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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 133 posts

Re: undefined

#11

Post by jallmann »

cmelbye wrote: post #5

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.

Older Android browsers (Google Maps for Android has something nearly identical with the +/- buttons. I've yet to find another browser that implements this behavior (Android 2.3 removed it for whatever reason).

Pinch-to-zoom has always felt gimmicky in comparison. Having to use two hands is annoying.

Re: undefined

#12

Post by fusiongyro »

Osiris wrote: post #10

I've been thinking lately that with the number of patents in existence, the likelihood that a newly submit patent application is truly novel without any invalidating prior art is probably very low. The USPTO should start each review under the premis that the application will probably be denied unless the application includes sufficient justification for it being truly novel. If the USPTO started denying the majority…

Except it's impossible to prove the absence of prior art, while proving the existence of it is pretty easy.

Re: undefined

#13

Post by tobyjsullivan »

cmelbye wrote: post #5

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.

And if Apple had their way (and their patent) we would still be tapping that magnifying glass because nobody else could feature pinch-to-zoom.

And I'm not convinced Apple would license that IP to Samsung.

Re: undefined

#14

Post by [deleted] »

jallmann wrote: post #11
cmelbye wrote: post #5

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.

Older Android browsers ( Google Maps for Android has something nearly identical with the +/- buttons. I've yet to find another browser that implements this behavior (Android 2.3 removed it for whatever reason). Pinch-to-zoom has always felt gimmicky in comparison. Having to use two hands is annoying.

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#15

Post by danilocampos »

mtgx wrote: post #8
cmelbye wrote: post #5

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.

That's like saying you can't use drop-down menus on the web, because one site did it first. I'm not saying in other cases that it might not have taken longer for the others to figure it out (months, years?). I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is. Maybe if the patent system made a bit more sense, we wouldn't be so much agains…

> I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is.

If it was so "easy", why wasn't it invented a long time ago?

Re: undefined

#16

Post by seles »

I don't even like pinch to zoom. It is hard/impossible to do when using the phone one handed. It is also annoying in apps like google's new maps for iOS because it is hard to not also rotate the map, which is hardly ever the desired outcome.

Re: undefined

#17

Post by cmelbye »

jallmann wrote: post #11
cmelbye wrote: post #5

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.

Older Android browsers ( Google Maps for Android has something nearly identical with the +/- buttons. I've yet to find another browser that implements this behavior (Android 2.3 removed it for whatever reason). Pinch-to-zoom has always felt gimmicky in comparison. Having to use two hands is annoying.

I actually never mentioned Android in my comment, I was merely stating that zooming functionality generally worked like that prior to iPhone. For example, on Blackberry, Pocket PC, etc.

Re: undefined

#18

Post by apendleton »

Osiris wrote: post #10

I've been thinking lately that with the number of patents in existence, the likelihood that a newly submit patent application is truly novel without any invalidating prior art is probably very low. The USPTO should start each review under the premis that the application will probably be denied unless the application includes sufficient justification for it being truly novel. If the USPTO started denying the majority…

USPTO denies over 90% of initial applications, and even with appeals factored in, less than 50% of applications end up getting approved (it was 48% in 2011).

Re: undefined

#19

Post by cmelbye »

mtgx wrote: post #8
cmelbye wrote: post #5

That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.

That's like saying you can't use drop-down menus on the web, because one site did it first. I'm not saying in other cases that it might not have taken longer for the others to figure it out (months, years?). I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is. Maybe if the patent system made a bit more sense, we wouldn't be so much agains…

You obviously misunderstand patents, as they have absolutely nothing to do with how easy something is to implement. They're awarded to companies that take risks, research, and invent something new.

It's a fundamental mistake to write off a "simple" invention as easy to come up with, obvious, a no-brainer, etc. Simplicity is difficult.

Re: undefined

#20

Post by tapsboy »

fusiongyro wrote: post #12
Osiris wrote: post #10

I've been thinking lately that with the number of patents in existence, the likelihood that a newly submit patent application is truly novel without any invalidating prior art is probably very low. The USPTO should start each review under the premis that the application will probably be denied unless the application includes sufficient justification for it being truly novel. If the USPTO started denying the majority…

Except it's impossible to prove the absence of prior art, while proving the existence of it is pretty easy.

Yep. Finite set of prior art < Infinite set of everything else
Post reply on HN