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

41–50 of 108 posts

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

#41

Post by baddox »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #35
btilly wrote: post #8

Pinch 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…

> If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either.

Good.

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

#42

Post by baddox »

pud wrote: post #34
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.

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!)

That's hardly what I would consider a problem, since the app also supports pinch-to-zoom. The double-tap and slide method is purely additive.

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

#43

Post by baddox »

epo wrote: post #39
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.

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.

Pinch-to-zoom with one hand is extremely awkward, unreliable, and inaccurate. It's also a great way to drop your phone when you're standing on a crowded bus.

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

#44

Post by lh7777 »

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 just tried this one handed suggestion - first time ever in my 6 years using an iPhone - and I can see why I never thought of it. Extremely awkward and imprecise. I don't get why anyone would do that. Do you have giant hands?

For zooming, I've always used the double-tap method. This generally works fine for zooming in and out on Safari, and it works for zooming in on Maps. I can do a two-finger double tap on Maps to zoom out, but it's still pretty awkward so I'll keep switching to two-handed mode for those (rare) instances.

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

#45

Post by shmerl »

mitchty wrote: post #38
shmerl wrote: post #15

Apple 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.

Compared 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.

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

#46

Post by Dylan16807 »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #35
btilly wrote: post #8

Pinch 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…

Patents are supposed to be on mechanisms, not effects. If you figure out a way to travel through time, your patent only applies to that particular way. Pinch to zoom is something with almost no behind-the-scenes mechanism to it, and what mechanism might be valid for a patent existed in the movie.

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

#47

Post by aidos »

pud wrote: post #34
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.

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!)

I agree that it's hidden away but it's really easy to use once you know it's there.

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

#48

Post by Samuel_Michon »

baddox wrote: post #41
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If that’s valid prior art, then patents for functioning time machines won’t hold up either. Good.

Point 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.

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

#49

Post by Steko »

bluthru wrote: post #3

We 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.

Ah yes, the conventional wisdom that doing something before a public demo somehow constitutes a huge prior art gotcha.

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

#50

Post by mitchty »

shmerl wrote: post #45
mitchty wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compared 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 use…

How 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.

Post reply on HN