Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#91

Post by eagsalazar2 » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:24 AM UTC

brianpan wrote: post #75

georgemcbay wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The strength of pinch-to-zoom as a UI interaction is that it is direct manipulation. It has less to do with accuracy. Two-finger tap is a "computer command" to do something. Pinch is you doing the thing you want to do.

That's a good heuristic but it doesn't trump the fact that it is physically much more difficult than double-tap or tapping zoom in/out buttons when holding a device and controlling it with the same hand which is what you want 95% of the time. Pinch zoom is definitely less usable overall.

For example, when driving nails, in theory it would be great if you could just push them into the wood but in real life a hammer turns out to be handier.

BTW, not sure about ios but in android you can turn the +/- zoom buttons back on in labs.

Re: undefined

#92

Post by rossjudson » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:28 AM UTC

michaelhoffman wrote: post #35

fusiongyro wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hoping it's a sign of change within the Patent Office. If this becomes a regular occurrence I'll be extremely happy.

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 someth…

Those fees, at least, should be charged back to the filer of the original patent, who should have supplied the necessary references in their initial patent application. Which they don't want to do, of course.

Re: undefined

#93

Post by rossjudson » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:29 AM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #22

seles wrote: 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.

I'm fine with pinch-to-zoom. When coupled with rotation it's a nightmare. Lock the axes, please.

Re: undefined

#94

Post by zmmmmm » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:32 AM UTC

thefreeman wrote: post #61

zmmmmm wrote: post #46

It's curious that Samsung's lawyers didn't manage to bring about the invalidation during trial, if its lack of validity was evident enough that the patent office is now retracting it. I'm curious if a) Samsung did present the evidence that the patent office relied on to invalidate but it was rejected by the jury or b) Samsung wasn't allowed to present it for some reason or c) Samsung didn't try to present it Option a…

Are you sure that pinch to zoom was one of the issues for the Samsung suit? All I recall is the "rebound effect" when you reach the end of a page, and the physical design of the galaxy tab

Yeah, I had the same thought ... but multiple sources are reporting that it was one of the patents at issue in the trial. I think it's not a generic "pinch to zoom" patent but specific logic for distinguishing a pinch to zoom from other gestures.

Re: undefined

#95

Post by M8R-fhlcjm » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:39 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #56

M8R-fhlcjm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

economies of countries with patent rights exceed economies without patents. And at the top is the U.S.A. with strongest patent rights.

Well if you look at regular GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom... , China is right there at #2. They are hardly known for their strong patent enforcement. To the contrary, they're known for "lax IP" and as a place where anyone can start a factory and start making almost anything for export . They're said to be growing faster than the US too, probably in no small part because it's easier…

China's relative recent rise is predicated on copying - not innovating. As patent rights are weakened, investors are increasingly reluctant to invest in $costly American R&D that can just be copied at a fraction of the R&D $cost.

Pick your poison: compete with China on lowest cost vs. high end jobs innovating. Except the later affords a more affluent lifestyle while the former require suicide nets in their buildings: http://i.imgur.com/JwBDR.jpg

Re: undefined

#96

Post by M8R-fhlcjm » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:43 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82

marshray wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you look at regular GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom... , China is right there at #2. They are hardly known for their strong patent enforcement. To the contrary, they're known for "lax IP" and as a place where anyone can start a factory and start making almost anything for export . They're said to be growing faster than the US too, probably in no small part because it's easier…

Forget about all of that, you're just feeding the troll. The troll's premise is that correlation is causation, i.e. that large economies generally have patent systems and therefore that patent systems cause or are necessary to maintain large economies. This logic leads to the conclusion that an ostentatious capitol building is necessary for economic prosperity, because most major economies have an ostentatious capita…

I see, "troll" because I don't conform to your opinion. What is this, slashdot?

> Try asking it to prove that the economic prosperity is caused by the patent system rather than merely correlated.

About as provable as the opposite.

Re: undefined

#97

Post by M8R-fhlcjm » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:46 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #86

marshray wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you look at regular GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom... , China is right there at #2. They are hardly known for their strong patent enforcement. To the contrary, they're known for "lax IP" and as a place where anyone can start a factory and start making almost anything for export . They're said to be growing faster than the US too, probably in no small part because it's easier…

The China example is some terrible reasoning and also doesn't really play into your narrative. China is growing faster because 1) it's sacrificing lots of things Americans are too rich to be willing to sacrifice for the sake of growth; 2) it's in a much earlier phase of development and thus capturing low hanging fruit. Re: innovation, the Chinese aren't known for strong patent enforcement, but they're also not known…

China's idea of stepping up IP enforcement is case-by-case. Read: however it benefits the Chinese company vs the foreigner.

Also useful to note their increase is mainly quantity. Superficial.

Re: undefined

#98

Post by M8R-fhlcjm » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:47 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #78

M8R-fhlcjm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

economies of countries with patent rights exceed economies without patents. And at the top is the U.S.A. with strongest patent rights.

You also might ask: How did the US get to the top in the first place? It was not exactly known for respecting English and German patents in the 19th century...

sure, and now China is repeating history.

Re: undefined

#99

Post by rustynails77 » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:49 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #78

M8R-fhlcjm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

economies of countries with patent rights exceed economies without patents. And at the top is the U.S.A. with strongest patent rights.

You also might ask: How did the US get to the top in the first place? It was not exactly known for respecting English and German patents in the 19th century...

WWII baby. The US blackmailed the UK out of its patents (in return for assistance) and the US basically took all of Germany's IP as payment. I'll get modded to hell for that - but it had to be said.

Re: undefined

#100

Post by stock_toaster » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 2:50 AM UTC

michaelhoffman wrote: post #89

stock_toaster wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it work like that? If you were bootlegging during prohibition, and convicted, would your conviction be repealed afterwards? It was technically illegal at the time. Maybe someone with more knowledge of law on here knows if this is the case with patent law or not.

rhizome appears to be talking about people negotiating settlement agreements where the payments are clawed back when a patent is later found invalid. This would take agreement on both sides before the settlement, and I doubt patent holders would go for it. Worth a try though.

Aha. That makes more sense. Thanks.