Sure, sure, and my great great great grand father used a tablet in 600 BC just like Moses used a tablet for the 10 commandments of God.
Apple got their patents after many years of consideration. Apple deserve them and will use them well as the patents will serve Apple well.
Time will tell.
Ignore the truth so your false reality can stay intact. Do some research on your own. These patents will never hold up in court. It is laughable to think so.
Apple engineers were researching and designing and patenting this iOS multi-touch UI stuff in 2006 and probably started well before that (FingerWorks 1998) . You have to wonder, what did they think of next that will be released soon in our life time?
This work originated with FingerWorks, a company that started in 1998 and was bought by Apple in 2005.
In 1983, Bell Labs at Murray Hill published a comprehensive discussion of touch-screen based interfaces. In 1984, Bell Labs engineered a touch screen that could change images with more than one hand. In 1985, the University of Toronto group including Bill Buxton developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance rather than bulky camera-based optical sensing systems.
A breakthrough occurred in 1991, when Pierre Wellner published a paper on his multi-touch ?Digital Desk?, which supported multi-finger and pinching motions
Multi touch tablet in 1985 - sounds like a portable device to me.
I think that the Peter Calveley vs Amazon patent case gives some interesting case law. Combine it with what you mention above and I doubt that this patent will hold up in court.
Perhaps the phrase "mutli touch" wasn't obvious enough for you?
Care to cite a single example of two fingers, styli or anything else working together to create a zoom effect before the iPhone?
Sure, pan and zoom with a keyboard, mouse or some other combination of the two is old hat - but what the iPhone had - multi-touch - two or more fingers creating gestures like pinch to zoom was and now is unique. It's obvious now, but apparently it wasn't that obvious pre-iPhone or someone else would have got there first (or bought the company Apple did for the would-be wise a$$es out there)
About half way through he uses two fingers to make a box grow and this is from 1991.
Now you can argue it doesn't effect the patent because it's not a mobile device, but my original point was that it seems stupid you can patent something that clearly already exists or was thought of by someone else just by adding the words "on a mobile device". It's still essentially the same idea.
But go ahead and run with that if you think you can make any headway in invalidating their patent with it...
If nothing else it will be fun to watch....
Heck, there were movies about going to the Moon decades before the US actually did it. Aw screw it, why am I even bothering to try to explain what should be obvious
I kinda agree and disagree at the same time. If this was a patent for the technicalities of how interpreting the gesture is recognized then a movie wouldn't count as the movie just has an idea and no patentable technology on how it's done.
But from what I've read this is a patent on the actual gesture being used on a mobile device, irrespective of any technology behind it. In which case is there is a film that has a person doing the same thing then it would be prior art for the idea that you could zoom into an image using a pinch gesture.
The problem with the general points in this thread is they are based on the AppleInsider article and not the patent itself. A patent is for a method of accomplishing something, in this case a method for doing pinch to zoom on a portable device, etc. The full patent is here and if you read it you'll soon get lost in the technicalities if you're not an engineering type.
It's fully possible to have 2 different patents describing 2 different methods of achieving the same thing, lets say pinch to zoom. When a patent application is written the writer of course tries to portray the patent in the widest possible context while at the same time being careful not to step on the toes of earlier patents which may be close enough as to be identical methods.
The Patent Office then tries to establish whether the patent application is unique enough to warrant granting a patent. So Apple was granted a patent for achieving pinch to zoom and other techniques described in the patent because the Patent Office lawyers and researchers decided that there was something unique enough about the technique for offering a patent.
At the same time another manufacturer can develop a different METHOD for achieving the same goal of pinch to zoom or some other part of the patent like twisting a dial. If a competitor, say HTC uses a different method for achieving pinch to zoom then no problem. If Apple were to sue HTC about this then HTC would win IF their METHOD of doing P To Z was different enough not to infringe on Apple's patent. On the other hand, if they use a very similar or the same technique then Apple has every right to sue.
So the question is not "Apple owns pinch to zoom" but rather Apple now owns a particular method of achieving pinch to zoom on a portable device. The question that is unanswered at the moment is whether or not HTC, LG, Samsung, Motorola et al are using that method or a different method for achieving pinch to zoom.
I kinda agree and disagree at the same time. If this was a patent for the technicalities of how interpreting the gesture is recognized then a movie wouldn't count as the movie just has an idea and no patentable technology on how it's done.
But from what I've read this is a patent on the actual gesture being used on a mobile device, irrespective of any technology behind it. In which case is there is a film that has a person doing the same thing then it would be prior art for the idea that you could zoom into an image using a pinch gesture.
You do not know if 2002 is prior art. The date of invention, which establishes priority, is usually much earlier than the date the patent is filed. I expect Apple is mostly going to use these patents in a defensive way, they are being sued by most of the big boys in the phone business and this gives them a huge lever in the fight.
Multi touch tablet in 1985 - sounds like a portable device to me.
I think that the Peter Calveley vs Amazon patent case gives some interesting case law. Combine it with what you mention above and I doubt that this patent will hold up in court.
What was the holding in the Amazon case? How does it figure in here?
Seen it way before the iphone in movies. About as 'unique' as a dog with 4 legs.
So by your logic (and using a far fetched example for fun here only) when a scientist eventually manages to create the transporter beam he can't patent it because you saw it on Star Trek in 1975 ... right? Ever heard of special effects?
As one who has been worked in this industry since the mid 1970's and watched the way concepts and designs have been, shall we say, 'adopted' by rival companies to great success. I am very please to hear Apple are getting serious about protecting their IP. Before the usual suspects chime in with 'Apple stole everything from Xerox PARC' please go back and research what actually happened.
Apple may simply demand those using their IP license it or perhaps cross license other's IP or they may require certain companies simply stop using it. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.
The problem with the general points in this thread is they are based on the AppleInsider article and not the patent itself. A patent is for a method of accomplishing something, in this case a method for doing pinch to zoom on a portable device, etc. The full patent is here and if you read it you'll soon get lost in the technicalities if you're not an engineering type.
It's fully possible to have 2 different patents describing 2 different methods of achieving the same thing, lets say pinch to zoom. When a patent application is written the writer of course tries to portray the patent in the widest possible context while at the same time being careful not to step on the toes of earlier patents which may be close enough as to be identical methods.
The Patent Office then tries to establish whether the patent application is unique enough to warrant granting a patent. So Apple was granted a patent for achieving pinch to zoom and other techniques described in the patent because the Patent Office lawyers and researchers decided that there was something unique enough about the technique for offering a patent.
At the same time another manufacturer can develop a different METHOD for achieving the same goal of pinch to zoom or some other part of the patent like twisting a dial. If a competitor, say HTC uses a different method for achieving pinch to zoom then no problem. If Apple were to sue HTC about this then HTC would win IF their METHOD of doing P To Z was different enough not to infringe on Apple's patent. On the other hand, if they use a very similar or the same technique then Apple has every right to sue.
So the question is not "Apple owns pinch to zoom" but rather Apple now owns a particular method of achieving pinch to zoom on a portable device. The question that is unanswered at the moment is whether or not HTC, LG, Samsung, Motorola et al are using that method or a different method for achieving pinch to zoom.
Thank you, very informative and useful information.
Seen it way before the iphone in movies. About as 'unique' as a dog with 4 legs.
I saw the Millenium Falcon in a movie quite awhile ago. I think I'm going to file a patent for it and wait for someone to make it. After all, it was in a movie, so it's not like it's going to be new when it comes out for real anyway.
Looks like the new patent will open up Google to a full-court press lawsuit from Apple WRT Android.
Android make Steve angry. No like when Steve angry,,, Steve SMASH!
But seriously, as All Day Breakfast points out, this may be more about forcing others to come up with their own methods of achieving similar results to Apple. The result may well be sub par results compared to Apple helping Apple stand out from the copy cats. On the other hand if Google et al can come up with their own unique alternatives that are better the industry leaps forward and Apple have to keep on their toes. It is a win win for consumers. Simply ripping of Apple's IP is damaging to the industry.
Comments
Sure, sure, and my great great great grand father used a tablet in 600 BC just like Moses used a tablet for the 10 commandments of God.
Apple got their patents after many years of consideration. Apple deserve them and will use them well as the patents will serve Apple well.
Time will tell.
Ignore the truth so your false reality can stay intact. Do some research on your own. These patents will never hold up in court. It is laughable to think so.
Apple engineers were researching and designing and patenting this iOS multi-touch UI stuff in 2006 and probably started well before that (FingerWorks 1998) . You have to wonder, what did they think of next that will be released soon in our life time?
This work originated with FingerWorks, a company that started in 1998 and was bought by Apple in 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
God bless Apple!
They deserve their patents and every bit of success that comes with them.
Time will tell.
Seriously what a loser fan boy.
I saw pinch to zoom and all the other gestures in the movie 'Minority Report' back in 2002. Steven Spielberg should sue Apple for patent rights.
That stuff came from the Microsoft Surface guys
In 1983, Bell Labs at Murray Hill published a comprehensive discussion of touch-screen based interfaces. In 1984, Bell Labs engineered a touch screen that could change images with more than one hand. In 1985, the University of Toronto group including Bill Buxton developed a multi-touch tablet that used capacitance rather than bulky camera-based optical sensing systems.
A breakthrough occurred in 1991, when Pierre Wellner published a paper on his multi-touch ?Digital Desk?, which supported multi-finger and pinching motions
edit:
1985
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arrus9CxUiA
Multi touch tablet in 1985 - sounds like a portable device to me.
I think that the Peter Calveley vs Amazon patent case gives some interesting case law. Combine it with what you mention above and I doubt that this patent will hold up in court.
They chose to go ahead and copy it anyway.
Oh well, I say just give all their money to Apple now and be done with it.
Time will tell.
They knew this stuff was patent-pending because Steve told them at the intro of the iPhone.
They chose to go ahead and copy it anyway.
Oh well, I say just give all their money to Apple now and be done with it.
Time will tell.
And eliminate all competition in the mobile industry. Stupidest idea I have heard from the fan boys on here yet, and that is saying something!
And eliminate all competition in the mobile industry. Stupidest idea I have heard from the fan boys on here yet, and that is saying something!
Yes. Admit it. The competition is incapable of coming up with their own ideas to patent.
Perhaps the phrase "mutli touch" wasn't obvious enough for you?
Care to cite a single example of two fingers, styli or anything else working together to create a zoom effect before the iPhone?
Sure, pan and zoom with a keyboard, mouse or some other combination of the two is old hat - but what the iPhone had - multi-touch - two or more fingers creating gestures like pinch to zoom was and now is unique. It's obvious now, but apparently it wasn't that obvious pre-iPhone or someone else would have got there first (or bought the company Apple did for the would-be wise a$$es out there)
Ok not quite zoom on an image but there's this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g
About half way through he uses two fingers to make a box grow and this is from 1991.
Now you can argue it doesn't effect the patent because it's not a mobile device, but my original point was that it seems stupid you can patent something that clearly already exists or was thought of by someone else just by adding the words "on a mobile device". It's still essentially the same idea.
Movies aren't prior art.
But go ahead and run with that if you think you can make any headway in invalidating their patent with it...
If nothing else it will be fun to watch....
Heck, there were movies about going to the Moon decades before the US actually did it. Aw screw it, why am I even bothering to try to explain what should be obvious
I kinda agree and disagree at the same time. If this was a patent for the technicalities of how interpreting the gesture is recognized then a movie wouldn't count as the movie just has an idea and no patentable technology on how it's done.
But from what I've read this is a patent on the actual gesture being used on a mobile device, irrespective of any technology behind it. In which case is there is a film that has a person doing the same thing then it would be prior art for the idea that you could zoom into an image using a pinch gesture.
It's fully possible to have 2 different patents describing 2 different methods of achieving the same thing, lets say pinch to zoom. When a patent application is written the writer of course tries to portray the patent in the widest possible context while at the same time being careful not to step on the toes of earlier patents which may be close enough as to be identical methods.
The Patent Office then tries to establish whether the patent application is unique enough to warrant granting a patent. So Apple was granted a patent for achieving pinch to zoom and other techniques described in the patent because the Patent Office lawyers and researchers decided that there was something unique enough about the technique for offering a patent.
At the same time another manufacturer can develop a different METHOD for achieving the same goal of pinch to zoom or some other part of the patent like twisting a dial. If a competitor, say HTC uses a different method for achieving pinch to zoom then no problem. If Apple were to sue HTC about this then HTC would win IF their METHOD of doing P To Z was different enough not to infringe on Apple's patent. On the other hand, if they use a very similar or the same technique then Apple has every right to sue.
So the question is not "Apple owns pinch to zoom" but rather Apple now owns a particular method of achieving pinch to zoom on a portable device. The question that is unanswered at the moment is whether or not HTC, LG, Samsung, Motorola et al are using that method or a different method for achieving pinch to zoom.
I kinda agree and disagree at the same time. If this was a patent for the technicalities of how interpreting the gesture is recognized then a movie wouldn't count as the movie just has an idea and no patentable technology on how it's done.
But from what I've read this is a patent on the actual gesture being used on a mobile device, irrespective of any technology behind it. In which case is there is a film that has a person doing the same thing then it would be prior art for the idea that you could zoom into an image using a pinch gesture.
You do not know if 2002 is prior art. The date of invention, which establishes priority, is usually much earlier than the date the patent is filed. I expect Apple is mostly going to use these patents in a defensive way, they are being sued by most of the big boys in the phone business and this gives them a huge lever in the fight.
Multi touch tablet in 1985 - sounds like a portable device to me.
I think that the Peter Calveley vs Amazon patent case gives some interesting case law. Combine it with what you mention above and I doubt that this patent will hold up in court.
What was the holding in the Amazon case? How does it figure in here?
Seen it way before the iphone in movies. About as 'unique' as a dog with 4 legs.
So by your logic (and using a far fetched example for fun here only) when a scientist eventually manages to create the transporter beam he can't patent it because you saw it on Star Trek in 1975 ... right? Ever heard of special effects?
Apple may simply demand those using their IP license it or perhaps cross license other's IP or they may require certain companies simply stop using it. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.
that is likely a perfect example of "prior art" and it definately wasn't a special effect.
The problem with the general points in this thread is they are based on the AppleInsider article and not the patent itself. A patent is for a method of accomplishing something, in this case a method for doing pinch to zoom on a portable device, etc. The full patent is here and if you read it you'll soon get lost in the technicalities if you're not an engineering type.
It's fully possible to have 2 different patents describing 2 different methods of achieving the same thing, lets say pinch to zoom. When a patent application is written the writer of course tries to portray the patent in the widest possible context while at the same time being careful not to step on the toes of earlier patents which may be close enough as to be identical methods.
The Patent Office then tries to establish whether the patent application is unique enough to warrant granting a patent. So Apple was granted a patent for achieving pinch to zoom and other techniques described in the patent because the Patent Office lawyers and researchers decided that there was something unique enough about the technique for offering a patent.
At the same time another manufacturer can develop a different METHOD for achieving the same goal of pinch to zoom or some other part of the patent like twisting a dial. If a competitor, say HTC uses a different method for achieving pinch to zoom then no problem. If Apple were to sue HTC about this then HTC would win IF their METHOD of doing P To Z was different enough not to infringe on Apple's patent. On the other hand, if they use a very similar or the same technique then Apple has every right to sue.
So the question is not "Apple owns pinch to zoom" but rather Apple now owns a particular method of achieving pinch to zoom on a portable device. The question that is unanswered at the moment is whether or not HTC, LG, Samsung, Motorola et al are using that method or a different method for achieving pinch to zoom.
Thank you, very informative and useful information.
Android make Steve angry. No like when Steve angry,,, Steve SMASH!
Seen it way before the iphone in movies. About as 'unique' as a dog with 4 legs.
I saw the Millenium Falcon in a movie quite awhile ago. I think I'm going to file a patent for it and wait for someone to make it. After all, it was in a movie, so it's not like it's going to be new when it comes out for real anyway.
Looks like the new patent will open up Google to a full-court press lawsuit from Apple WRT Android.
Android make Steve angry. No like when Steve angry,,, Steve SMASH!
But seriously, as All Day Breakfast points out, this may be more about forcing others to come up with their own methods of achieving similar results to Apple. The result may well be sub par results compared to Apple helping Apple stand out from the copy cats. On the other hand if Google et al can come up with their own unique alternatives that are better the industry leaps forward and Apple have to keep on their toes. It is a win win for consumers. Simply ripping of Apple's IP is damaging to the industry.