Japanese Entrepreneur Sues Apple Over Key Flicks and 3D Touch on iPhones and iPads

[kdarling]

Using the logic and standards of our time— when most of us are accustomed to figuring out how to manipulate new touch screen interfaces intuitively—it’s hard to fathom that this guy’s patent is in anyway unique or novel or outside the realm of common sense design.

That was also true of Apple's patents on other gestures such as tap to zoom and center, and pinch zoom determination. You see, many of us had already been using and designing for touch for decades when the iPhone finally came out and mass popularized such gestures.

So my question is, where were all the people here against patenting such gestures back when Apple won millions against Samsung for the same kind of patents?

 

[konqerror]

That doesn't make any sense. There's no requirement to use a patent that you own, so you literally can claim an idea by getting a patent, and then stand next to it while preventing others from using it without your permission.

There isn't right now. That's why there's an argument that there should be. Monopolies should be granted when the net result is that everybody benefits, through economic development. Patents that aren't being used, which would generate economic activity and taxes, force people to spend money unnecessarily engineering around them.

The whole point is that your car analogy is flawed. If you're not using a car, people can simply build another one. You're not directly preventing people from doing anything, like a patent is intended to do.

 

[kdarling]

If also applies to the start menu, menu bar in Wndows CE/Pocket PC, which appeared well before '02. So...

I don't think so. His patent is about a system noticing which direction your pointer (mouse/finger) is moving and using that to figure out which item you've chosen.

It's a broad patent that he is using to target Apple and is applicable across a wide margin of touch screen devices spanning through time. He was never going to produce anything with it. He is a troll.

You can sure tell who here has never invented anything. Very few inventors can produce their own products.

And who would want that in the first place? Are you people suggesting that every product should only use the patents from one inventor? Nonsense!

Products these days, especially machines like smartphones, use patents from hundreds if not thousands of inventors... very few of whom make their own product.

People try to water down the topic with "why care about poor Apple, they do the same blah" ugh - he's capable of holding back massive steps in technology if given real power with this insubstantial patent -

On the contrary, he will license to anyone, so he's not holding anyone back.

Patents that aren't being used, which would generate economic activity and taxes, force people to spend money unnecessarily engineering around them.

Yours is the same logic mistake as above.

Those who license their patents to anyone who wants to use them, benefit society a lot more than those (like, say, Apple) who withhold their patent use to only themselves.

 

[Mascots]

And who would want that in the first place? Are you people suggesting that every product should only use the patents from one inventor? Nonsense!

No, I'm not saying every product should only use inventions from one inventor. That's a typical straw man argument and the only reason to assume that from what I wrote to detract from my actual point.

I'm saying his "invention" is not one. It's an idea stroked so broad that it covers the scope of people actually creating inventions today and before him that realistically have no overlap. It doesn't even explicitly state these interactions are gesture based, so an expandable menu requiring two clicks falls under its umbrella; it spans beyond keyboards because of the wording associated with it.

 

[kdarling]

No, I'm not saying every product should only use inventions from one inventor. That's a typical straw man argument and the only reason to assume that from what I wrote to detract from my actual point.

You stated that, "He was never going to produce anything with it. He is a troll."

That sure sounds like you think every inventor must have their own product.

My point is that there's nothing wrong with only licensing inventions to be used by others in their products.

I'm saying his "invention" is not one. It's an idea stroked so broad that it covers the scope of people actually creating inventions today and before him that realistically have no overlap.

His particular patent's validity is a different topic, and I'm with you that gestures should not be patentable, if that's what you're saying.

 

[Mascots]

You stated that, "He was never going to produce anything with it. He is a troll."

That sure sounds like you think every inventor must have their own product.

His particular patent's validity is a different topic, and I'm with you that gestures should not be patentable, if that's what you're saying.

In what world does "he was never going to produce anything with it" translate into "devices should only use a patents from a single inventor". lol ridiculous.

My entire post is about he validity of the patent: I don't see it as valid and I see him profiting off it and using it to dissuade and now attack ideas that can to fall under its broad scope. Someone who does this, in combination with never actually producing anything with it, is a troll in my book.

Does this mean I think all patents need to be utilized by their owners to be valid? No. But I do believe this is an example where his lack of utilization gives the patent additional power and flexibility to target ideas outside of its original scope, purposely, given it's vagueness and wording. There are several patents that Apple has railroaded over unfairly and I'll be glad to say that they need to pay where it is due, but I just don't believe this is one because the patent on its own does not stand.

 

[Winni]

I’m tired of these patent trolls that don’t even use their patents.

Copyright laws protect implementations and actual products, the patent law protects IDEAS, NOT actual implementations. The patent system only exists for law firms and as ammunition for mega corporations (who are the only ones with deep enough pockets to actual defend/use their patents in court).

While the current global copyright system "only" needs a major overhaul, the patent system should be abolished.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
Posts were removed as bickering and off topic. Please stay on topic and comport yourselves in a civil manner.