PDA

View Full Version : USPTO Again Rejects Apple's Claim of Pinch-to-Zoom Patent




MacRumors
Jul 29, 2013, 10:38 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/29/uspto-again-rejects-apples-claim-of-pinch-to-zoom-patent/)


The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has rejected claims by Apple that Samsung Electronics infringed on its "pinch-to-zoom" patent - one of the decisive claims in the ongoing litigations between the two tech giants. The patent, No. 7,844,915 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,844,91 5.PN.&OS=PN/7,844,915&RS=PN/7,844,915), was first filed back in November 2010 and described, "an environment with user interface software interacting with a software application".

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/03/ipad_3_hand.jpg
The patent was preliminarily rejected back in December 2012 (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/19/uspto-preliminarily-rejects-apples-pinch-to-zoom-patent/) before the final verdict was delivered today as they were anticipated, according to Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9241172/US_patent_office_rejects_claims_of_Apple_pinch_to_zoom_patent), either by previous patents or were deemed unpatentable (as the technology has already been copied in other mobile operating systems, such as Google's Android).

During the original trials, the jury found that 21 out of the 24 Samsung smartphones and tablets presented to them as evidence infringed on Apple's pinch-to-zoom feature, which was first introduced on the original iPhone back in 2007.*The patent covered a gesture whereby users can "pinch" outwards to zoom into an image, document or file.

The decision may have a serious impact on the ongoing trial, which saw Apple win a landmark victory against Samsung back in August 2012, in which it was awarded $1.05 billion in damages. Apple has up to two months to respond to the decision by the USPTO before it is finalised.

Article Link: USPTO Again Rejects Apple's Claim of Pinch-to-Zoom Patent (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/29/uspto-again-rejects-apples-claim-of-pinch-to-zoom-patent/)



teknikal90
Jul 29, 2013, 10:42 AM
Geez
Bad news Monday for apple..

quagmire
Jul 29, 2013, 10:48 AM
The patent was preliminarily rejected back in December 2012 before the final verdict was delivered today as they were anticipated, according to Computerworld, either by previous patents or were deemed unpatentable (as the technology has already been copied in other mobile operating systems, such as Google's Android).

Wasn't pinch to zoom one of the original 200+ patents Apple made before the iPhone debuted in 2007? So just because Android copied it later means the earlier patent before Android copied it is invalid? How is something unpatentable when Apple applied for the patent before it was copied?

Acidsplat
Jul 29, 2013, 10:51 AM
It's like trying to patent rounded corners-

Oh wait.

keysofanxiety
Jul 29, 2013, 10:52 AM
Wasn't pinch to zoom one of the original 200+ patents Apple made before the iPhone debuted in 2007? So just because Android copied it later means the earlier patent before Android copied it is invalid? How is something unpatentable when Apple applied for the patent before it was copied?

This, I absolutely agree.

"So let's not use a stylus, we're going to use the best pointing device in the world -- our fingers. We have invented a new technology called multi-touch. It works like magic, you don't need a stylus, far more accurate than any interface ever shipped, it ignores touches, mutli-finger gestures, and BOY have we patented it!" - Steve Jobs

SatManager
Jul 29, 2013, 10:54 AM
iOS which came out before android could not have copied android. Sounds likes someone just doesn't likes Apple.

jmh600cbr
Jul 29, 2013, 10:54 AM
I'm very pleased by this. I think that gestures such as pinch to zoom should not be patentable.

keysofanxiety
Jul 29, 2013, 10:54 AM
It's like trying to patent rounded corners-

Oh wait.

Hi Acidsplat,

Would you be kind enough to direct me to the patent Apple submitted for rounded corners? See, I keep hearing about it, but I can only assume it's FUD spread by Samsung as I can't find evidence of it anywhere.

Renzatic
Jul 29, 2013, 10:59 AM
Wasn't pinch to zoom one of the original 200+ patents Apple made before the iPhone debuted in 2007? So just because Android copied it later means the earlier patent before Android copied it is invalid? How is something unpatentable when Apple applied for the patent before it was copied?

For a couple of reasons.

1. Apple didn't come up with the concept of pinching to zoom on a touchscreen device. Their implementation is a little different than what's come before, but the basic idea had already walked around the blocks a few times before they got to it.

2. It's a gesture, and gestures on touchscreen devices need to be standardized across the board, not balkanized. Otherwise you'd have one company patenting things like the movements for using your finger to swipe left to turn a page, something that should be natural and immediately apparent.

Ventilatedbrain
Jul 29, 2013, 10:59 AM
I hate to be caught up in patent talk .. But pinch to zoom was revolutionary apple

jmh600cbr
Jul 29, 2013, 11:00 AM
For a couple of reasons.

1. Apple didn't come up with the concept of pinching to zoom on a touchscreen device. Their implementation is a little different than what's come before, but the basic idea had already walked around the blocks a few times before they got to it.

2. It's a gesture, and gestures on touchscreen devices need to be standardized across the board, not balkanized. Otherwise you'd have one company patenting things like the movements for using your finger to swipe left to turn a page, something that should be natural and immediately apparent.

This. Exactly this.

rdlink
Jul 29, 2013, 11:03 AM
For a couple of reasons.

1. Apple didn't come up with the concept of pinching to zoom on a touchscreen device. Their implementation is a little different than what's come before, but the basic idea had already walked around the blocks a few times before they got to it.

2. It's a gesture, and gestures on touchscreen devices need to be standardized across the board, not balkanized. Otherwise you'd have one company patenting things like the movements for using your finger to swipe left to turn a page, something that should be natural and immediately apparent.

First of all, show me who had it first.

Second, your second "reason" is not a reason, but an opinion. And a pretty messed up one, at that.

whooleytoo
Jul 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
Hi Acidsplat,

Would you be kind enough to direct me to the patent Apple submitted for rounded corners? See, I keep hearing about it, but I can only assume it's FUD spread by Samsung as I can't find evidence of it anywhere.

I think it's : this one (http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001).

It's not precisely a patent on rounded corners, but a community design patent in which rounded corners form an important part of the form factor.

quagmire
Jul 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
For a couple of reasons.

1. Apple didn't come up with the concept of pinching to zoom on a touchscreen device. Their implementation is a little different than what's come before, but the basic idea had already walked around the blocks a few times before they got to it.

2. It's a gesture, and gestures on touchscreen devices need to be standardized across the board, not balkanized. Otherwise you'd have one company patenting things like the movements for using your finger to swipe left to turn a page, something that should be natural and immediately apparent.

I get that argument.

I just don't get the argument of since Android copied it, it's unpatentable....

Overall I agree on gestures. I think the slide to unlock patent is the most messed up patent. Rubber banding effect? That's not necessary for touchscreen operation so I am fine with Apple being able to patent that.

pgiguere1
Jul 29, 2013, 11:07 AM
Wasn't pinch to zoom one of the original 200+ patents Apple made before the iPhone debuted in 2007? So just because Android copied it later means the earlier patent before Android copied it is invalid? How is something unpatentable when Apple applied for the patent before it was copied?

While I don't think pinch-to-zoom should be patentable in the first place, I too was confused by this part.

What's the point of a patent if it's invalidated just by the fact that it's not respected? That totally goes against its very purpose, doesn't it?

I know patents get invalidated when their owner don't take legal action to make sure they're respected, but that's not really what happened here…

That's similar to a prior art evidence, except it came after.
Can we call that "Post art" evidence? :confused: Makes no sense.

jmh600cbr
Jul 29, 2013, 11:10 AM
While I don't think pinch-to-zoom should be patentable in the first place, I too was confused by this part.

What's the point of a patent if it's invalidated just by the fact that it's not respected? That totally goes against its very purpose, doesn't it?

I know patents get invalidated when their owner don't take legal action to make sure they're respected, but that's not really what happened here...

From what I understand they applied back then, but were never approved. The lack of approval was in part to other touch screens using it.

Renzatic
Jul 29, 2013, 11:14 AM
First of all, show me who had it first.

edit: Here you go (http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html). This does a pretty good job of going over the basics.

Second, your second "reason" is not a reason, but an opinion. And a pretty messed up one, at that.

What's messed up is your supporting a first come first serve notion to natural movements. Think of it like this. How do you turn pages? You flip them left and right. How do you drag through webpages? You scroll up and down. They're natural and ergonomic gestures that just make sense. So if Apple were able to patent a one finger drag gesture on a device that's built to accept inputs that's designed mimic natural movements, they're basically patenting obvious interactions.

You flip pages left and right using your fingers, ergo it makes sense to use your finger to scroll left and right through pages on a touchscreen device. Just because it uses touch to achieve the desired results doesn't change the same basic idea. The gesture itself shouldn't be patentable. The underlying implementation in software should be all that matters here.

pgiguere1
Jul 29, 2013, 11:15 AM
From what I understand they applied back then, but were never approved. The lack of approval was in part to other touch screens using it.

Yeah I understand that. That would have made sense if said other touch screens had it before (prior art). They actually had it after the patent application.

So basically, patents are worthless if competitors can copy you faster than it takes time for the USPTO to approve the patent. At the pace technology is evolving, and considering it takes like 3 years to approve patents, that's a bit ridiculous.

But all this is assuming pinch-to-zoom was part of the original patents Apple applied for in 2007, what quagmire is suggesting, but I'm not sure it is.

ufwa
Jul 29, 2013, 11:20 AM
While I don't think pinch-to-zoom should be patentable in the first place, I too was confused by this part.

What's the point of a patent if it's invalidated just by the fact that it's not respected? That totally goes against its very purpose, doesn't it?

I know patents get invalidated when their owner don't take legal action to make sure they're respected, but that's not really what happened here…

That's similar to a prior art evidence, except it came after.
Can we call that "Post art" evidence? :confused: Makes no sense.

This is nothing more than Macrumors being cute and adding commentary.

No where does Computerworld state "as the technology has already been copied in other mobile operating systems, such as Google's Android."

the USPTO would be stupid to reject it saying its found in use after Apple applied for it

Renzatic
Jul 29, 2013, 11:21 AM
So basically, patents are worthless if competitors can copy you faster than it takes time for the USPTO to approve the patent. At the pace technology is evolving, and considering it takes like 3 years to approve patents, that's a bit ridiculous.

I'm sure there's more to it than what we're seeing here. The only way Android could be used as prior art is if they had it before 2007. Anything that comes after the introduction of an idea can't be used to invalidate a patent.

The three things that can kill a patent are prior art, obviousness, or registering something so specific it's the only way to achieve an end result.

jmh600cbr
Jul 29, 2013, 11:21 AM
Yeah I understand that. That would have made sense if said other touch screens had it before (prior art). They actually had it after the patent application.

So basically, patents are worthless if competitors can copy you faster than it takes time for the USPTO to approve the patent. At the pace technology is evolving, and considering it takes like 3 years to approve patents, that's a bit ridiculous.

But all this is assuming pinch-to-zoom was part of the original patents Apple applied for in 2007, what quagmire is suggesting, but I'm not sure it is.

As far as I know anything that copies a "patent pending", if the patent is approved is considered a copy. Once the application is filled copyright does apply. That said, I still think that pinch to zoom and other functional gestures should not be patentable.

lolkthxbai
Jul 29, 2013, 11:22 AM
I'm very pleased by this. I think that gestures such as pinch to zoom should not be patentable.

Why?

Piggie
Jul 29, 2013, 11:26 AM
But, and I think we all know this deep down.

When a new type of product comes out.

Car, Boat, Plane, Tablet, Knife, Mouse.....................

There are times, and must come a time when a patent is not upheld as it is damaging to everyone on the planet, as everyone is a consumer even CEO's of companies.

When the new device/product is invented? people will play with variations before the work out a bicycle is best with two wheels the size they are and a chain crank to the back wheel. The car does have the front wheels steering via a circular wheel, The plane would have that wing shape for lift. A tablet would be a flat sheet of glass and you would use fingers to manipulate what's on screen.

Sure, copywrite come things, specific things, but none of us would own anything much now if Apple did what Apple tried to do now, say 100 or 200 years ago

itjw
Jul 29, 2013, 11:44 AM
I just patented breathing in (breathing out was sadly already taken, but we worked something out so I'm not in violation).

Now to the ugliness. You are in violation of my patent. As are you, and you, and that guy, and that hot chick... totally gonna sue her, and that kid, and...

When you patent (or try to patent) something that is silly and ubiquitous (like pinching, or rounded corners, or sliding to unlock... I'd even say bonceback), you are BEGGING to be violated if your product becomes popular. In fact, if you think it will, the smart thing to do IS to patent every silly thing you can think of, then sick your lawyer on whomever dare copy it.

I love my Apple stuff. But the patents they have are seemingly almost entirely for the purpose of lawsuits. That's fine by me (I'm an attorney), but I still think it's ridiculous.

USPTO got this one right. Can't patent something already commonplace just because you think someone might copy you if you make it popular first. If Samsung made a tablet before Apple it would have been a disaster, but it probably would have still had rounded courners and pinch to zoom...

Just wouldn't have sold at all :D

B4U
Jul 29, 2013, 11:46 AM
Pinch to zoom is not at all natural when comparing to flipping pages or even breathing. The argument of breathing is totally childish.
I can use books as an example for flipping pages with a real object.
Name one real world object that zooms in when you pinch it.
(Except your loved ones' cheeks. I was reminded last night...LOL)
If it was never applied before and makes all the sense now, maybe they should make it a FRAND patent.

nutjob
Jul 29, 2013, 11:53 AM
What is wrong with the patent office doesn't it realize that Apple invented everything!

Let's face. Apple isn't interested in innovation because it doesn't do any. It has a great marketing machine and now it's deep in the patent troll business. Sad.

alent1234
Jul 29, 2013, 11:55 AM
Wasn't pinch to zoom one of the original 200+ patents Apple made before the iPhone debuted in 2007? So just because Android copied it later means the earlier patent before Android copied it is invalid? How is something unpatentable when Apple applied for the patent before it was copied?

you can patent everything you want and the patent office will sign off on it. the problem is when it challenged. multi touch has a long history going back to the 70's

nutjob
Jul 29, 2013, 12:00 PM
Wasn't pinch to zoom one of the original 200+ patents Apple made before the iPhone debuted in 2007? So just because Android copied it later means the earlier patent before Android copied it is invalid? How is something unpatentable when Apple applied for the patent before it was copied?

Yes, all those 200+ patents are invalid it seems.

Read up on patents. Not everything is patentable because of prior art (someone's done it before) or it's obvious (including obvious extensions of prior art like this). There are other conditions too.

You seem to believe Apple's BS when they tell you they created something, or rather everything, that's all. People conveniently overlook that those who created the actual touch technology (the REAL innovators) also suggested various uses of it, obviously. Apple is little more than a "retailer" of other people's technology.

Gary03mw
Jul 29, 2013, 12:05 PM
For a couple of reasons.

2. It's a gesture, and gestures on touchscreen devices need to be standardized across the board, not balkanized. Otherwise you'd have one company patenting things like the movements for using your finger to swipe left to turn a page, something that should be natural and immediately apparent.


The problem with this is that these "natural and readily apparent" things you speak of aren't really that readily apparent. Sure, looking at pinch to zoom makes perfect sense to all of us now. All the swipes and gestures we do make sense to us now. Of course it's obvious to everyone in hindsight.

I'm of the opinion that Apple, or anyone else, should be able to patent these things but should be forced to license them under FRAND terms if it is necessary to compete in the current market.

cotak
Jul 29, 2013, 12:12 PM
I am of the opinion that patenting crap like pinch to zoom just hurts Apple in the end.

If anyone works with a unix environment at work then goes to a windows prompt and try to work there you have experienced the frustration that is automatically try to use unix commands in a windows command prompt.

Patenting things like pinch to zoom and enforcing it just makes a world where people have to switch how they do things between OSes. And in a world where Android is winning in the developing world (while Europe and America are basically de-developing as their state credit cards runs out) that's a big deal for Apple. While everyone thinks iOS is easy to use today, tomorrow that might not be the case if the majority of user are used to Android.

Renzatic
Jul 29, 2013, 12:18 PM
The problem with this is that these "natural and readily apparent" things you speak of aren't really that readily apparent. Sure, looking at pinch to zoom makes perfect sense to all of us now. All the swipes and gestures we do make sense to us now. Of course it's obvious to everyone in hindsight.

I can agree with you on pinch to zoom, it's not that obvious until you've seen it in action. Thing is, pinch to zoom has existed in the multitouch market for years. The article I linked to on the last page says they've been playing around with pinch gestures since the release of the original Macintosh back in '84.

As for the rest, how else would you use your fingers to flip through the digital pages of a book? Scroll through a webpage? Sort through your photos? It's obvious based on how people use their hands, and what they expect to happen through physical interaction with a touch based device. No one should own a patent on that.

Gestures need to be standardized because touchscreens extend well beyond the purview of Apple and the consumer market. You shouldn't have to change your expected methods of interaction with a device just because Company A owns a patent on a certain way you use your hands with their products, and Company B had to use a non-intuitive workaround to do the exact same thing.

quagmire
Jul 29, 2013, 12:23 PM
Yes, all those 200+ patents are invalid it seems.

Read up on patents. Not everything is patentable because of prior art (someone's done it before) or it's obvious (including obvious extensions of prior art like this). There are other conditions too.

You seem to believe Apple's BS when they tell you they created something, or rather everything, that's all. People conveniently overlook that those who created the actual touch technology (the REAL innovators) also suggested various uses of it, obviously. Apple is little more than a "retailer" of other people's technology.

I was questioning the line of something being unpatentable because Android eventually copying it... But, it apparently was just fluff added by MR staff.

If you read my second post, you would know I agree with gestures like slide to unlock should not be able to be patented. I think the rubber banding effect is fine to be patented since it relates to the overall feel of a touch device and not necessary as a basic function for a user to use a touch device like slide to unlock can be argued to be.

Now I do not know who did what first. If lets say the rubber band effect was demo'd before Apple patented and is prior art, then fine it shouldn't be an Apple patent. I'm not going to blindly say it's BS and Apple did it first or whatever.

Oletros
Jul 29, 2013, 12:29 PM
Wasn't pinch to zoom one of the original 200+ patents Apple made before the iPhone debuted in 2007? So just because Android copied it later means the earlier patent before Android copied it is invalid? How is something unpatentable when Apple applied for the patent before it was copied?

No, it has not been invalidated because others copied it.

It has been invalidated because prior art and obviousness

slattery69
Jul 29, 2013, 12:30 PM
Hi Acidsplat,

Would you be kind enough to direct me to the patent Apple submitted for rounded corners? See, I keep hearing about it, but I can only assume it's FUD spread by Samsung as I can't find evidence of it anywhere.


http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners

thekev
Jul 29, 2013, 12:42 PM
The problem with this is that these "natural and readily apparent" things you speak of aren't really that readily apparent. Sure, looking at pinch to zoom makes perfect sense to all of us now. All the swipes and gestures we do make sense to us now. Of course it's obvious to everyone in hindsight.

I'm of the opinion that Apple, or anyone else, should be able to patent these things but should be forced to license them under FRAND terms if it is necessary to compete in the current market.

Here's a question. How would you propose they test for obviousness? I don't think their tests would be at the consumer level. FRAND seems to involve things that are required for wireless standards. You can't really just decide it fits there. I guess this is one of those topics where everyone has an opinion of the way things should be.

I was questioning the line of something being unpatentable because Android eventually copying it... But, it apparently was just fluff added by MR staff.


There's a first:rolleyes:. Macrumors isn't one of the worst offenders, but it does happen.

techwhiz
Jul 29, 2013, 02:04 PM
A test for whether something is obvious, is done by testing if it is obvious to someone experienced in the field of design for that particular market.

Mind you pinch to zoom is an idea. The actual way and algorithm you employ is patent-able, but the concept is no. So if the code was copied or the way it was done was copied, then yes, but the idea, no....

Idea's should not be patent-able. Only the implementation and algorithms.
And, yes, I do know something about patents. I have authored multiple patents on hardware architecture and host a patent or two.

tech4all
Jul 29, 2013, 02:49 PM
What is wrong with the patent office doesn't it realize that Apple invented everything!

Let's face. Apple isn't interested in innovation because it doesn't do any. It has a great marketing machine and now it's deep in the patent troll business. Sad.

I hate it when people do this but...

+1 to this comment. Apple has gotten comfortable and they're making money at the same time. They rely on their brilliant marketing to sell their products now. When Apple made a big deal that the 8 tab limit on Safari was gone, that really tells you how behind iOS really is.

I know I'm pissing off iPhone lovers but it's true. I don't care if you love your iPhone. Great, I hope you do. You bought it so you should like it. Just don't deny the obvious. I use a Galaxy Nexus and even I admit it's not perfect. I like it, but I'm not gonna deny it's not perfect. My main issue is the build quality...not so great and it's odd shape. But in the end it's the software that makes it, and while it's not perfect, it's better than iOS for me at the moment.

AppleVsAndroid
Jul 29, 2013, 02:59 PM
Put few WS high profile bankers and few Fed members on Apple's board then see how Apple Rules!!!

Its all about Trillions of $$$ where no rules apply :)

MegamanX
Jul 29, 2013, 03:05 PM
Yeah I understand that. That would have made sense if said other touch screens had it before (prior art). They actually had it after the patent application.

So basically, patents are worthless if competitors can copy you faster than it takes time for the USPTO to approve the patent. At the pace technology is evolving, and considering it takes like 3 years to approve patents, that's a bit ridiculous.

But all this is assuming pinch-to-zoom was part of the original patents Apple applied for in 2007, what quagmire is suggesting, but I'm not sure it is.


Go watch Minority report. It came out in 2002. It had pinch to zoom used in it. Oh those stupid facts getting in the way of your rant.....

aerok
Jul 29, 2013, 03:22 PM
This is nothing more than Macrumors being cute and adding commentary.

No where does Computerworld state "as the technology has already been copied in other mobile operating systems, such as Google's Android."


Yeah talk about bad reporting... :mad:

thekingofnerds
Jul 29, 2013, 04:43 PM
Wow, didn't see this coming.

It was only demoed numerous times by other companies before the iPhone was even released... for example - in the famous Jeff Han demo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Han). Or in Minority Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMtUVcOHPtw).

Renzatic
Jul 29, 2013, 04:49 PM
Wow, didn't see this coming.

It was only demoed numerous times by other companies before the iPhone was even released... for example - in the famous Jeff Han demo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Han). Or in Minority Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMtUVcOHPtw).

To expand on what you've posted, Jeff Han showing off Multitouch in 2006 at TED (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac0E6deG4AU#t=2m41).

edit: GAWW! Stupid Youtube! If it doesn't link you right to it, the pinch to zoom demo starts around 2:40

kdarling
Jul 29, 2013, 05:09 PM
Pinch zoom on computers dates from at least 1983 (http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html).

It was later featured in both a 1993 concept film (scene cut) and a very popular 1996 book from a Sun Microsystems UI developer (http://www.asktog.com/columns/070iPhoneFirstLook.html):

425372

It was demoed to Apple by at least one touch developer (http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/08/pinch-to-zoom-and-other-gestures-demonstrated-to-apple-by-adam-bogue-in-2003/)by 2003.

Not to mention Jeff Han showing it off to the whole world in 2006:

89sz8ExZndc

Edit: oops, Renzatic and thekingofnerds beat me to Jeff while I was editing.

Okay then, I'll throw in the first publicly announced multi-touch phone, the Open Linux Moko developer's model. Its announcement came in Nov 2006, two months before the iPhone was revealed by Steve Jobs:

425378

And drawings of its planned pinch zoom. (The multi-touch unfortunately didn't come to production right away because of cost. But the idea was there. ):

425379

In short, Apple never had a patent on pinch zoom, since they didn't invent it.

However, this particular patent tried to grab it anyway, by patenting the idea of discerning the use of one finger for scroll and two fingers for zoom. Yes, it's as bad as it sounds, simply combining two gestures. Small wonder that the USPTO found tons of prior art when they reviewed it.

pgiguere1
Jul 29, 2013, 06:30 PM
Go watch Minority report. It came out in 2002. It had pinch to zoom used in it. Oh those stupid facts getting in the way of your rant.....

Well if this very article mentioned prior art or obviousness because of science-fiction movies, your facts would have been relevant. Apparentely that's not the reason the USPTO rejected the patent, so your facts are a bit off-topic.

Other than being off-topic, are you sure your facts are also correct? I haven't watched the whole Minority Report movie recently, so I don't remember if there are multiple scenes with the glove/screen thing, but looking at this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8deYjcgVgm8) on YouTube, there is definitely no sign of pinch-to-zoom. It's more "clap hands to zoom" at 0:27.

MegamanX
Jul 29, 2013, 06:35 PM
Well if this very article mentioned prior art or obviousness because of science-fiction movies, your facts would have been relevant. Apparentely that's not the reason the USPTO rejected the patent, so your facts are a bit off-topic.

No they are one topic. It shows you many examples of why it should not of been granted a patented. pinch to zoom is a natural movement.

Apple tried and failed to ram road it threw more than likely knowing it was a crap patent just hoping to get it threw. Blew up in their face and chances are that 1 billion ruling against samsung is going to be greatly reduced as this was a key patented.

pgiguere1
Jul 29, 2013, 06:44 PM
No they are one topic. It shows you many examples of why it should not of been granted a patented. pinch to zoom is a natural movement.

Apple tried and failed to ram road it threw more than likely knowing it was a crap patent just hoping to get it threw. Blew up in their face and chances are that 1 billion ruling against samsung is going to be greatly reduced as this was a key patented.

You said those facts were getting in the way of my rant, which itself was not even about if Apple should have gotten the patent in the first place. I even made that part clear in the very first sentence of my first comment:
While I don't think pinch-to-zoom should be patentable in the first place, I too was confused by this part.

What's the point of a patent if it's invalidated just by the fact that it's not respected? That totally goes against its very purpose, doesn't it?
[…]
You definitely were off-topic.

tundrabuggy
Jul 29, 2013, 07:19 PM
It's like trying to patent rounded corners-

Oh wait.

Oh, you're the guy that bought that argument. Lol, they tried to simplify it to just rounded corners....Samscum even directly copied icons and exact colors in their blatant steal of IOS, should have been 5 billion in penalties then maybe they would attempt to innovate.

jmh600cbr
Jul 29, 2013, 07:34 PM
Why?

Because they are natural. The coding behind them and the type of implementation should be patentable but the physical motion itself, note.

Darth Stig
Jul 29, 2013, 09:29 PM
I'm sure there's more to it than what we're seeing here. The only way Android could be used as prior art is if they had it before 2007. Anything that comes after the introduction of an idea can't be used to invalidate a patent.

The three things that can kill a patent are prior art, obviousness, or registering something so specific it's the only way to achieve an end result.

The prior art argument is valid in the sense that pinch to zoom existed way before Apples iPhone, and thus way before Android is supposed to have copied it. It is hard to say Android copied iOS on this as my HP iPaq 212 had it and I bought that in early 2006 and I'm sure HP and Microsoft (ran a mobile Windows OS) didn't invent it either. Apple needs to realize there is a difference between improving and inventing. They haven't invented anything, they have improved many other peoples ideas to produce some damn fine kit, but total Apple inventions = 0! How dumb will the US courts look when it is finally realized they ordered one party to pay another party truck loads of cash over something that is not, in effect, their intellectual property to claim??

sir1963nz
Jul 29, 2013, 09:54 PM
I think it's : this one (http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/design/data/000181607-0001).

It's not precisely a patent on rounded corners, but a community design patent in which rounded corners form an important part of the form factor.

Ah yes, that would be like me setting up a company called "S A M S U N G" then bitch about how Samsung is trying to patent the letter S.

If Apple had a patent on rounded corners they would have gone after every manufacturer , however the only one they went after was Samsung who clearly made their product to be indistinguishable from Apples. Just as to a consumer Samsung and S A M S U N G would be confusing.

So its not a patent on rounded corners at all, it is a design patent on the whole design where the corners are just one facet of the design (as is the S in Samsung)

I WAS the one
Jul 29, 2013, 11:33 PM
This is unfair. Pinch to zoom is Apple! What is going on in this world? You can patent an idea because it doesn't exists then you make it real and you can't patent it because is common in all devices? WT...

Oletros
Jul 30, 2013, 12:33 AM
This is unfair. Pinch to zoom is Apple! What is going on in this world? You can patent an idea because it doesn't exists then you make it real and you can't patent it because is common in all devices? WT...

Not sure if you forgot the /sarcasm tag

blitzer09x87
Jul 30, 2013, 02:10 AM
o yes! i hope the jury fines them 1 billion for lying to the court.

asthamapheo
Jul 30, 2013, 02:33 AM
looks like apple is in big trouble, this was a thing they always took pride of, hope for the best.

Oletros
Jul 30, 2013, 02:37 AM
o yes! i hope the jury fines them 1 billion for lying to the court.

:confused::confused::confused:

What are you talking about?

beaniemyman
Jul 30, 2013, 02:50 AM
so samsung was fined $1 billion on the bases of an invalid patent, wow, justice has been served.

Oletros
Jul 30, 2013, 02:52 AM
so samsung was fined $1 billion on the bases of an invalid patent, wow, justice has been served.

And another one that has forgot the sarcasm tag or doesn't really knows what he is talking about

egoistaxx9
Jul 30, 2013, 02:59 AM
so samsung was fined $1 billion on the bases of an invalid patent, wow, justice has been served.

nice point! that's why the case is still going on and when this big companies fight, believe me, the lawsuits never end.

alent1234
Jul 30, 2013, 06:47 AM
There is pinch to zoom there


Well if this very article mentioned prior art or obviousness because of science-fiction movies, your facts would have been relevant. Apparentely that's not the reason the USPTO rejected the patent, so your facts are a bit off-topic.

Other than being off-topic, are you sure your facts are also correct? I haven't watched the whole Minority Report movie recently, so I don't remember if there are multiple scenes with the glove/screen thing, but looking at this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8deYjcgVgm8) on YouTube, there is definitely no sign of pinch-to-zoom. It's more "clap hands to zoom" at 0:27.

HoopTrundler
Jul 30, 2013, 04:03 PM
Hi Acidsplat,

Would you be kind enough to direct me to the patent Apple submitted for rounded corners? See, I keep hearing about it, but I can only assume it's FUD spread by Samsung as I can't find evidence of it anywhere.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1701443/USD670286S1.pdf

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners