It's safe to say pinch-to-zoom had been demonstrated publicly ever before Apple used it in a product, and very likely before they even filed such a patent, so it's fair that it was invalidated.
This patent never should have been granted in the first place, it's yet another symbol of how broken the US patent system is.
And Lucy Koh needs to be removed from this case, she's clearly biased toward Apple. An invalid patent that was used in the trial is obvious grounds for a new trial.
It's safe to say pinch-to-zoom had been demonstrated publicly ever before Apple used it in a product, and very likely before they even filed such a patent, so it's fair that it was invalidated.
Clicking on the link at the end of this article takes you to Samsung's filing with the ex-parte re-examination included. According to the re-examination, many of the claims were rejected due to US Patent No. 7,724,242 granted to Hillis. Following is a NY Times article from 2005 discussing his prototype for a tabletop digital map that utilized the concepts of "pinch to zoom". It was demonstrated to the government and a large convention of cartographers.
This patent never should have been granted in the first place, it's yet another symbol of how broken the US patent system is.
And Lucy Koh needs to be removed from this case, she's clearly biased toward Apple. An invalid patent that was used in the trial is obvious grounds for a new trial.
What invalid patent? Nothing has been invalidated.
What is the point of having a patent office that grants patents only to invalidate them later ? Time to put a few civil servants out to grass and save the tax payers a few dollars as the job they are doing is simply no longer valid.
If you understood patent law, you would know this makes perfect sense. The law says a court has to presume a patent is valid. Invalidity requires "clear and convincing evidence." The PTO NEVER invalidates a patent. The patent office examines that patent and applies the novelty and obviousness standards (35 USC 102 and 103). They can and often do have different outcomes. And any person knowledgable in patents would agree that the standards should be different (for reasons that would be too hard to explain in a blog).
What invalid patent? Nothing has been invalidated.
Umm...did you even read the article before jumping in on the conversation? Actually, how about just the title; "Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO".
Maybe you are simply trying to argue semantics along the lines of "the USPTO doesn't 'invalidate' patents, they only rejects claims"???
What invalid patent? Nothing has been invalidated.
Good call Rogifan. I'm glad to see there is at least one other person that understands patent law. Reexamination is not invalidation. Anyone that knows anything about patent examination can tell you that an office action rejecting the claims is expected and is not predictive of the outcome of the reexamination.
For those of you that think this patent has been invalidated, I'll give you a football analogy. It's like an opposing football team being the first to score in a football game. While scoring by the opposing team is what eventually causes one to lose the game, the first score of the game is hardly an indication of the outcome of the game. This is especially true for patents where the patent office has the first possession and can say almost anything they want. The court should just ignore this office action. The only thing a court can do with a first office action in a reexam is stay a pending action.
Umm...did you even read the article before jumping in on the conversation? Actually, how about just the title; "Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO".
Maybe you are simply trying to argue semantics along the lines of "the USPTO doesn't 'invalidate' patents, they only rejects claims"???
ummm did you read the brief. It says the claims of the patent have been rejected in a reexamination proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. That is not invalidity. Invalidity is a defense to infringement and is defined in 35 U.S.C. 282. The patent office does not ever invalidate patents because the invalidity statute does not apply to proceedings before the patent office.
Clicking on the link at the end of this article takes you to Samsung's filing with the ex-parte re-examination included. According to the re-examination, many of the claims were rejected due to US Patent No. 7,724,242 granted to Hillis. Following is a NY Times article from 2005 discussing his prototype for a tabletop digital map that utilized the concepts of "pinch to zoom". It was demonstrated to the government and a large convention of cartographers.
hmmmm, the new york times publication can be used as prior art in a reexamination proceeding, but I don't think the discussion at the conference can be a basis for the rejection. Ex parte reexamination is only based on patents and printed publications (See MPEP 2258 and 37 C.F.R. 1.552)
This does illustrate why we have many different procedures and why the patent office can't be expected to find everything. How in the hell would an Examiner know if someone showed a device to someone at a conference. No one should expect the patent office to have access to this information and vetting that kind of activity is best handled in a court proceeding where evidence can be introduced and people cross-examined. The patent office doesn't do stuff like that (at least not very much of it).
If you ever have the chance to go to the patent office and prosecute a patent, you'll understand why. An examiner has a small office with a computer desk and two chairs. He or she writes 5 page rejections or 1 page notices of allowances. In some cases they have to file a reply brief to an appeal. You can schedule to talk to them for one hour each non-final office action. They are not judges. They do not have court rooms, and they have no practical means for receiving or vetting the type of evidence that a court does.
So why this persistent myth about Apple' and pinch-to-zoom? A large part of it is because patents are hard for non-lawyers to read and understand, and it's far easier to use a shorthand that obscures important details. Apple's case against Samsung was designed for the jury to recognize interface elements, and that made it particularly easy to slip up: you can fairly call 7,469,381 "the bounceback scrolling," and 7,864,163 "tap-to-zoom," so the lazy slide into calling '915 "pinch-to-zoom" was almost inevitable. It's the media totally blowing the Obama BlackBerry story all over again.
And Apple almost certainly likes the confusion: there's no more distinctive multitouch gesture than pinch-to-zoom, and it's great for Apple if everyone thinks it's patented. Steve Jobs standing on stage doing an exaggerated pinch-to-zoom with his hands right before saying multitouch was patented wasn't some coincidence. It was a master salesman at work — and his work seems to have been extremely effective.
This story is idiotic! Look at the document included in the story: this is about an office action!! The patent has not been invalidated!!!!! This is a re-examination, and this patent has been previously re-examined and upheld. Examinations almost always begin by the examiner rejecting all claims. I hope some investors that get fooled by this story sue the pants off AppleInsider!
Agree completely. These are the kind of half baked stories that lead to AAPL volatility. Like supply chain problems that do not exist. Like lack of interest by Chinese. C'mon try harder AI.
Agree completely. These are the kind of half baked stories that lead to AAPL volatility. Like supply chain problems that do not exist. Like lack of interest by Chinese. C'mon try harder AI.
Business Insider already has a story up about this patent being invalidated. But it's not just AI. MacRumors has a post up as well. Of course that site is dominated by Google lovers these days so I'm sure they just throw it up to get more hits on their site.
Apple HAD to patent this if it was patentable, or someone else could copy the iPhone, then sue Apple for things like this!
I hope Apple licenses it out on livable terms, at least.
What? Apple didn't have to patent this. If all they wanted was to prevent people from patenting it, it could have just released its product (i.e., made it public). Secondly a person copying the iPad can't sue Apple unless they themselves obtain a patent. If they are copying, they can't get a patent because the invention would already be public, else how could they copy it? Your argument is illogical on its face.
Apple should patent anything novel and non-obvious and they should stop everyone from making or using the invention if the damn well please. Why does it not occur to other people that Samsung should take the infringing feature out of its products. No one has a gun pointed at Samsung's head forcing it to sell products with infringing features. Prior to the filing of the patent Samsung was selling phones without the infringing features. Why can't they do that now?
Everyone wants Apple to show them the way and then just copy for free. It isn't fair. Apple took all the risk and spent the time developing the product. Do you not remember when the iPad was released? Apple stock dropped in price and everyone said it was just a stupid big iPod touch. Now that Apple has proved them wrong, they all want to copy. Nice....
Apple should have patented more stuff and be suing the shit out of everyone. It is bull shit to say that the tablet market already existed via Microsoft. If Samsung wants to make a tablet like the one's Microsoft partners were selling, it is free to do so. Those devices won't be infringing Apple's patents. It is disingenuous to say that the pre-iPad tablets are the same as iPad for purposes of patentability when Samsung isn't willing to sell them. If they were equivalent devices, Samsung would just sell those rather than risk infringing Apple's patents. The fact that everyone wants a device like an iPad and won't buy the old Microsoft style is a sure sign that they are different, novel, and non-obvious.
So Apple creates something, submits it to the patent office, the patent office grants Apple a patent, Samsung uses the patent in their copycat product, Apple sues Samsung for patent violation, they go to court, and a jury sides with Apple and now the US Patent office now says that the patent for which they granted is not valid.
Sounds like Google's been spending a lot on "lunches" for PTO employees.
This absolutely false. No patent lawyer would ever try to improperly influence a patent examiner. You cannot even talk to an examiner unless you schedule an appointment and put an interview summary in record saying what was discussed. Going to lunch is beyond preposterous. Both the patent attorney and the examiner would get fired for offering/taking free lunches where there is a pending case between the two.
There is a lot of corruption in the world, but U.S. Federal judges and quasi-judges like patent examiners are anything but corrupt. Some of them may be stupid and/or stubborn, but they are not corrupt.
So Apple creates something, submits it to the patent office, the patent office grants Apple a patent, Samsung uses the patent in their copycat product, Apple sues Samsung for patent violation, they go to court, and a jury sides with Apple and now the US Patent office now says that the patent for which they granted is not valid.
Hmmm. OK.
So, what am i missing here?
Actually it makes perfect sense. See post 28. The patent office and the courts have different standards. The different standards sometimes lead to different outcomes. There are good reasons for having different standards, but the explanation is complicated.
"Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO"
This is totally wrong. The patent like any other one hasn't been invalidated. The USPTO has just issued a tentative of invalidation that probably won't succeed totally (i.e., all patent claims being invalidated) as Apple has all right to respond to that. Right now these are ex parte reexaminations triggered by a request which were filed anonymously. And by anonymously we all know that at least one of those anonymous parties is Google. On top of that, in the case at hand, some of the rejections are based on rather doubtful theories.
So if we look at all of this, we've got Apple to successfully patent ideas that have changed the mobile industry and allowed competitors like Samsung and Google to ride on these successful innovations and ideas (that none of them have never implemented before) to considerably enrich themselves. And "successful" is key here as no one care of unsuccessful patents whether they are valid or not.
Now that Apple has decided to protect its investments, "anonymous" companies have decided to lobby the USPTO agains Apple's patents so that they can continue to use innovations that they did not first deploy to real products.
Comments
It's safe to say pinch-to-zoom had been demonstrated publicly ever before Apple used it in a product, and very likely before they even filed such a patent, so it's fair that it was invalidated.
This patent never should have been granted in the first place, it's yet another symbol of how broken the US patent system is.
And Lucy Koh needs to be removed from this case, she's clearly biased toward Apple. An invalid patent that was used in the trial is obvious grounds for a new trial.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Safe to say by whom? Where are your sources?
Clicking on the link at the end of this article takes you to Samsung's filing with the ex-parte re-examination included. According to the re-examination, many of the claims were rejected due to US Patent No. 7,724,242 granted to Hillis. Following is a NY Times article from 2005 discussing his prototype for a tabletop digital map that utilized the concepts of "pinch to zoom". It was demonstrated to the government and a large convention of cartographers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/technology/30hillis.html?pagewanted=all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banyan Bruce
What is the point of having a patent office that grants patents only to invalidate them later ? Time to put a few civil servants out to grass and save the tax payers a few dollars as the job they are doing is simply no longer valid.
If you understood patent law, you would know this makes perfect sense. The law says a court has to presume a patent is valid. Invalidity requires "clear and convincing evidence." The PTO NEVER invalidates a patent. The patent office examines that patent and applies the novelty and obviousness standards (35 USC 102 and 103). They can and often do have different outcomes. And any person knowledgable in patents would agree that the standards should be different (for reasons that would be too hard to explain in a blog).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
What invalid patent? Nothing has been invalidated.
Umm...did you even read the article before jumping in on the conversation? Actually, how about just the title; "Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO".
Maybe you are simply trying to argue semantics along the lines of "the USPTO doesn't 'invalidate' patents, they only rejects claims"???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
What invalid patent? Nothing has been invalidated.
Good call Rogifan. I'm glad to see there is at least one other person that understands patent law. Reexamination is not invalidation. Anyone that knows anything about patent examination can tell you that an office action rejecting the claims is expected and is not predictive of the outcome of the reexamination.
For those of you that think this patent has been invalidated, I'll give you a football analogy. It's like an opposing football team being the first to score in a football game. While scoring by the opposing team is what eventually causes one to lose the game, the first score of the game is hardly an indication of the outcome of the game. This is especially true for patents where the patent office has the first possession and can say almost anything they want. The court should just ignore this office action. The only thing a court can do with a first office action in a reexam is stay a pending action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Umm...did you even read the article before jumping in on the conversation? Actually, how about just the title; "Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO".
Maybe you are simply trying to argue semantics along the lines of "the USPTO doesn't 'invalidate' patents, they only rejects claims"???
ummm did you read the brief. It says the claims of the patent have been rejected in a reexamination proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. That is not invalidity. Invalidity is a defense to infringement and is defined in 35 U.S.C. 282. The patent office does not ever invalidate patents because the invalidity statute does not apply to proceedings before the patent office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Clicking on the link at the end of this article takes you to Samsung's filing with the ex-parte re-examination included. According to the re-examination, many of the claims were rejected due to US Patent No. 7,724,242 granted to Hillis. Following is a NY Times article from 2005 discussing his prototype for a tabletop digital map that utilized the concepts of "pinch to zoom". It was demonstrated to the government and a large convention of cartographers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/technology/30hillis.html?pagewanted=all
hmmmm, the new york times publication can be used as prior art in a reexamination proceeding, but I don't think the discussion at the conference can be a basis for the rejection. Ex parte reexamination is only based on patents and printed publications (See MPEP 2258 and 37 C.F.R. 1.552)
This does illustrate why we have many different procedures and why the patent office can't be expected to find everything. How in the hell would an Examiner know if someone showed a device to someone at a conference. No one should expect the patent office to have access to this information and vetting that kind of activity is best handled in a court proceeding where evidence can be introduced and people cross-examined. The patent office doesn't do stuff like that (at least not very much of it).
If you ever have the chance to go to the patent office and prosecute a patent, you'll understand why. An examiner has a small office with a computer desk and two chairs. He or she writes 5 page rejections or 1 page notices of allowances. In some cases they have to file a reply brief to an appeal. You can schedule to talk to them for one hour each non-final office action. They are not judges. They do not have court rooms, and they have no practical means for receiving or vetting the type of evidence that a court does.
Last summer, The Verge had an article on why this particular patent wasn't that big a deal.
The myth of pinch-to-zoom: how a confused media gave Apple something it doesn't own
It concluded with :
Quote:
So why this persistent myth about Apple' and pinch-to-zoom? A large part of it is because patents are hard for non-lawyers to read and understand, and it's far easier to use a shorthand that obscures important details. Apple's case against Samsung was designed for the jury to recognize interface elements, and that made it particularly easy to slip up: you can fairly call 7,469,381 "the bounceback scrolling," and 7,864,163 "tap-to-zoom," so the lazy slide into calling '915 "pinch-to-zoom" was almost inevitable. It's the media totally blowing the Obama BlackBerry story all over again.
And Apple almost certainly likes the confusion: there's no more distinctive multitouch gesture than pinch-to-zoom, and it's great for Apple if everyone thinks it's patented. Steve Jobs standing on stage doing an exaggerated pinch-to-zoom with his hands right before saying multitouch was patented wasn't some coincidence. It was a master salesman at work — and his work seems to have been extremely effective.
- The Verge
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM
This story is idiotic! Look at the document included in the story: this is about an office action!! The patent has not been invalidated!!!!! This is a re-examination, and this patent has been previously re-examined and upheld. Examinations almost always begin by the examiner rejecting all claims. I hope some investors that get fooled by this story sue the pants off AppleInsider!
Agree completely. These are the kind of half baked stories that lead to AAPL volatility. Like supply chain problems that do not exist. Like lack of interest by Chinese. C'mon try harder AI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
I see what you mean about desks vs. phones.
Apple HAD to patent this if it was patentable, or someone else could copy the iPhone, then sue Apple for things like this!
I hope Apple licenses it out on livable terms, at least.
What? Apple didn't have to patent this. If all they wanted was to prevent people from patenting it, it could have just released its product (i.e., made it public). Secondly a person copying the iPad can't sue Apple unless they themselves obtain a patent. If they are copying, they can't get a patent because the invention would already be public, else how could they copy it? Your argument is illogical on its face.
Apple should patent anything novel and non-obvious and they should stop everyone from making or using the invention if the damn well please. Why does it not occur to other people that Samsung should take the infringing feature out of its products. No one has a gun pointed at Samsung's head forcing it to sell products with infringing features. Prior to the filing of the patent Samsung was selling phones without the infringing features. Why can't they do that now?
Everyone wants Apple to show them the way and then just copy for free. It isn't fair. Apple took all the risk and spent the time developing the product. Do you not remember when the iPad was released? Apple stock dropped in price and everyone said it was just a stupid big iPod touch. Now that Apple has proved them wrong, they all want to copy. Nice....
Apple should have patented more stuff and be suing the shit out of everyone. It is bull shit to say that the tablet market already existed via Microsoft. If Samsung wants to make a tablet like the one's Microsoft partners were selling, it is free to do so. Those devices won't be infringing Apple's patents. It is disingenuous to say that the pre-iPad tablets are the same as iPad for purposes of patentability when Samsung isn't willing to sell them. If they were equivalent devices, Samsung would just sell those rather than risk infringing Apple's patents. The fact that everyone wants a device like an iPad and won't buy the old Microsoft style is a sure sign that they are different, novel, and non-obvious.
So Apple creates something, submits it to the patent office, the patent office grants Apple a patent, Samsung uses the patent in their copycat product, Apple sues Samsung for patent violation, they go to court, and a jury sides with Apple and now the US Patent office now says that the patent for which they granted is not valid.
Hmmm. OK.
So, what am i missing here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Sounds like Google's been spending a lot on "lunches" for PTO employees.
This absolutely false. No patent lawyer would ever try to improperly influence a patent examiner. You cannot even talk to an examiner unless you schedule an appointment and put an interview summary in record saying what was discussed. Going to lunch is beyond preposterous. Both the patent attorney and the examiner would get fired for offering/taking free lunches where there is a pending case between the two.
There is a lot of corruption in the world, but U.S. Federal judges and quasi-judges like patent examiners are anything but corrupt. Some of them may be stupid and/or stubborn, but they are not corrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
So Apple creates something, submits it to the patent office, the patent office grants Apple a patent, Samsung uses the patent in their copycat product, Apple sues Samsung for patent violation, they go to court, and a jury sides with Apple and now the US Patent office now says that the patent for which they granted is not valid.
Hmmm. OK.
So, what am i missing here?
Actually it makes perfect sense. See post 28. The patent office and the courts have different standards. The different standards sometimes lead to different outcomes. There are good reasons for having different standards, but the explanation is complicated.
Originally Posted by drblank
So, what am i missing here?
The sense that God gave slime mold. But that's probably understandable from different branches of government coming together. HEYO!
This is totally wrong. The patent like any other one hasn't been invalidated. The USPTO has just issued a tentative of invalidation that probably won't succeed totally (i.e., all patent claims being invalidated) as Apple has all right to respond to that. Right now these are ex parte reexaminations triggered by a request which were filed anonymously. And by anonymously we all know that at least one of those anonymous parties is Google. On top of that, in the case at hand, some of the rejections are based on rather doubtful theories.
So if we look at all of this, we've got Apple to successfully patent ideas that have changed the mobile industry and allowed competitors like Samsung and Google to ride on these successful innovations and ideas (that none of them have never implemented before) to considerably enrich themselves. And "successful" is key here as no one care of unsuccessful patents whether they are valid or not.
Now that Apple has decided to protect its investments, "anonymous" companies have decided to lobby the USPTO agains Apple's patents so that they can continue to use innovations that they did not first deploy to real products.