Untitled topic

You don't need to guess; if you read the patent that invalidates most of Apple's claims, you'll see a picture of a man doing a very similar movement of pinch to zoom ('though with a finger from each hand, since the screen depicted is much bigger).

http://www.google.com/patents?id=W0PRAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA5&#38...

A few points to help put this in context:

1. Technically, the USPTO hasn't yet "invalidated" the patent; it issued a first "Office action" in which it stated that all of the patents claims were unpatentable in view of varying combinations of prior-art references.

2. Institutionally the USPTO is very much aware of the significance of reexamination for a patent in litigation.

3. The Office action was signed by a "primary" examiner, i.e., someone who has been around the block a few times. Another primary examiner and a supervisory primary examiner are listed as "conferees." You would be right to read this as a signal that the USPTO takes these matters very seriously; the detailed written analysis (which I haven't studied) seems to bear this out.

4. The primary reference cited is a patent [1] filed in November 2005 whose lead inventor was Danny Hillis --- dare I say, the legendary Danny Hillis [2].

Another main reference is a Japanese patent publication from 2000, referred to as the Nomura reference.

5. In responding to the rejection, Apple can try to establish that their inventors predated Hillis's November 2005 filing date. This is referred to as "swearing behind" the Hillis patent's filing date [3]. But the Apple inventors' filing date is January 2007; swearing behind that far would be a real challenge. (I won't go into the details of the statute and regulation unless people are interested.)

Apple can't swear behind the 2000 Nomura publication because it was published more than one year before Apple's January 2007 filing date --- see 35 USC 102(b).

6. Paragraph 14 on page 34 is pretty typical: It says, in effect, "you'd better take your best shot at contesting this rejection now, Apple, because the next time around it will be a final rejection."

7. If, as seems likely, the USPTO does issue a final rejection, Apple can appeal, first to an administrative appellate body in the USPTO, and if necessary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit is required by Supreme Court precedent to be fairly deferential to the USPTO's findings in some respects, but it's not entirely clear to me how that would play out here.

[EDITED FOR STYLE]

[1] http://www.google.com/patents/US7724242

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Daniel_Hillis

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swear_back_of_a_reference

This isn't something that was initiated within the patent office. An external attorney filed a reexamination request, paid for it (thousands in fees), and included literally hundreds of pages of explanation as to why the patent should be struck down, with references to hundreds of pages of prior art. From that, it is much easier for an examiner to determine whether the patent should be struck down.

This is not something that a patent examiner has the tools, training, and, most importantly, time to do on initial application. So I wouldn't expect any changes from the patent office itself.

Gimmicky might be a stretch, but I genuinely can't think of the last time I used pinch to zoom. When browsing a double-tap zooms to the width of the element you're tapping, which is perfect.

I think this is actually a bad thing because at a certain point it discourages innovation and the creation of new things because competitors will just copy whatever you create. I'm not for patent trolls making money for simply owning someone else's invention, but I feel like if you invent something, patent your invention, and build a real product around that invention, then the patent should be upheld.

Otherwise, you might as well cut most R&D spending and focus on reverse engineering. Getting really good at following fast is probably a lot cheaper than getting really good at inventing new things that turn into products.

Also, then you could spend a smaller fraction of money to "acquire" (through various means) the schematics and trade secrets and produce your own version of the next big thing. Sure, that is probably unethical, but without any semblance of protection via patents, trademarks, other IP law, it seems like that is what you would get.

That being said, as it gets cheaper to distribute information and turn that information into physical goods, the amount of value in the production of physical goods is going to approach the cost to manufacture those goods. There will always be some money in service, repair, etc. but a lot of things value will be destroyed along the way and it is not yet clear if that is a net positive for society at large.