11 ms·
US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
- tehwalrus 13y agomy first reaction to this was "bah, software patents. I love living in the EU." But, this got me thinking - it a patent about something like a touch interface (intrinsically linked to hardware, but where software is required) software or not? This also works for double clicks, key repeat delay, and stuff like joysticks. Once you've invented the mouse, can you then patent every way of clicking and shaking? similarly, following the touchscreen, can we then patent every conceivable way to tap/swipe/pinch it? I want to say "no, all these patents are obvious and dumb," but the "software is mathematics" mantra really doesn't hold for these kind of fluffy, hands-on concepts. hmm.
- mtgx 13y agoBeing able to use more than one finger is what's based on hardware (for which Apple wouldn't have the patent anyway - the panel maker would). The contraction and expanding action is based on software.
- zimpenfish 13y agoDon't Apple own the multitouch technology though? Presumably through their purchase of Fingerworks.
- aylons 13y agoThe point is that the most heinous software patents are actually patents on abstracts concepts and uses. Things like patenting "One click purchase" and "Detect phone numbers on an email". This is such an example.
- dangoldin 13y agoEven living in the EU you suffer from the patent patent systems around the world since it will influence the way companies develop/charge for products - especially if it's in a major market such as the US. The cost of dealing with patents is just incorporated into the cost of the final product so we all suffer.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoSoftware patents are not entirely avoided in the EU, just to be clear. Quoting a little from an essay I had to write, although “programs for computers” are excluded by Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (1963), inventions that include an inventive step and solve a technical problem by the utilisation of a computer program have been upheld on appeal, for example in the case of Microsoft Corporation (data transfer with expanded clipboard features. T 0469/03 - 3.5.01, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t030469eu1.html http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t030...) They might tell us that computer programs can't be patented, but their courts say otherwise - including states involved in the upcoming European Patent (for those unaware, currently EU states choose which European Patent Office patents to accept, the European Patent will synchronise all states except Spain and Italy). Actually the situation in Europe is quite similar to America - software isn't part of their patent legislation literature either; but such patents have been upheld repeatedly.
- tehwalrus 13y agothank you for the clarification - I didn't know the detail of the situation!
- laureny 13y ago> my first reaction to this was "bah, software patents. I love living in the EU." Your second reaction should have been "Oh wait, we have software patents as well in the EU."
- bluthru 13y agoWe all saw "pinch to zoom" publicly demonstrated in that multi-touch Ted talk before the iPhone was unveiled. I'm not sure why the "overscroll bounce" was rejected, as it was Apple's unique invention and not obvious.
- thezilch 13y ago"Overscroll" was rejected on multiple counts of obviousness and lacking in novelty, due to prior art [0]. [0] http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively...
- thoughtsimple 13y agoAnd then allowed by subsequent USPTO action. Final doesn't mean final in this case. http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/huge-win-for-apple-at-patent-office-key.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/huge-win-for-apple-at-pat...
- bluthru 13y agoSorry, but what specifically is the "prior art" being referenced?
- thezilch 13y agoSpecifically... The direction of scrolling through the list of items may be reversed in response to the scrolling intersecting a virtual boundary corresponding to a terminus of the list. The scrolling reversal may correspond to a damped motion. For example, during scrolling, a displayed portion of the list of items may appear to bounce off of a boundary of the window in the touch-sensitive display when a beginning or an end of the list of items is reached. The apparent bounce may correspond to a simulation of a viscous or elastic ball having momentum in a first direction striking an immovable and/or inelastic object, such as a wall. The subsequent motion of the ball may be damped, for example, by including a friction or dissipative term in the simulation. A parameter corresponding to the friction term in the simulation may be adjustable, allowing the ball to reach equilibrium in contact with the wall, i.e., the virtual boundary, or displaced from the wall. -- "Ording" (2005) U.S. Patent No. 7,786,975 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,786,975.PN.&OS=PN/7,786,975&RS=PN/7,786,975 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
- Symmetry 13y agoBut I presume the companies that have been paying royalties for half a decade won't get their money back.
- rhizome 13y agoI've long advocated for refund clauses in royalty settlement agreements, in the eventuality that the patent is invalidated.
- throwawaykf 13y agoWell, most large companies are probably not directly paying royalties, but instead bartering by cross-licensing their own just-as-presumptuously-valid patents :-)
- btilly 13y agoPinch to zoom absolutely should have been rejected. Watch the 2002 movie Minority Report for what I consider prior art on the 2007 patent filing at http://www.google.com/patents/US7844915 http://www.google.com/patents/US7844915.
- Samuel_Michon 13y agoI don’t understand that reasoning. If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. I think you’d have a point if it pertained to a design patent. If some movie used a tablet that looked exactly like an iPad, 10 years before Apple produced it, then surely Apple’s design patent for it would be worth zilch. However, the pinch-to-zoom patent describes an implementation in minute detail. IANAL though, perhaps someone with proper credentials will be so kind to enlighten us.
- srik 13y agoMinority report's UI was functional - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YTQJVzwlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YTQJVzwlI
- baddox 13y ago> If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. Good.
- Samuel_Michon 13y agoPoint taken, but won’t that mean that if someone figures out how to make a time machine, they will simply not apply for a patent and try to keep the design to themselves? (They could for instance sell time travel as a service, but not sell the machines or license the tech to other companies) In theory, patents grant the inventor exclusivity for a limited time so that they can recoup their investment, in exchange for sharing the secret with the world.
- baddox 13y ago
- NelsonMinar 13y agoInteresting that it was rejected because of 7,724,242, by Danny Hillis and Bran Ferren. Both of them are "Senior Inventors" of Intellectual Ventures, the patent uber-troll company. I wonder if one of IV's shell companies is prosecuting '242?
- levesque 13y agoGreat, Apple doesn't get it because the company really holding this patent is one of the few worse patent trolls out there. When will it stop?
- venomsnake 13y agoWhen people are not allowed to patent the end result.
- jauer 13y agoGiven Danny Hillis's history (per Wikipedia) isn't it possible that there is some legitimate R&D going on that is reasonable to protect? I'm not really familiar with Intellectual Ventures but he has done some fascinating things in the past, Thinking Machines being a prime example.
- JamesArgo 13y agoIt will really be heartbreaking if Danny Hillis becomes a patent troll.
- stephenlovell 13y agoFrom This American Life, he sounds like one to me, and IV is a skilled Patent Troll at obscuring who they are and what they really do. Part One (When Patents Attack): http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... Part Two (When Patents Attack): http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/w...
- shmerl 13y agoApple are really patent sick.
- mitchty 13y agoCompared to what? They're no more patent sick than other companies, they just get reported on by the news more often. Have a look at patents for car companies, you'd probably be shocked at how common this stuff is. Patent attorneys don't exist for just the tech world, they make money for a reason.
- shmerl 13y agoCompared to how normal tech company should behave. Luckily there are companies which are opposed to software patents. I'm sure there are other patent sick companies, but Apple is just an infamous one. May be it's more reported than others, but such reputation is deserved. Patent attorneys don't participate in this on their own. It's from these companies' approval. In normal companies attorneys ensure that company uses patents only as defensive tools, in sick ones they use them for offense.
- mitchty 13y agoHow should a "normal tech company" behave exactly? I'm not disagreeing but your point is not very convincing as it seems to be a pathos argument based on your wording so far with the "patent sick" verbage. I'll note, companies using patents are behaving rather rationally from the perspective of use it or lose it. Right now its advantageous to the patent filer to file patents, it doesn't absolve these companies of ethical issues arising from that but I don't label these companies as being "sick" due to it. Its up to us and likely the companies to ask for change if there is an issue. Let the patent suits continue to fly, once companies get hurt in the pocketbook enough things will change. That said i still don't know what you're arguing for companies to do. As well as why tech companies should behave differently regarding patents than other industries that are less well publicized. How should companies that create an innovation behave with what they've patented? Ignore it and lose the patent? Then why bother with patents in the first place? I don't follow the logic about "defensive" patents as it seems to not address how patents are intended to function.
- aidos 13y agoPinch to zoom has become such a standard in interface interaction that I didn't question it until switching to google's map app on the iPhone. Their double click and drag behaviour is superior in that you don't need two hands. You know something is wrong with your UI when users sometimes resort to putting their nose on the screen of their phone.
- webjprgm 13y agoActually, I can pinch-to-zoom using my thumb and pointer-finger on the screen with my remaining three fingers holding the phone. It's awkward, but works in a pinch (haha). I much prefer a gesture that makes intuitive sense. Pinch-to-zoom is very easy to learn and just seemed right the first time I saw it. I haven't tried the double-tap+scroll gesture you mention, but it sounds like something that would be a tad trickier and less obvious.
- jlgreco 13y agoI use to use the thumb/forefinger technique until I got my current phone. An S3 is just too big for my hand to manage it without becoming a drop risk. Then again I've never used a case with my phones and haven't had a problem with that, so maybe I'm just overly cautious.
- angersock 13y agoI'm not ashamed to admit that my usual tablet browsing right before bed has my left hand holding the tablet, my right hand and thumb scrolling, and sometimes my nose pushing on links. I regret nothing.
- girvo 13y agoHere I was, thinking I was the only one who did that.
- Retric 13y agoNot to defend pinch to zoom, but If you need two hands you may want to change how your holding your phone. Index and thumb on the screen, other three fingers to hold the back.
- drewda 13y agoThe HCI researcher Bill Buxton has a quite comprehensive run-down titled "Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved ": http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
- bougiefever 13y agoI want to patent The Wave. You know, when you see someone you know, and you raise your arm with your palm facing out, moving your hand in a horizontal motion. Yea, that wave. No one has patented it yet, so I'm going to claim it.
- admsyn 13y agoThis type of snark comes up whenever the patent system is discussed. However, isn't the fact that this would (presumably) not be approved an argument in their favour?
- DigitalSea 13y agoFinally, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does their job correctly and rejects a ridiculous patent. Hopefully only one of many ambiguous patents denied in the coming months and years. Gestures should not be patentable whatsoever and Apple are deluded for thinking so. I guess when you have billions of cash at your disposal your imagination knows no bounds as to what you think you are entitled to.