Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 108 posts

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#21

Post by Retric »

aidos wrote: post #17

Pinch 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.

Not 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.

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#23

Post by JamesArgo »

jauer wrote: post #18
NelsonMinar wrote: post #11

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?

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.

It will really be heartbreaking if Danny Hillis becomes a patent troll.

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#24

Post by sytelus »

jauer wrote: post #18
NelsonMinar wrote: post #11

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?

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.

Well, you might want to get familiar with IV. http://tinyurl.com/pxa6m9w. They are likely the most dangerous troll there is. This fox had masked itself as sheep for pretty long time by combination of favorable reports from top tier journalists, their giant PR machine, projects such as mosquito killing lasers for 3rd world, promises of no first attack, backing of Bill Gates and so on. They had been only recently been uncovered as having literally 1000s of shell companies suing small and large companies for patent infringement. Outside of their tiny fraction of showpiece projects like mosquito killing lasers their most of the "innovations" are done by bunch of people sitting in a conference rooms and trying to "solve" problems by thinking of ideas that they almost never verify/productize or whatever but just wait for someone else to try so they can get piece of their reward for thinking it first.

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#25

Post by thezilch »

bluthru wrote: post #14
thezilch wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Specifically...

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=H...

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#26

Post by chucknelson »

Retric wrote: post #21
aidos wrote: post #17

Pinch 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.

Not 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.

Exactly. Who exactly uses two hands to do pinch-to-zoom on a phone? I've never seen that.

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#27

Post by stephenlovell »

JamesArgo wrote: post #23
jauer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will really be heartbreaking if Danny Hillis becomes a patent troll.

From 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/w...

Part Two (When Patents Attack): http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/w...

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#28

Post by jpreiland »

chucknelson wrote: post #26
Retric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not 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.

Exactly. Who exactly uses two hands to do pinch-to-zoom on a phone? I've never seen that.

I do occasionally (meaning one hand holding, one hand doing the pinching and zooming. Not one finger from each hand doing the pinch-to-zoom). It's easier to do, and more accurate in my experience. I do pinch-to-zoom with one hand sometimes, but I find that I can't always get it right.

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#29

Post by NelsonMinar »

jauer wrote: post #18
NelsonMinar wrote: post #11

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?

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.

I'm a long time fan of Danny's work and am disappointed in his affiliation with IV. I'd love to hear his side of the story. (I still have this fantasy that IV is an elaborate prank to demonstrate how awful the US patent system is, but at this point that'd be an awfully long con.)

Despite being a dangerous, destructive company, Intellectual Ventures has a lot of smart people associated with it. Myhrvold himself is no slouch and many of the folks who go to the infamous dinner parties with paralegals taking notes are interesting people.

Here's IV's marketing on some of their "inventors": http://www.intellectualventures.com/index.php/inventor-netwo... http://www.intellectualventures.com/index.php/inventor-netwo...

Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent

#30

Post by jlgreco »

webjprgm wrote: post #20
aidos wrote: post #17

Pinch 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 trick…

I 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.

Post reply on HN