But I presume the companies that have been paying royalties for half a decade won't get their money back.
I've long advocated for refund clauses in royalty settlement agreements, in the eventuality that the patent is invalidated.
US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
31–40 of 108 posts
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#32I 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.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#33Interesting 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?
When people are not allowed to patent the end result.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#34Pinch 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.
Problem with Google Maps' iPhone implementation (double-tap, then slide) is that it's unintuitive.
Source: I didn't know it existed before now. (It's awesome btw, thanks!)
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#35Pinch 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 .
I 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.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#36Pinch 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 .
I 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 minut…
Minority report's UI was functional - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6YTQJVzwlI
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#37my 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,…
> 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."
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#38Apple are really patent sick.
Compared 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.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#39Pinch 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.
You seem to be saying you need two hands to pinch and zoom on an iPhone. You're doing it wrong! You should also know that something is wrong with your argument when you have to resort to fabricated anecdotes.
Re: US patent office rejects claims of Apple 'pinch to zoom' patent
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm confused. Bas Ording is the designer at Apple who invented it. Scott Forestall is also listed. I'd guess that all of the investors listed were Apple employees.