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.
USPTO Preliminarily Rejects Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Patent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So exactly as I said, Science fiction does count as prior art. There is such a thing called "Design Patents". Science fiction was used as prior art to invalidate... wait for this... Design patents.
The thing with design patents is that they aren't functional, so a movie prop or a description/illustration in a book is very enabling to a person to design a real world product/object.
A design patent granted based on what you saw in Kubrick's or Rodenberry's or Vernes' literature shouldn't be granted.
Hence, keep your "WRONGS!" to yourself when you can't even start to be right yourself, according to your own sources.
----------
Oh noes, people don't agree with us so they must be Android Fanboys!
When did this forum become so paranoid ? All Apple users don't share the same opinion and this is surprising to you guys ?
I guess my iPhone/MacBook Pro don't qualify to hang around here just because I don't happen to agree with software patents/broad design patents that stiffle innovation/progress/competition.
It's something to not agree, but please keep the lame Android fanboy crap to yourself, that just shows you don't have any arguments at all.
For example "The agency declared invalid the entirety of Apple's so-called "pinch-to-zoom" patent on Wednesday, according to a court filing from Samsung."
That's not accurate. Nothing has been declared invalid. Something stands rejected, for now. But the PTO did NOT say the patent was invalid. That's a basic fact too!
You are absolutely right, and thank you for posting the link to the video!
People so soon forget what cutting edge technology this was when it was introduced just a few years ago When "slide to unlock was revealed it was met with the same cheers and oohs/ahhs.
Now it seems that the world is run by many of the same 14-year-olds who post on this forum, and many of these same entitled teenagers apparently got summer jobs in the patent office, as well.
1. Invest hundreds of man-hours and millions of dollars in R&D to create new technology based on a brilliant solution to a difficult problem.
2. Have your inventions appropriated by the "competition" until it becomes an "obvious standard" that surely "we can all agree on".
3. Have all of your work and effort and money later invalidated, and have a government agency attempt make your invention available to all, because it's just that good, and nobody can remember how things were 5 minutes ago let alone 5 years ago.
4. Spin in grave.
I won't even get into the issue at hand here. The lawyers can fight that out. What amazes me is how a company like Samsung seems to be taking such delight in pissing off one of its best customers. Do they really think that without any innovative ability on their own they can go very far with ideas they have stolen and repackaged? When they are no longer making anything for Apple and when nobody wants their aging, junk products, they may regret their glee of the present.
Touch sensitive display is specific tech and not the same tech as what Microsoft or the Uni demo used.
Big if, that hasn't happened yet and might not.
----------
Because it wasn't. Movie fx are not functioning products they are smoke and mirrors. Thus they are not accepted as valid prior art. Same with the 2001 argument and such
Well apple seems to be moving away anyway so they are not really losing anything.
And lots of people seem to think that apple is losing their innovation.
I disagree that it is a better method but thank you for mentioning this useable and alternative to the 'pinch' as it is proof there is another method thus Apples patent is not essential as some tried to lam
It is ? Is it a resistive screen ? A capacitative screen ? A screen with sensors off to the sides ?
Seems pretty broad to me, considering "Touch sensitive displays" have been around for decades in many forms.
----------
The fact that there are other methods or not does not make Apple's patent valid in regards to obviousness or prior art that may be available.
You are absolutely right, and thank you for posting the link to the video!
People so soon forget what cutting edge technology this was when it was introduced just a few years ago When "slide to unlock was revealed it was met with the same cheers and oohs/ahhs.
Now it seems that the world is run by many of the same 14-year-olds who post on this forum, and many of these same entitled teenagers apparently got summer jobs in the patent office, as well.
1. Invest hundreds of man-hours and millions of dollars in R&D to create new technology based on a brilliant solution to a difficult problem.
2. Have your inventions appropriated by the "competition" until it becomes an "obvious standard" that surely "we can all agree on".
3. Have all of your work and effort and money later invalidated, and have a government agency attempt make your invention available to all, because it's just that good, and nobody can remember how things were 5 minutes ago let alone 5 years ago.
4. Spin in grave.
I needed a good hearty laugh
The Samsung vs Apple case is the biggest case of corporate entitlement that I can think of. Apple invented a physical design and technology that others are so desperate to have that they try to justify stealing it. You know what, that's not how things work.
Where were these companies before Apple developed iPhone? They all had mobile devices, but none of them had the creativity and genius to take those devices to the next level. What some people here are saying is that Apple used techniques that now, in hindsight, seem obvious, so others should be allowed to benefit from that obviousness. Well, if these things are so obvious, why did nobody before Apple use such obvious techniques in their products? Did HP and Blackberry sit around their respective conference tables and say "oh this touch/zoom thing is lame, we prefer a keyboard"?
Poor Samsung. Poor Microsoft. Poor everyone else. Boo hoo that you didn't have the in-house creativity, foresight and balls to design a product that sparked a revolution. But just because someone did and is wildly successful at it does not give you any right, in any way, to use these protected designs and technologies without permission. That is why we have a copyright, patent and trademark system.
Where were these companies before Apple developed iPhone? They all had mobile devices, but none of them had the creativity and genius to take those devices to the next level. What some people here are saying is that Apple used techniques that now, in hindsight, seem obvious, so others should be allowed to benefit from that obviousness. Well, if these things are so obvious, why did nobody before Apple use such obvious techniques in their products? Did HP and Blackberry sit around their respective conference tables and say "oh this touch/zoom thing is lame, we prefer a keyboard"?
Poor Samsung. Poor Microsoft. Poor everyone else. Boo hoo that you didn't have the in-house creativity, foresight and balls to design a product that sparked a revolution. But just because someone did and is wildly successful at it does not give you any right, in any way, to use these protected designs and technologies without permission. That is why we have a copyright, patent and trademark system.
I think the point of this story is that Apple didn't invent neither the physical design (LG Prada/Samsung F700 say hi!) nor a lot of the technology in them.
That Apple used technologies and designs that were out there to produce an amazing mobile phone/platform is undeniable. That they invented it ? Sorry, the USPTO is catching on that they didn't with all these reviews that are going on.
False. Concepts are not protectable IP, same as 'aliens come to Earth, hijinks ensue' can't be copyrighted.
Only if said Science Fiction describes how to actually make the object in real life.
You either have reading comprehension problems, or an unwillingness or an inability to differentiate between something fake and something real.
You are absolutely right, and thank you for posting the link to the video!
People so soon forget what cutting edge technology this was when it was introduced just a few years ago When "slide to unlock was revealed it was met with the same cheers and oohs/ahhs.
Now it seems that the world is run by many of the same 14-year-olds who post on this forum, and many of these same entitled teenagers apparently got summer jobs in the patent office, as well.
1. Invest hundreds of man-hours and millions of dollars in R&D to create new technology based on a brilliant solution to a difficult problem.
2. Have your inventions appropriated by the "competition" until it becomes an "obvious standard" that surely "we can all agree on".
3. Have all of your work and effort and money later invalidated, and have a government agency attempt make your invention available to all, because it's just that good, and nobody can remember how things were 5 minutes ago let alone 5 years ago.
4. Spin in grave.
Did you just call slide to unlock cutting edge technology?
----------
Your disdain of Samsung is humorous.
the mass text you copied was for utility patents that do require some detailed explanations (altho these can also be very broad at the same time)
a design patent is basically granted based on an illustration/drawing/doodle/design/sketch/depiction
I never said it did. If you are going to correct someone, try reading what they wrote. I said essential, as in Googles notion that this and many other patents they want to use should be declared SEP because they are 'the' only method. In fact, in the case, this is not true. It's just the most popular
Sorry, dude. I misunderstood. I though you meant using a finger from one hand and a finger from another.
Sorry
Perhaps the one having reading comprehension problems is you. He has clearly talked about DESIGN patents.
Design patents. Read my entire post next time. If I have a reading comprehension problem, you have an ADHD problem my good friend. It helps reading beyond the first sentence.
yup steves empire is slowly unraveling... but it won't fall any time sooo cause apple is so damn far ahead of everyone and until the competition stops copying apple apple with be no top..
The old blog post actually got the gist of Google's arguments wrong. Go read Google's actual testimony, kdarling had to look it up after a few pages of arguing, but Google never even asked for such a thing.