Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

USPTO Again Rejects Apple's Claim of Pinch-to-Zoom Patent

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.
 
quagmire said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
quagmire said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Renzatic said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Gary03mw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nutjob said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
quagmire said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

It has been invalidated because prior art and obviousness
 
Gary03mw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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.
 
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 :)
 
pgiguere1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.....
 
ufwa said:
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."
Click to expand...

Yeah talk about bad reporting... :mad:
 
Pinch zoom on computers dates from at least 1983.

It was later featured in both a 1993 concept film (scene cut) and a very popular 1996 book from a Sun Microsystems UI developer:

1996_pinch_zoom.png

It was demoed to Apple by at least one touch developer by 2003.

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


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:

open_moko.png

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. ):

zoom_small.png

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.
 
Last edited:
MegamanX said:
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.....
Click to expand...

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 on YouTube, there is definitely no sign of pinch-to-zoom. It's more "clap hands to zoom" at 0:27.
 
Last edited:
pgiguere1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MegamanX said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
pgiguere1 said:
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?
[…]
Click to expand...
You definitely were off-topic.
 
Acidsplat said:
It's like trying to patent rounded corners-

Oh wait.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Color me sick of this debate / story

Renzatic said:
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.
Click to expand...

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??
 
whooleytoo said:
I think it's : this one.

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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back