10 ms·

Just had a look at their patents, and found this line in their gesture patent - Identification and classification of intuitive hand configurations and motions

by 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.
  - roc 14y ago
    The only things that matter with regards to patents, are the claims. That line, and the general and detailed descriptions can be ignored entirely.
    - learc83 14y ago
      The claims for the pinch-to-zoom patent are broad enough to cover pinch to zoom on any touchscreen.
      - roc 14y ago
        The claims as-filed, sure. But the USPTO doesn't generally update the published application to match the current document (including changed and struck claims) during the process. So it's entirely possible that wording didn't survive. In any event, it's hardly fair to judge a system based on the snapshot of a submission from before it had even gone through that system yet.
        learc83 14y ago
        You can easily read all of that in the public PAIR database, it's not hard to find. Btw the wording did indeed survive, the patent as it stands is sufficiently broad to cover all pinch-to-zoom implementations on any kind of touchscreen.
travisp 14y ago
When looking at patents you need to go beyond the title and read the full patent. It rarely broadly covers the title description.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
TylerE 14y ago
Many patents are "obvious" - after the fact.
- talmand 14y ago
  Many patents are "obvious" before the fact, thus prior art.
  - lttlrck 14y ago
    Show us a patent that is not obvious.
    - talmand 14y ago
      You're kidding right? Sure, I'll dig through the patent lists for a few hours digging up the hundreds of examples of patents that were creative new ideas for their time. Very little of them will be software patents. But this isn't a discussion about patents like that. This is a discussion about patents being granted for ideas that are simply innovations and/or copies of pre-existing ideas. That's completely different. Not every patent is of equal creativity, importance, and value.
  - TheGateKeeper 14y ago
    Being obvious doesn't make it prior art alone. If that were the case, Shazam would owe me millions.
    - talmand 14y ago
      I'm saying the patent was obvious before the fact because of prior art. Just because someone was the first to patent something doesn't mean that they can claim it was not obvious before their patent was issued. If you had prior art that invalidates a patent it doesn't necessarily mean the owner of the patent owes you money.
endeavor 14y ago
I think the important point is that "obvious" has a very precise meaning for patents, and it's not what you think it means. . There was a great IAmA on reddit with a patent examiner that's worth reading: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_examiner_i_want_to_answer_questions/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_e...
- creamyhorror 14y ago
  This needs many upvotes. That IAmA is rather worth reading, with the in-depth responses of the two patent examiners to questions. For example, I think most people here wouldn't know that the "obviousness" of a idea is determined by whether previous patents or prior art can be combined to produce that idea (and not by whether a professional in the field would judge it to be obvious, or any other standard). Furthermore, prior art can include products/art from anywhere in the world, patented or not. Some great questions and comments there too. I like the one by futurespacetraveler, apparently also of HN, who said this: --- The price we pay to incentivize an inventor to disclose their invention is with decades of protection from competition. For a utility patent, that's 20 years from the date of the patent grant. And we always pay the same price, regardless of the underlying value of the invention to our society. So whether you invent a new method of swinging in a swing or a new drug to fight cancer, we pay the same price to know how it works. And I think that's one of the key perspectives that often gets overlooked. We are paying for knowledge. The inventor is supposed to have figured something out that even skilled practitioners in the art hadn't thought of. We are paying for the secret sauce, so to speak. I think sofware "inventions", for many of us skilled in the art, seem so obviously non-insightful that we can't believe society has paid for such "knowledge" with a patent. Many of us realize that we don't even need to read most software patents to learn how to do what it explains. We're paying for "I was here first", rather than "I finally solved the problem no one else could". Yet we pay the same price regardless. That's why the Defend Innovation site wants to limit software patent terms to 5 years. Patent protection should be proportional to the value of the invention. But I believe that should be true for any invention.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
coliveira 14y ago
There is a big difference between dreaming about something and actually doing it. For example, everyone knew what a flying machine was, centuries before it was invented. Clearly this doesn't mean that creating that machine was actually obvious. With computing it is similar, there are lots of "inventions" dreamed about by science fiction writers that are simply not possible today. When such innovations become possible, they will need to be protected.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >When such innovations become possible, they will need to be protected. The underlying implementation details should be protected, sure, but not the idea itself. Just because you're the first to successfully make a flying machine doesn't mean someone competing with you, implementing it in a different underlying way, shouldn't be able to make a flying machine.
- malandrew 14y ago
  Under that argument shouldn't the patents apply to the capacitive touch surfaces and not the gestures? "Method for transportation by flying vehicle" is very different from "Construction method of flux capacitor that provides enough energy to power flying vehicles". The first is obvious and there is prior art even if people could not build it. The concepts of pinch-to-zoom or slide-to-unlock are obvious to even people without Phds in touch surface technologies. Anything intuitive by definition should not be patentable.
- jxcole 14y ago
  And yet the wright brothers were not granted a patent on "things that fly". They were granted patents on some specific machines they invented that could fly. But the patents were about the mechanical machines themselves. If someone else had come along and invented a totally different means of flying (like a helicopter) they would not have been infringing on their patents. This is a patent on "things that fly".
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    Apples patents are clearly not patents on "smartphones with a rectangular touchscreen and no external UI buttons", but they cover many inventions that make such a phone usable. Likewise, apart from a totally different kind of flying machine like a helicopter, there probably isn't any better method of controlling an airplane than the method covered by Wrights patents (since it specifically does not exclude non-wing warping control designs), which is why the basic mode of control is still in use today. So Wrights patents at the time might as well be called a patents on "things that fly". It was very difficult to make a controllable plane without violating the patent. Likewise, unless you equip a phone with dedicated zoom controls, there probably isn't a better or more intuitive way of zooming than using pinch-to-zoom or double tapping.
lttlrck 14y ago
If "intuitive" is so damn easy why are so many gadgets and appliances so hard to use?
- evincarofautumn 14y ago
  It’s easy to use a good UI—not to create one.
- cloverich 14y ago
  Perhaps partially because you can patent intuitive.

by ktizo 14y ago

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.
- roc 14y ago
  The only things that matter with regards to patents, are the claims. That line, and the general and detailed descriptions can be ignored entirely.
  - learc83 14y ago
    The claims for the pinch-to-zoom patent are broad enough to cover pinch to zoom on any touchscreen.
    - roc 14y ago
      The claims as-filed, sure. But the USPTO doesn't generally update the published application to match the current document (including changed and struck claims) during the process. So it's entirely possible that wording didn't survive. In any event, it's hardly fair to judge a system based on the snapshot of a submission from before it had even gone through that system yet.
      - learc83 14y ago
        You can easily read all of that in the public PAIR database, it's not hard to find. Btw the wording did indeed survive, the patent as it stands is sufficiently broad to cover all pinch-to-zoom implementations on any kind of touchscreen.

travisp 14y ago

When looking at patents you need to go beyond the title and read the full patent. It rarely broadly covers the title description.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

TylerE 14y ago

Many patents are "obvious" - after the fact.

talmand 14y ago
Many patents are "obvious" before the fact, thus prior art.
- lttlrck 14y ago
  Show us a patent that is not obvious.
  - talmand 14y ago
    You're kidding right? Sure, I'll dig through the patent lists for a few hours digging up the hundreds of examples of patents that were creative new ideas for their time. Very little of them will be software patents. But this isn't a discussion about patents like that. This is a discussion about patents being granted for ideas that are simply innovations and/or copies of pre-existing ideas. That's completely different. Not every patent is of equal creativity, importance, and value.
- TheGateKeeper 14y ago
  Being obvious doesn't make it prior art alone. If that were the case, Shazam would owe me millions.
  - talmand 14y ago
    I'm saying the patent was obvious before the fact because of prior art. Just because someone was the first to patent something doesn't mean that they can claim it was not obvious before their patent was issued. If you had prior art that invalidates a patent it doesn't necessarily mean the owner of the patent owes you money.

endeavor 14y ago

I think the important point is that "obvious" has a very precise meaning for patents, and it's not what you think it means. . There was a great IAmA on reddit with a patent examiner that's worth reading: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_examiner_i_want_to_answer_questions/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_e...

creamyhorror 14y ago
This needs many upvotes. That IAmA is rather worth reading, with the in-depth responses of the two patent examiners to questions. For example, I think most people here wouldn't know that the "obviousness" of a idea is determined by whether previous patents or prior art can be combined to produce that idea (and not by whether a professional in the field would judge it to be obvious, or any other standard). Furthermore, prior art can include products/art from anywhere in the world, patented or not. Some great questions and comments there too. I like the one by futurespacetraveler, apparently also of HN, who said this: --- The price we pay to incentivize an inventor to disclose their invention is with decades of protection from competition. For a utility patent, that's 20 years from the date of the patent grant. And we always pay the same price, regardless of the underlying value of the invention to our society. So whether you invent a new method of swinging in a swing or a new drug to fight cancer, we pay the same price to know how it works. And I think that's one of the key perspectives that often gets overlooked. We are paying for knowledge. The inventor is supposed to have figured something out that even skilled practitioners in the art hadn't thought of. We are paying for the secret sauce, so to speak. I think sofware "inventions", for many of us skilled in the art, seem so obviously non-insightful that we can't believe society has paid for such "knowledge" with a patent. Many of us realize that we don't even need to read most software patents to learn how to do what it explains. We're paying for "I was here first", rather than "I finally solved the problem no one else could". Yet we pay the same price regardless. That's why the Defend Innovation site wants to limit software patent terms to 5 years. Patent protection should be proportional to the value of the invention. But I believe that should be true for any invention.
- CamperBob2 14y ago

coliveira 14y ago

There is a big difference between dreaming about something and actually doing it. For example, everyone knew what a flying machine was, centuries before it was invented. Clearly this doesn't mean that creating that machine was actually obvious. With computing it is similar, there are lots of "inventions" dreamed about by science fiction writers that are simply not possible today. When such innovations become possible, they will need to be protected.

mcantelon 14y ago
>When such innovations become possible, they will need to be protected. The underlying implementation details should be protected, sure, but not the idea itself. Just because you're the first to successfully make a flying machine doesn't mean someone competing with you, implementing it in a different underlying way, shouldn't be able to make a flying machine.
malandrew 14y ago
Under that argument shouldn't the patents apply to the capacitive touch surfaces and not the gestures? "Method for transportation by flying vehicle" is very different from "Construction method of flux capacitor that provides enough energy to power flying vehicles". The first is obvious and there is prior art even if people could not build it. The concepts of pinch-to-zoom or slide-to-unlock are obvious to even people without Phds in touch surface technologies. Anything intuitive by definition should not be patentable.
jxcole 14y ago
And yet the wright brothers were not granted a patent on "things that fly". They were granted patents on some specific machines they invented that could fly. But the patents were about the mechanical machines themselves. If someone else had come along and invented a totally different means of flying (like a helicopter) they would not have been infringing on their patents. This is a patent on "things that fly".
- gnaffle 14y ago
  Apples patents are clearly not patents on "smartphones with a rectangular touchscreen and no external UI buttons", but they cover many inventions that make such a phone usable. Likewise, apart from a totally different kind of flying machine like a helicopter, there probably isn't any better method of controlling an airplane than the method covered by Wrights patents (since it specifically does not exclude non-wing warping control designs), which is why the basic mode of control is still in use today. So Wrights patents at the time might as well be called a patents on "things that fly". It was very difficult to make a controllable plane without violating the patent. Likewise, unless you equip a phone with dedicated zoom controls, there probably isn't a better or more intuitive way of zooming than using pinch-to-zoom or double tapping.

lttlrck 14y ago

If "intuitive" is so damn easy why are so many gadgets and appliances so hard to use?

evincarofautumn 14y ago
It’s easy to use a good UI—not to create one.
cloverich 14y ago
Perhaps partially because you can patent intuitive.