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

51–60 of 108 posts

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

#51

Post by shmerl »

mitchty wrote: post #50
shmerl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eth…

How should a "normal tech company" behave exactly?

Rather simple. It should have a base principle to be opposed to software patents. It should not patent trivial things, it should be opposed to functional claiming and etc. If patents are used, they should be used for defensive pools against aggressors, not to engage in aggression themselves. That's what I call normal.

Twitter recently adopted such methodology. Others before them are doing the same thing for a long time already (Red Hat for example).

Patents were never intended to function the way they function now. Firstly software patents shouldn't even exist. Secondly patents are supposed to help innovation and not to ban competition. The former is rarely the case, while the later is extremely common.

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

#52

Post by aidos »

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.

Erm, Steve Jobs? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2MOwQ089eQ&t=52m55s

I've hardly ever seen people zooming with one hand (one hand on the screen, sure, but the other hand holding the phone). Maybe it works for you but, having just tried it, I find it very clumsy.

I've just looked through a load of random videos of people using their phones on youtube and I didn't see a single one where people are holding it with 3 fingers behind and two in front.

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

#53

Post by admsyn »

bougiefever wrote: post #32

I 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.

This 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?

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

#54

Post by Steko »

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…

"Compared to how normal tech company should behave."

Shrug, Apple negotiates above board and pays Amazon tens of millions for one click (possibly bullshit). Apple negotiates above board and pays billions for walking all over Nokia's patents. Samsung walks all over Apple's design (according to Google lawyers) and Apple's (possibly bullshit) patents and Googlerola negotiates for a farcial 5%+ of revenue for one (possibly bullshit) standards patent and yet it's Apple who is the huge villain for going after them. Got it, Apple is supposed to write checks to other companies, never cash any and Google and friends get a lifetime free pass for infringement because they talk about being "open".

"We don't use patents offensively" tends to be propaganda from companies with bad patent portfolios.

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

#55

Post by shmerl »

Steko wrote: post #54
shmerl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Compared to how normal tech company should behave." Shrug, Apple negotiates above board and pays Amazon tens of millions for one click (possibly bullshit). Apple negotiates above board and pays billions for walking all over Nokia's patents. Samsung walks all over Apple's design (according to Google lawyers) and Apple's (possibly bullshit) patents and Googlerola negotiates for a farcial 5%+ of revenue for one (possib…

>Apple negotiates above board and pays Amazon tens of millions for one click (possibly bullshit)

So? Amazon is also patent sick. As well as Nokia and other patent aggressors. Is that news? It's not an excuse for any of them.

"Good portfolio" does not include ridiculously idiotic patents like one click, round corners or anything like that. It doesn't even include any software patents at all.

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

#56

Post by rayiner »

baddox wrote: post #43
epo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The root of the confusion here is that iphones are a lot smaller than most android phones. I'm holding a blackberry bold right now, and pinch with two fingers while holding the phone with three works just fine and is plenty secure.

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

#57

Post by rayiner »

admsyn wrote: post #53
bougiefever wrote: post #32

I 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.

This 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?

Damning with faint praise.

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

#58

Post by rayiner »

shmerl wrote: post #51
mitchty wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eth…

How should a "normal tech company" behave exactly? Rather simple. It should have a base principle to be opposed to software patents. It should not patent trivial things, it should be opposed to functional claiming and etc. If patents are used, they should be used for defensive pools against aggressors, not to engage in aggression themselves. That's what I call normal. Twitter recently adopted such methodology. Others…

The mechanism by which patents work, though, is by (temporarily) banning competition.

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

#59

Post by ksk »

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 doubt pinch to zoom falls in that category then. The vast majority of innovative (or unique) touch based interactions/gestures have to be learnt and cannot be intuited. As you know, intuition just means your brain recognizes a pattern.

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

#60

Post by btilly »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #46
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…

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.

I could post my own explanation of why I said what I said, but it would merely be this one, more poorly worded. :-)
Post reply on HN