Interesting 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?
US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
11–20 of 108 posts
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#12my 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,…
Software 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/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.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#13We 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.
"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...
And 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-pat...
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#14We 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.
"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...
Sorry, but what specifically is the "prior art" being referenced?
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#15Apple are really patent sick.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#16Interesting 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?
Great, 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?
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#17Pinch 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.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#18Interesting 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?
Given 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.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#19Pinch 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.
I'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.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#20Pinch 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.
Actually, 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.