|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 | ||
|
USPTO Preliminarily Rejects Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Patent
![]() Another Apple patent is in the spotlight tonight, after the United States Patent and Trademark Office has preliminarily rejected all 20 claims of Patent No. 7,844,915, or the so-called "pinch to zoom" patent. ![]() According to The Wall Street Journal, Samsung brought the invalidation of the key patent to the court's attention in a Wednesday afternoon filing. Quote:
On Monday, Judge Lucy Koh, who has been presiding over the Apple vs. Samsung trial denied Samsung's motion for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. As The Verge points out, however, the rejection of Patent No. '915 is preliminary and isn't yet the same as "invalidating" the patent. Apple still has the opportunity to file its counter-arguments: Quote:
Article Link: USPTO Preliminarily Rejects Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Patent |
|||
|
|
1
|
|
|
#2 |
|
puts on flamesuit
i don't think this should be a patent
__________________
Windows 7 PC & 8740w - iPhone 4 (6.1 Jailbroken - StraightTalk w/ AT&T SIM) - HP Touchpad (CM10 Jelly Bean) - iPod Classic |
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Pinch me to wake me up after this boring patent war is over!
__________________
2012 rMBP 2.6GHz/16GB/512GB iPhone 5 32GB Black iPad 3rd Gen 32GB WiFi iPod Nano 16Gb 4th Gen
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
#4 |
|
I pinched her and she liked it.
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
#5 |
|
No surprise here. You can't patent everything -- it eliminates too much competition.
__________________
iPad 4th gen Black/ 32GB/ iOS 6.1.3 iMac G4 1.0 GHz/ 1.25 GHz PPCG4 (7445) iPod |Classic Black/ 80GB|U2 edition 20GB iPhone |4S White/16GB/ iOS 6.1.3|3G White/16GB iOS 4.2.1 |
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Thank you US Patent Office! =)
__________________
MacBook Pro 2011 iPhone 5 64GB White |
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
#7 |
|
apple is going down...to the wonderland.
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Fair enough, it is an important and necessary component of a smartphones OS (used primarily for zooming in and out) and I don't see a good way around it!
__________________
2010 15" MBP i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD || Unlocked White 64GB iPhone 5 || 64GB Black iPad 3 Follow me on Twitter! |
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
#9 |
|
They're totally right.... I mean, I was using pinch-to-zoom on everything before 2006. My flip phone, my XP tablet, my mini-xp tablet, my Rio MP3 player. It was getting so old by the time iPhone came out. I hope they burn.
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Here we go again.
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Thank God. We need to see end to stupid software patents like this.
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Wasn't pinch to zoom demoed in some multi-touch university research back in the 70s?
If it were then there would be a case for prior art.
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise. |
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Quote:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/32...om-patent-myth arn |
||
|
|
6
|
|
|
#14 |
|
This reminds of
a Slayer song: 'Piece by Piece'.
I do think that some Apple patents are well worth it. Unlink the usual folk, I agree with the novelty of "Slide to Unlock" or the "Bounce back" ideas. But this was ridiculous. You can't patent a mouse. Apple should definitely be credited as one of the inventors for such a thing, but please this is ridiculous. But lets not forget, there are thousands of patents by Microsoft and they still file UI and software patents that are so trivial and have absolutely no novelty in them. Pinch-to-zoom is novel but I don't the patent for something like this should be awarded. It's like a patent for touching a touchscreen. Idiotic.
__________________
Steve is smiling down from above. ![]() -darkfiber |
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Isn't there a back page for all this lawsuit crap? How many threads do we need that turn into arguments about who invented what (aka Apple invented nothing) and why patents suck (aka Apple is a patent troll).
__________________
I love Apple products but am not a Steve Jobs fanboy |
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
#16 |
|
There are hundreds of other ways to zoom in and out, but pinch to zoom is by far the best/coolest/most natural, and everyone else wants it. Apple nailed it, and no one else wants to settle for less.
When Apple showed it for the first time, people ooh'd, ahh'd, clapped, whistled, and cheered, because it was THAT good. It had a huge impact, and it took years before anyone else had an OS that could hold a candle to iOS. Now, everyone who copied the original, and was late to the party, wants what Apple has. But they don't want to work for it. They just want it. They feel entitled to it. They could use sliders UI's, knob UI's, they could swipe, use a magnifying glass like Adobe, etc, but no, it has to be Apple's method, because it's established (by the iPhone) as the best. Lame. People say they want competition, then bitch because they've got nothing to bring to the table. They want to compete by making iPhones, rebranding them, and then pitting them against the iPhone. There's no argument that justifies anything else. It's all BS. Go to 33:40, and see it for the first time on any consumer device, ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s72uTrA5EDY Last edited by mentholiptus; Dec 19, 2012 at 06:45 PM. Reason: add link |
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
#17 |
|
I would like to point out that all 3 of the patents Apple is suing Samsung for in the US are in various stages of being invalidated.
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/apple-stands-to-lose-another-patent-crucial-to-its-battle-with-samsung/ It truly boggles the mind how the incompetent US jury could think these soon to be struck, frivolous patents could be worth $1 billion. |
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Guys, remember, none of this means anything. The Media is reporting this incorrectly and going crazy for no reasons.
It is normal to see USPTO to reject all claims on many software patents, they do this to force the patent owners to fight harder to prove the patents should be valid. In many cases, the patents becomes re-validated and it'll become that much difficult to prove it is invalid down the line. As long as Apple can prove the patents are valid in the next filing, they should be okay. |
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Apple MAY have had to patent it defensively (so someone else didn’t copy them, patent it themselves, and sue Apple or whatever).
But Apple didn’t invent the gesture. Maybe some behind-the-scenes specifics about it, at most, but not the general principle of using a touchscreen in that way. If the patent is too broad, then it should be canned. If that’s the case, I won’t root for Apple to win this one. (But patents are often less broad/more specific than they sound at first.) |
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
#20 |
|
These threads will stop when Apple stops bully suing with invalid, frivolous patents.
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
24
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
2
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
Quote:
That's the major point of this thread, not who copied who, but who invented what and owns the rights to it. |
||
|
|
8
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
Quote:
None of these patents have actually been invalidated so...
__________________
I love Apple products but am not a Steve Jobs fanboy |
||
|
|
4
|
![]() |
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 AM.








2012 rMBP 2.6GHz/16GB/512GB 



None of these patents have actually been invalidated so...
Linear Mode
