Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Massive 'Steve Jobs Patent' for the iPhone Reconfirmed in its Entirety
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Any decent programmer would think it was trivial.
The core idea of the patent is that if you swipe mostly vertical, it should lock the screen into doing a vertical scroll. Otherwise, the screen should move around with your finger.
Not exactly earth-shattering. It certainly would not take twenty people to figure out the idea or how to do it. When that many people are on a trivial patent like this one, the list feels a bit contrived.
If you think anything I said was incorrect, let's hear the details.
(I suspect that you're the one who's confused by rumor-mongering sites.)
Well, I do work in a touch device group that's very non-stop and intense, and yes the company files patents all the time. Especially now that we see that even trivial ones get granted, you need the self protection.
However, the "that's it" was a response to someone's question about why Jon Ive and a bunch of other well known people were not included on this patent. He wasn't, because it had nothing to do with the iPhone design.
Everyone's acting like this is a patent on the iPhone itself. It is not. Not even close. It's about a tiny, tiny piece.
I think people are confused because it included a hundred pages of unrelated info in its descriptive section, and because web sites insist on calling it "the Steve Jobs patent".
It's like getting excited over a patent that includes a description of the Salk polio vaccine, when the patent itself was just for a sugar cube.
Regards.
Last edited:
Most programming projects are done in teams or with input from more than just the programmer. Decent programmers know that.
I think it's trivial to make a hub bub over how many people are listed on the patent. What does that have to do with anything?
It's a little contrived to even bring it up.
If that's all you focused on out of the whole post, remind me not to make engineer jokes around here
If that's all you focused on out of the whole post, remind me not to make engineer jokes around here
I agreed with the rest of your post already. Remind me not to have an opinion around here
Perhaps Samsung actually licensed that technology from Apple. They have a whole bunch of deals with each other. I'm sure there are a fair few that are not publicly available.
I saw this article and decided to re-watch the 2007 Mac World keynote.
Brought back some emotion - good times. I remember my first iPhone fondly and wish I'd never sold it. Ground breaking.
Time for Google and Samsung to hold another secret strategy meeting, since this approach failed.
----------
Which reminds me a lot of the Apple Newton that predated it.
----------
Which reminds me a lot of the Apple Newton that predated it.
No they hadn't. Some badly implement touch ideas were thrown onto Samsung devices that worked very very poorly indeed. There were NO multi touch devices before the iPhone, no body had touched or used a screen like it on a mobile device.
As for the Nokia device, it ran Symbian...
----------
You're mad if you think any of these devices compare to the original iPhone. Look at these and then look at EVERY Smartphone after the iPhone - how many look like those? None. How many look like the iPhone ALL OF THEM. So yeah, not revolutionary at all was it.
I had that Nokia 95 before the iPhone, it was the last Nokia device I owned. Good thought it is and well made though the Swedish handsets are, the iPhone was like something brought down from Star Trek in comparison, the accelerators, the multi touch screen no one had used before, the full touch screen, the internet, the e-mail - it looked like magic...and everyone copied. You've lost it if you really think the Nokia N95, a long line of samey Nokia Symbian phones with keypads, was anything remotely similar.
Sure, all of your comments made me cringe badly. Why are you people the same? you all talk crap... the same crap.
I'm so ashamed of owning several Apple products because of you guys, please STOP.
Surely, you can post whatever you want on the Internet but, come on, you are not getting any benefit from backing up a brand like this.
Steve Jobs did nothing but gather existing technologies and ideas.
I'm so ashamed of owning several Apple products because of you guys, please STOP.
Surely, you can post whatever you want on the Internet but, come on, you are not getting any benefit from backing up a brand like this.
Steve Jobs did nothing but gather existing technologies and ideas.
uh... if you remember the original iPhone announcement the only way to do apps were via javascript web apps. that kinda belies your assertion about what he wanted.
If I was somewhere like that I sure as hell wouldn't be typing on here for you to stop reading!
No they were not, they were way more advance then the first iPhone, they had decent camera's, expandable memory, established devs making apps, GPS, 3G, video calling etc. It is your opinion they were 'throw away' but the iPhone would never have existed if it wasn't for makers like Nokia. The iPhone only very recently got the ability to perform video calling over cellular, it had nothing to with doing it right as everyone else has been doing it for years and years!
You protest too much. The iPhone defined the next paradigm; exclusively multi-touch UI, eliminating hardware keypads, and there were plenty of pundits and competitors that thought that paradigm would fail in the marketplace.
The bulk of smartphones today follow that paradigm.
Patent fights are always subjective!
It one experts against another! Lawyer vs. lawyer. It the Inventor against the defendant. Many cases; the invention was like 5 years ahead of it time but the defendant had the right lawyers and experts and defeat the patent itself. The defendant did not even have a design for the same invention until a year ago but they had the smart lawyers to defeat the patent in the U.S. Patent Office and render it useless even when the item was sold back 5 years ago. That the way large companies can rob smaller companies out of their invention in court litigation.
It one experts against another! Lawyer vs. lawyer. It the Inventor against the defendant. Many cases; the invention was like 5 years ahead of it time but the defendant had the right lawyers and experts and defeat the patent itself. The defendant did not even have a design for the same invention until a year ago but they had the smart lawyers to defeat the patent in the U.S. Patent Office and render it useless even when the item was sold back 5 years ago. That the way large companies can rob smaller companies out of their invention in court litigation.
If I was somewhere like that I sure as hell wouldn't be typing on here for you to stop reading!
No they were not, they were way more advance then the first iPhone, they had decent camera's, expandable memory, established devs making apps, GPS, 3G, video calling etc. It is your opinion they were 'throw away' but the iPhone would never have existed if it wasn't for makers like Nokia. The iPhone only very recently got the ability to perform video calling over cellular, it had nothing to with doing it right as everyone else has been doing it for years and years!
This is stupid. The app "Tango" supported video call over 3G in 2010. Skype then followed suit and introduced calling over 3G. It is Facetime that didn't support 3G.
2010 is very recent - video calling over 3G has been available in the UK since 2003 at least
I love browsing these forums. Comments like "congratulations to the real innovators" just cracks me up...
Guys, just to clarify taking/buying technology from others, combining it into a "sleek" package does not make one an innovator.
The rubber-band/bounce-back effect (mentioned in the steve knobs patent) is known to have existed - but not patented - waaay before apple "created it" for ios. Think back to the late 90's/early 2000's. Countless flash based websites had that.
Also, touch-screens and, in particular, multi-touch has been around since the 80's. The screen tech/API's described in the steve knobs patent were patented by apple AFTER they purchased a company called Fingerworks and said technologies. They even tried to patent the saying "multi-touch", despite scientists/engineers using the term back in the 60's when research began to come up with usable touch and multi-touch technology. It's pathetic.
Copy or buy it. Mix it together. Patent it. Claim to be the inventor. It just works (tm).
Guys, just to clarify taking/buying technology from others, combining it into a "sleek" package does not make one an innovator.
The rubber-band/bounce-back effect (mentioned in the steve knobs patent) is known to have existed - but not patented - waaay before apple "created it" for ios. Think back to the late 90's/early 2000's. Countless flash based websites had that.
Also, touch-screens and, in particular, multi-touch has been around since the 80's. The screen tech/API's described in the steve knobs patent were patented by apple AFTER they purchased a company called Fingerworks and said technologies. They even tried to patent the saying "multi-touch", despite scientists/engineers using the term back in the 60's when research began to come up with usable touch and multi-touch technology. It's pathetic.
Copy or buy it. Mix it together. Patent it. Claim to be the inventor. It just works (tm).
Hate the game, not the players. The patent system is outdated and I'm not about to give out ideas on how to fix it. Companies can innovate by recognizing technology being developed and buying it and implementing it. I don't think anyone here is claiming apple invented every patent and innovation it released. It's them protecting their investments. Instead of having someone steal them.
What's interesting is how much it looked like an existing ... and ironically, Korean designed... smartphone of the time:
The Korean CDMA network Pidion BM-200 Bluebird was available in black or white, both with a metallic bezel.
Fairly unique for its time, it ran full Windows CE, not the less powerful Windows Mobile. Its homescreen was a grid of icons. Windows CE also had a full IE browser available.
Foretelling the future, Unwired commented in 2005, "If Apple would ever decide to build a new Apple Newton, it could look like this new Pocket PC from Korean ODM Pidion."
(In the big California trial last year, Magistrate Grewal and Judge Koh prevented Samsung from presenting the Pidion as prior art, even though Apple was allowed to show their non-production concepts. The jury awarded Apple millions for design infringement. In other trials in Europe where the Pidion was allowed as evidence, similar Apple design claims were dismissed, although that could just be coincidence.)
Last edited:
LOL!!!!! When has Ive EVER designed the hardware???? He's designs pretty cases....
Ya know, it's sad to see the comments here bashing Forestall. He probably had more to do with OS X and the iPhone than any other individual. Truth be told, there were rumors that he was the one who Steve actually wanted to succeed him as the leader of Apple - although he knew the board would never go along.
All this hero worship for "Jony" is humorous. He designs cases. Period. i doubt that he would know a GPU from a RAM chip so PLEASE knock off the silly "didn't Ive design the hardware" nonsense....