Some good thinking here, but I think you are wrong ultimately.
First, Apple was the first to use a trackpad or touchpad and that was in 1994. It could be argued that part and parcel of that idea is the "gesture" even though specific gestures were not introduced until much later. (The first person to think of the idea of using gestures to control electronics using capacitance, patented their idea in 1919 BTW.)
Secondly, the first iPod had a mechanical wheel, which was then replaced by the capacitance clickwheel version. So moving your finger in a circle is a gesture, but they could easily argue that it was just a way of using touchpad technology that they developed, to replace the physical wheel. The clickwheel is therefore a natural development of previous technology that should be allowed.
Third, the patent in question probably does itself in by specifically mentioning that one isn't looking at the device when using it, and by the fact that the fingerworks people were doing this stuff for years and years and these guys never went after them.
Lastly, your statement that you don't patent a product, but an idea is almost completely backwards from the real situation. You can't patent an idea at all, you can only patent an implementation of an idea, which in most cases is a product or a series or group of product ideas.
The strength of their patent is in the details. You can't just say "i hereby patent the idea of controlling a device with gestures," you have to say how you want to do that exactly and provide an example or two. These guys' example describes a touchpad that is used without looking at, that responds to pre-programmed gestures. It's both different from the implementations of the manufacturers they are suing and also very vague. Thus there is probably a lot of previous art (the very existence of Apple's trackpad is likely one), and there is some question as to whether the idea is even patentable in it's generality.
I appreciate your points but still disagree. You say they should give an example or two... they do in fact, in 1999 they dreamed up of an MP3 player that is controlled this way.
Additionally. Apple doesn't go to the patent office and hand them an iPhone. Nor does anyone else... they give ideas of products or more importantly portions of product. These ideas must be specific, that I do agree with and with this case I guess that is for the courts to decide on if it was specific enough. I think it was.
But also might I add that I think perhaps the Zune is more infringing on their patent the iPod as you are right in the iPod evolution. But it is still "doing away with buttons in favour of touchpad using gestures." If I had brought up that sentence prior to this article you surely would have mentioned the evolution of the iPod to this new technology.
I think really anyone reading this patent back in 1999 could obviously see the patterns would have included forward to skip track backwards swipe for previous track. And that is the beauty with the Zune and iPod is the ability to do this without special headphones or looking at the device. Now you need special headphones for the iPod Touch and iPhone, in a sense going back (if your loose your headphones or use a better pair). Perhaps a future generation will allow the touchscreen to duplicate swipes/patterns in the iPod mode when the screen is locked.
This will solve all of these bogus "patents". One simple rule. In order to patent something, you must have a working model to present to the patent office. No more of this patenting an idea, and just sitting on it to make money off of something that you were too lazy to create!
This will solve all of these bogus "patents". One simple rule. In order to patent something, you must have a working model to present to the patent office. No more of this patenting an idea, and just sitting on it to make money off of something that you were too lazy to create!
I guess that solves the problem of patenting human genes.
Comments
Some good thinking here, but I think you are wrong ultimately.
First, Apple was the first to use a trackpad or touchpad and that was in 1994. It could be argued that part and parcel of that idea is the "gesture" even though specific gestures were not introduced until much later. (The first person to think of the idea of using gestures to control electronics using capacitance, patented their idea in 1919 BTW.)
Secondly, the first iPod had a mechanical wheel, which was then replaced by the capacitance clickwheel version. So moving your finger in a circle is a gesture, but they could easily argue that it was just a way of using touchpad technology that they developed, to replace the physical wheel. The clickwheel is therefore a natural development of previous technology that should be allowed.
Third, the patent in question probably does itself in by specifically mentioning that one isn't looking at the device when using it, and by the fact that the fingerworks people were doing this stuff for years and years and these guys never went after them.
Lastly, your statement that you don't patent a product, but an idea is almost completely backwards from the real situation. You can't patent an idea at all, you can only patent an implementation of an idea, which in most cases is a product or a series or group of product ideas.
The strength of their patent is in the details. You can't just say "i hereby patent the idea of controlling a device with gestures," you have to say how you want to do that exactly and provide an example or two. These guys' example describes a touchpad that is used without looking at, that responds to pre-programmed gestures. It's both different from the implementations of the manufacturers they are suing and also very vague. Thus there is probably a lot of previous art (the very existence of Apple's trackpad is likely one), and there is some question as to whether the idea is even patentable in it's generality.
I appreciate your points but still disagree. You say they should give an example or two... they do in fact, in 1999 they dreamed up of an MP3 player that is controlled this way.
Additionally. Apple doesn't go to the patent office and hand them an iPhone. Nor does anyone else... they give ideas of products or more importantly portions of product. These ideas must be specific, that I do agree with and with this case I guess that is for the courts to decide on if it was specific enough. I think it was.
But also might I add that I think perhaps the Zune is more infringing on their patent the iPod as you are right in the iPod evolution. But it is still "doing away with buttons in favour of touchpad using gestures." If I had brought up that sentence prior to this article you surely would have mentioned the evolution of the iPod to this new technology.
I think really anyone reading this patent back in 1999 could obviously see the patterns would have included forward to skip track backwards swipe for previous track. And that is the beauty with the Zune and iPod is the ability to do this without special headphones or looking at the device. Now you need special headphones for the iPod Touch and iPhone, in a sense going back (if your loose your headphones or use a better pair). Perhaps a future generation will allow the touchscreen to duplicate swipes/patterns in the iPod mode when the screen is locked.
This will solve all of these bogus "patents". One simple rule. In order to patent something, you must have a working model to present to the patent office. No more of this patenting an idea, and just sitting on it to make money off of something that you were too lazy to create!
I guess that solves the problem of patenting human genes.
I have a patented finger gesture I'd like to share with this east Texas court. Can we let them secede already?
Oh crap.
If this is what I think it is, it means I owe you royalties and a lot of them.