Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: undefined

#21
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.

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#22
post #16

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.

When I first saw pinch-to-zoom I thought it was really cool, but in the long run it is one of those things that works better in "delightful" demos than in the real world.

In the real world I much prefer double-tab and two-finger tap to zoom in and out. You don't get quite the same level of "accuracy" as you do with pinch, but precise zoom is largely useless on phone/tablets anyway.

Re: undefined

#23
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.

The first part of your comment depends entirely on the unfounded accusation you made in the second part of your comment. ("I'm not convinced Apple would license that IP to Samsung.")

Apple has licensed patents to competitors in the past, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't in this case.

Re: undefined

#24
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, ease of implementation is the wrong way to evaluate patents.

However, I don't see the real benefit of apple (or others) having patents like this. If they could not patent it, I think they would have included it in their product anyway. It's a cool feature. They got a head start. That's the value of creating something new--a head start. Things move too fast for there to be any real benefit to the general good by granting monopolies for 17 years. People will still create things because you can make a lot of money with a head start, particularly if you're the type of person/company that can maintain that lead by continuing to build great products without resorting to monopoly tactics.

The dropdown menu is a good example where I don't see much difference between a dropdown menu and pinch to zoom.

Re: undefined

#25
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It was invented long ago, one of the reasons that Apple lost the patent was that there was prior art.

Re: undefined

#26
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

IIRC, early touch screens were resistive, rather than capacitive, which didn't support multi-touch. without multitouch, no pinch. the interface has existed in movies for a long time and it just took bringing down the cost of capacitive touch screens. If Apple chooses, their size and market following allow them to bring tech to the consumer faster. That's why they got pinch to zoom first, not because of clever innovation.

Re: undefined

#27
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

It was (1983): http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Re: undefined

#28
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.

Google Maps for iOS lets you double tap and drag up/down to zoom. It's a pretty nice implementation, just harder to discover.

Re: undefined

#29
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a common fallacy when it comes to inventions.

I have a Ph.D. in an engineering field, so I'm not easily impressed. That said, the inventions which are truly revolutionary are the ones where as soon as someone describes it you think "man, that makes perfect sense".

Yes, it makes perfect sense because it's the correct solution. That doesn't make it obvious before someone came along and spelled it out, nor guarantee that someone else would have invented it earlier.

There are some types of inventions "whose time has come". These will get invented at around a particular time by virtue of the supporting technology existing. Take the brightness control of LEDs using PWM and color mixing of different LED colors to make color changing LED lighting. Philips actually has a patent on this, from 1999. It was an idea whose time had come, and others came up with it independently many times since and frankly probably quite a few times before. But it was inevitable. I think it was a bad patent because it was obvious even in 1999 that you could use PWM, common already, to vary power through a LED to control brightness. It was also obvious in 1999 that you could mix two different primary colors together to form a mixed color. Patents aren't supposed to be awarded by simply taking two already obvious things and adding them together (or at least so says my patent attorney, who is perhaps too ethical about what she'll let me put into an application). But besides all that, I would argue that any "idea whose time has come" is probably also inherently obvious to someone skilled in the art at the time of interest.

On the other hand, there are some ideas which are not limited by any technology; they are limited by the creativity of humans. Take for instance the liquid metal battery that my employer works on. You float a molten anode metal on a slightly denser molten salt electrolyte on a slightly denser molten cathode metal, and bam, super high energy density, super high power density, low cost, long life-time battery. This is, in my opinion, an actual invention. There was nothing stopping someone from coming up with it earlier... but no one did. Why? Because it was non-obvious. It's still simple, conceptually at least.

As far as pinching to zoom? Honestly, I think it's somewhere between these things. Just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it's obvious. It's clearly more of a jump from a zoom button to a multitouch gesture than the jump from "LEDs can have variable brightness and different colors" to "LEDs can be mixed to make color changing lights". But it's also probably an idea whose time had come, by virtue of multitouch starting to exist. But I doubt any of that had anything to do with why it was invalidated; my guess would be that it was invalidated because of sufficient prior art to render it an obvious extension of existing technology.

Re: undefined

#30
post #4

Nice of them to invalidate them - now - after they already passed them and Apple already used them in lawsuits - and won with them. But better late than never, I guess.

Companies should be securing clawbacks in patent settlements upon invalidation.
Post reply on HN