', or the 'press tab to move to next selectable UI element' (also patented) of the touch interface; if you're being paid to develop it, you'd think about that concept in about five minutes. Furthermore, do you really want to live in a world where Apple gets a monopoly on touch gestures? Describe a different zoom-in mechanic using only two fingers.
  - philbarr 14y ago
    I did further down: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4443294 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4443294 Personally I think it's better too.
  - coliveira 14y ago
    So you're basically saying that Apple innovated but it shouldn't be granted a protective patent. Isn't this what the patent system was created to do? I see a lot of complaints about when patents are wrongfully used, but this is the first time I see someone complaining when they are correctly used. The story here seems to be that Apple did the right thing buying a company that developed an innovate technology. In other words, the small company the created the technology was compensated by its development. Now, you think that a company like Samsung can just say "no, this is obvious" and start using that same innovation without any compensation or agreement? This is what seems crazy to me.
AllenKids 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition Sorry but I'm an asshole. You are using it wrong.
- freehunter 14y ago
  It depends on whether or not he meant it in the definition of a logical fallacy or in colloquial terms. Colloquial language, if properly understood in context, is not incorrect. In one episode of The Simpsons, someone says something to Fat Tony that he doesn't immediately understand, but (to paraphrase) he replies with "In context, it is clear what you mean." Using "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" is a perfectly cromulant application. Latin may be a dead language, but English is alive and ever-changing.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Probably, but it still sort of fits this way round and it all seems to work. Let me know if any bits fall off and I'll give it a push and see what it does.

by ktizo 14y ago

makomk 14y ago

Apple probably got a patent on using those gestures on a handheld device, which no-one had demonstrated before because the touchscreen technology required to achieve it wasn't available yet. Apple didn't invent that technology, any more than they invented the gestures themselves, but because they were the first ones to take the obvious step of combining the two they get to patent it and have a monopoly on it for the next two decades.

ktizo 14y ago
I suppose it is a bit like wondering how Boeing got to own using the moon's gravity for orbital maneuvers. - http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down... I should stop looking for signs of any kind of sanity in the decision making processes of faceless bureaucracies, as it is entirely pointless and only causes me stress.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Industry sources have told SpaceDaily that the patent is regarded as legal "trite", as basic physics has been rebranded as a "process", and that the patent wouldn't stand up to any significant level of court scrutiny and was only registered at the time as "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters". thanks for posting this. quoted text from the link.

mtgx 14y ago

I'm surprised Samsung didn't use this at the lawsuit. Or did they? Because I find this evidence of prior art better than that touch table they showed.

thebooktocome 14y ago
The jury completely ignored prior art anyway, because it was "bogging them down."
- jussij 14y ago
  More detail: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl...
- Terretta 14y ago
  That's breathless headline BS. The actual statement is quite clear that to keep making progress they'd move on from what was bogging them down and come back to it later.
  - jkn 14y ago
    The actual statement is ambiguous: After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art." "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." Unsurprisingly, the ambiguity leads to people reading what they want from it.
    - Terretta 14y ago
      Granted, this excerpt seems ambiguous at first. A different quote had the phrase about coming back to it later. There's more context here though: "We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough... we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated." Even without context, what you quoted is not really that ambiguous. He says they debated it, so much debate that it was "bogging them down". That's not skipping it in the sense most people think skipping it means. So "skipped it" in his words seems to just mean they moved on. Then since the question was answered on the verdict, they did clearly did come back to it to form a group consensus later.

Samuel_Michon 14y ago

“All the cited apple patents on multitouch gestures appear to be filed since Jeff Han's TED talk” FingerWorks, a pioneer in multitouch gestures, filed for (and received) boatloads of patents. Apple bought FingerWorks in 2005, inheriting its intellectual property. The scientists came to work for Apple and continued to file patents for the research that they had done since the nineties. “In June 2005, FingerWorks officially announced they were no longer in business. The founders continued to file and process patents for their work through late 2007. And as of August 2008 they still filed patents for Apple, Inc.” [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

ktizo 14y ago
Just had a look at their patents, and found this line in their gesture patent - Identification and classification of intuitive hand configurations and motions - http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Fingerworks.AS.&OS=AN/Fingerworks&RS=AN/Fingerworks http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se... How is the use of intuitive gestures not obvious, entirely by definition?
- kamaal 14y ago
  Don't finger print readers violate this patent? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- statictype 14y ago
  I believe the patent is for a specific implementation of identifying those intuitive gestures and generating corresponding user interface commands. That's what follows in the description of the algorithm and circuitry.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    It isn't. Which is why it has this line in it - [0046] It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictive of the invention as claimed.

epo 14y ago

This is just a feeble attempt at discrediting Apple, pathetic really. "how does that not qualify as obvious?" If it was indeed so obvious for so long why did we have to wait until Apple did it for every one to realise it? Either Apple innovated or everyone else is an idiot for not doing what was obvious. In either case the me-too idiots didn't realise how to implement control interfaces for touch screens until Apple showed them how to, at which point they tried to copy what the bright kid had done.

phillmv 14y ago
The point isn't that Apple didn't innovate. The point is whether Apple's ideas are worth granting a monopoly over. I recall playing with a Microsoft Surface the year before the iPhone got released, and lots of the mechanics were very similar. Pinch-and-zoom is the 'one-click-shopping', or the 'press tab to move to next selectable UI element' (also patented) of the touch interface; if you're being paid to develop it, you'd think about that concept in about five minutes. Furthermore, do you really want to live in a world where Apple gets a monopoly on touch gestures? Describe a different zoom-in mechanic using only two fingers.
- philbarr 14y ago
  I did further down: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4443294 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4443294 Personally I think it's better too.
- coliveira 14y ago
  So you're basically saying that Apple innovated but it shouldn't be granted a protective patent. Isn't this what the patent system was created to do? I see a lot of complaints about when patents are wrongfully used, but this is the first time I see someone complaining when they are correctly used. The story here seems to be that Apple did the right thing buying a company that developed an innovate technology. In other words, the small company the created the technology was compensated by its development. Now, you think that a company like Samsung can just say "no, this is obvious" and start using that same innovation without any compensation or agreement? This is what seems crazy to me.

AllenKids 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition Sorry but I'm an asshole. You are using it wrong.

freehunter 14y ago
It depends on whether or not he meant it in the definition of a logical fallacy or in colloquial terms. Colloquial language, if properly understood in context, is not incorrect. In one episode of The Simpsons, someone says something to Fat Tony that he doesn't immediately understand, but (to paraphrase) he replies with "In context, it is clear what you mean." Using "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" is a perfectly cromulant application. Latin may be a dead language, but English is alive and ever-changing.
ktizo 14y ago
Probably, but it still sort of fits this way round and it all seems to work. Let me know if any bits fall off and I'll give it a push and see what it does.