You mean that same OS that is making Microsoft no money? THAT superior operating system?
Just because you write terrible code doesn't mean it's the fault of the OS. It's the fault of someone who can't code for crap.
Microsoft pulled in $21.6 billion in profit for the last FY. They're a great company with a truly competent engineering team. They're also smart enough to make a search engine rivaling google's. Where's Apple's? Even Apple iCloud service is powered by Microsoft's Azure servers.
And of course, you're gonna blame the developers. This feels like some of the mindless SONY fanboys who blamed game developers for not taking advantage of the CELL processor when it was SONY's fault for making a highly complicated architecture.
Their TVs suck - Their TV's have (Had?) Samsung panels, so they should be the same picture quality as Samsung TVs. They are pricier than foreign TVs though and that's because of the strong yen (Which is now depreciating in value).
Their laptops suck - Opinion
Their cameras suck - LOL... SONY actually builds the best cameras. Even your precious iPhone and Samsung GS1,2,3, and 4 all had SONY cameras.
I get your point. Apple has good design tastes. They products look great. And then what? What else do they have to offer? They don't contribute to the advancement of science and technology. They are trend-setters.
I have yet to hear someone rave about their TVs. In fact I've heard numerous complaints about stupid things their TVs do. I know one guy who replaced his TV only to have the replacement do the exact same thing. After the third one I think he went to Panasonic.
Not opinion on the laptops. I work as a computer repair agent working on nothing but PCs. The Sonys that come in are all useless. You can't get parts for them easily because the stupid system Sony has in place.
Sony cameras SUCK. I had a bottom of the line Panasonic digital video camera and my mate had the middle of the line Sony Digital 8 video camera and the difference in video quality was massive. The Sony had a yellow tinge all the way through it but my Panasonic had amazing crystal clear image with correct colours. I have yet to see a decent image taken with a Carl Zeiss lens. I don't see why people rave about those lenses.
Yes they do contribute to the advancement of science and technology. Many science labs use Macs because the power benefits are actually in favour of the Mac. Grand Central allows huge processing advantages for maths applications including the industry standard MathLab.
USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.
If Microsoft had their way we'd still be using those ridiculous heavy touchscreen laptops that they've been failing to sell for the past 10 years.
Microsoft pulled in $21.6 billion in profit for the last FY. They're a great company with a truly competent engineering team. They're also smart enough to make a search engine rivaling google's. Where's Apple's? Even Apple iCloud service is powered by Microsoft's Azure servers.
And of course, you're gonna blame the developers. This feels like some of the mindless SONY fanboys who blamed game developers for not taking advantage of the CELL processor when it was SONY's fault for making a highly complicated architecture.
You didn't read how much Apple made for last QUARTER did you?
Apple doesn't make a search engine and Bing is useless as a search engine compared to Google and Google search sucks.
I have yet to hear someone rave about their TVs. In fact I've heard numerous complaints about stupid things their TVs do. I know one guy who replaced his TV only to have the replacement do the exact same thing. After the third one I think he went to Panasonic.
Not opinion on the laptops. I work as a computer repair agent working on nothing but PCs. The Sonys that come in are all useless. You can't get parts for them easily because the stupid system Sony has in place.
Sony cameras SUCK. I had a bottom of the line Panasonic digital video camera and my mate had the middle of the line Sony Digital 8 video camera and the difference in video quality was massive. The Sony had a yellow tinge all the way through it but my Panasonic had amazing crystal clear image with correct colours. I have yet to see a decent image taken with a Carl Zeiss lens. I don't see why people rave about those lenses.
Yes they do contribute to the advancement of science and technology. Many science labs use Macs because the power benefits are actually in favour of the Mac. Grand Central allows huge processing advantages for maths applications including the industry standard MathLab.
USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.
If Microsoft had their way we'd still be using those ridiculous heavy touchscreen laptops that they've been failing to sell for the past 10 years.
USB - Created by M-Systems
Thunderbolt - Intel
Touchscreens - Apple doesn't engineer anything...
Just because they use technology created by other companies doesn't mean they invented it They may have pushed and helped make the tech become mainstream, but they didn't advance it. Advancement is done by companies with a real engineering department like IBM and Samsung. Apple is a repackager.
Who cares who had the idea first... it's he who gets to the patent office first that wins.
This is the same reason writers send a a copy of their book/writings Certified Mail to themselves, then never open the envelope with it. Gives them a "dated" copy for any future need for court or copyright issues.
I have seen many super generic patents still remain. One is about controller reacting to something on the screen, i.e. rumble, etc. And it still remains.
It's whoever is looking at the patents during the "court time" if they understand or even want to understand it, and then "invalidate" it. Many times if someone challenges a patent they automatically invalidate, and then the whole fun begins on revalidating by the patent holder, or proving it, sort of speak. The same old excuse of "prior art" is always needed. But I bet you that the patent office person who "invalidated" this again has an Android phone on their hip or in their pocket.
In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).
If these examples of prior artwork and this is the method the USPTO is using then I said this before there are plenty of patents which should never been grant since there is plenty of prior artwork examples for lots of patents. Today there is very few example of some totally new or unique designs. If look hard enough and you can fine prior artwork as well as anticipated, which mean to the average person it would be an obviously solution to a problem.
Yeah, it's totally because of me that the program doesn't work properly on a mac. Let's disregard the fact that it runs flawlessly on a windows PC and the fact that many multiplatform applications like Steam and desmume all work better on windows too.
Nope, it can't be because Apple sucks at engineering. It's because of us.
In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).
Apple still has 2 months to proof that the pinch to zoom patent is valid. I am sure Apple will be able to proof this, and still get money from Samsung for patent infringement. The people that invented pinch to zoom did not patent it, so the patent should belong to Apple. And I hope Apple (the patent holder) sues every device maker with pinch to zoom on their devices. This feature should only be available on Apple products, and Apple products alone.
Apple still has 2 months to proof that the pinch to zoom patent is valid. I am sure Apple will be able to proof this, and still get money from Samsung for patent infringement. The people that invented pinch to zoom did not patent it, so the patent should belong to Apple. And I hope Apple (the patent holder) sues every device maker with pinch to zoom on their devices. This feature should only be available on Apple products, and Apple products alone.
Who cares who had the idea first... it's he who gets to the patent office first that wins.
Not when there's prior art. And there's a lot of it for pinch zoom, going back decades.
Which is why Apple does NOT have a patent on pinch-to-zoom itself. Nobody does.
--
Instead, this particular patent tries to do an end run, by claiming the combination of looking for one finger for scrolling and two or more fingers for zooming.
Apple will probably attempt to rewrite the claims to salvage the patent. Usually that works to some extent. Not sure it's possible this time, though.
For a lot more info on the prior art that the USPTO found towards invalidating this patent, see AI's original story back in December.
Not when there's prior art. And there's a lot of it for pinch zoom, going back decades.
Which is why Apple does NOT have a patent on pinch-to-zoom itself. Nobody does.
--
Instead, this particular patent tries to do an end run, by claiming the combination of looking for one finger for scrolling and two or more fingers for zooming.
Apple will probably attempt to rewrite the claims to salvage the patent. Usually that works to some extent. Not sure it's possible this time, though.
For a lot more info on the prior art that the USPTO found towards invalidating this patent, see AI's original story back in December.
Why do you even bother arguing with these Conservative filth? Isn't their average IQ in the low 90s?
Reason and facts are irrelevant when it comes to protecting their precious "American company".
USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.
Apple pushed USB?? Sorry, USB was around and growing in the PC arena and Apple was pushing Firewire. They eventually came over to USB because that was dominating the market. Remember, the iPod launched Firewire only.
[quote name="icoco3" url="/t/158756/samsung-gets-a-boost-with-usptos-final-rejection-of-apples-pinch-to-zoom-patent#post_2370602"]Sorry, USB was around and growing in the PC arena…[/QUOTE]
And where's this evidence of "growing USB usage" in 1998 before the iMac was released?
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
Anyway, I've watched the linked videos. Can't see that any of them include "Pinch to zoom" functionality. They contain examples of 'zooming' (i.e. scaling) an image, but I'm not aware of Apple seeking to patent the entire concept of graphical scaling.
If you think that there are example of "pinch to zoom" in these videos, please could you indicate the relevant timestamps? Thanks.
Bizarre. I'm not quite sure what exactly the USPTO / US government has against Apple. Maybe not enough backhanders to those at the top...
It's not about being "against Apple". It's about the fact that the USPTO got overwhelmed, and was more concerned with quantity than quality. Now the mess has to be cleaned up.
As for your question about pinch to zoom history, I posted a link above. However, I see now that it's unlikely people will take the time to click it. So I'll repeat the info here to make it easier for everyone:
It was featured in both a 1993 concept film script, and a very popular 1996 book, from a Sun Microsystems UI developer:
It was demoed to Apple by a Mitsubishi inventor in 2003. (They had been doing multi-touch research since the 1990s.)
And of course everyone remembers Jeff Han showing it off at TED in 2006. (Han was also the one who stopped Apple from getting a trademark on "Multi-Touch", by pointing out to the USPTO that it was a generic industry term.)
Then there was the first publicly announced multi-touch phone, by the Open Linux movement. (The multi-touch unfortunately didn't come to production right away because of cost. But the idea was there. ) It was to have a 2.8 inch capacitive touchscreen with 640x480 display.
It was announced in Nov 2006, two months before the top secret iPhone was revealed by Steve Jobs. Note the four icon dock, btw.
Engadget noted it as having "multi-touch gesture recognition", and one of its unique features was to be pinch zoom. Pictures below are from the original Nov 7, 2006 Gizmodo article that was generally ignored at the time. It wasn't until the iPhone came out that suddenly they remembered the previous Linux phone.
There were even reporters at the time who thought that Apple had copied some of the Linux phone ideas, but I think it was simply more a matter of convergence due to the time being ripe for the technology. Which is another reason why many of these patents are a bad idea. Everyone was having the same ideas, but few were trying to patent them. That's something big companies do the most.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
You mean that same OS that is making Microsoft no money? THAT superior operating system?
Just because you write terrible code doesn't mean it's the fault of the OS. It's the fault of someone who can't code for crap.
Microsoft pulled in $21.6 billion in profit for the last FY. They're a great company with a truly competent engineering team. They're also smart enough to make a search engine rivaling google's. Where's Apple's? Even Apple iCloud service is powered by Microsoft's Azure servers.
And of course, you're gonna blame the developers. This feels like some of the mindless SONY fanboys who blamed game developers for not taking advantage of the CELL processor when it was SONY's fault for making a highly complicated architecture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonysexual
Their TVs suck - Their TV's have (Had?) Samsung panels, so they should be the same picture quality as Samsung TVs. They are pricier than foreign TVs though and that's because of the strong yen (Which is now depreciating in value).
Their laptops suck - Opinion
Their cameras suck - LOL... SONY actually builds the best cameras. Even your precious iPhone and Samsung GS1,2,3, and 4 all had SONY cameras.
I get your point. Apple has good design tastes. They products look great. And then what? What else do they have to offer? They don't contribute to the advancement of science and technology. They are trend-setters.
I have yet to hear someone rave about their TVs. In fact I've heard numerous complaints about stupid things their TVs do. I know one guy who replaced his TV only to have the replacement do the exact same thing. After the third one I think he went to Panasonic.
Not opinion on the laptops. I work as a computer repair agent working on nothing but PCs. The Sonys that come in are all useless. You can't get parts for them easily because the stupid system Sony has in place.
Sony cameras SUCK. I had a bottom of the line Panasonic digital video camera and my mate had the middle of the line Sony Digital 8 video camera and the difference in video quality was massive. The Sony had a yellow tinge all the way through it but my Panasonic had amazing crystal clear image with correct colours. I have yet to see a decent image taken with a Carl Zeiss lens. I don't see why people rave about those lenses.
Yes they do contribute to the advancement of science and technology. Many science labs use Macs because the power benefits are actually in favour of the Mac. Grand Central allows huge processing advantages for maths applications including the industry standard MathLab.
USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.
If Microsoft had their way we'd still be using those ridiculous heavy touchscreen laptops that they've been failing to sell for the past 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonysexual
Microsoft pulled in $21.6 billion in profit for the last FY. They're a great company with a truly competent engineering team. They're also smart enough to make a search engine rivaling google's. Where's Apple's? Even Apple iCloud service is powered by Microsoft's Azure servers.
And of course, you're gonna blame the developers. This feels like some of the mindless SONY fanboys who blamed game developers for not taking advantage of the CELL processor when it was SONY's fault for making a highly complicated architecture.
You didn't read how much Apple made for last QUARTER did you?
Apple doesn't make a search engine and Bing is useless as a search engine compared to Google and Google search sucks.
Nice try
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
I have yet to hear someone rave about their TVs. In fact I've heard numerous complaints about stupid things their TVs do. I know one guy who replaced his TV only to have the replacement do the exact same thing. After the third one I think he went to Panasonic.
Not opinion on the laptops. I work as a computer repair agent working on nothing but PCs. The Sonys that come in are all useless. You can't get parts for them easily because the stupid system Sony has in place.
Sony cameras SUCK. I had a bottom of the line Panasonic digital video camera and my mate had the middle of the line Sony Digital 8 video camera and the difference in video quality was massive. The Sony had a yellow tinge all the way through it but my Panasonic had amazing crystal clear image with correct colours. I have yet to see a decent image taken with a Carl Zeiss lens. I don't see why people rave about those lenses.
Yes they do contribute to the advancement of science and technology. Many science labs use Macs because the power benefits are actually in favour of the Mac. Grand Central allows huge processing advantages for maths applications including the industry standard MathLab.
USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.
If Microsoft had their way we'd still be using those ridiculous heavy touchscreen laptops that they've been failing to sell for the past 10 years.
USB - Created by M-Systems
Thunderbolt - Intel
Touchscreens - Apple doesn't engineer anything...
Just because they use technology created by other companies doesn't mean they invented it They may have pushed and helped make the tech become mainstream, but they didn't advance it. Advancement is done by companies with a real engineering department like IBM and Samsung. Apple is a repackager.
This is the same reason writers send a a copy of their book/writings Certified Mail to themselves, then never open the envelope with it. Gives them a "dated" copy for any future need for court or copyright issues.
I have seen many super generic patents still remain. One is about controller reacting to something on the screen, i.e. rumble, etc. And it still remains.
It's whoever is looking at the patents during the "court time" if they understand or even want to understand it, and then "invalidate" it. Many times if someone challenges a patent they automatically invalidate, and then the whole fun begins on revalidating by the patent holder, or proving it, sort of speak. The same old excuse of "prior art" is always needed. But I bet you that the patent office person who "invalidated" this again has an Android phone on their hip or in their pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice
In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).
Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
- Starfire (1992): www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe1DFY-SsQ
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
- History: www.touchscreencomputers.co.uk/history.html
If these examples of prior artwork and this is the method the USPTO is using then I said this before there are plenty of patents which should never been grant since there is plenty of prior artwork examples for lots of patents. Today there is very few example of some totally new or unique designs. If look hard enough and you can fine prior artwork as well as anticipated, which mean to the average person it would be an obviously solution to a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonysexual
You Americans are so laughable.
Yeah, it's totally because of me that the program doesn't work properly on a mac. Let's disregard the fact that it runs flawlessly on a windows PC and the fact that many multiplatform applications like Steam and desmume all work better on windows too.
Nope, it can't be because Apple sucks at engineering. It's because of us.
...so you write viruses?
BINGO !!!
You hit the high score for best answers to low level trolls!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Obviously Apple should have never gotten a pinch-to-zoom patent considering pinch-to-zoom had been demonstrated for years before the iPhone.
Where? Not arguing as I don't know, so I'm asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice
In 1992 the movie Starfire showed pinch to zoom and in 1997 the Tandy T3 had working pinch to zoom. Two handed had been done since 1963 by MIT's SketchPad (Apple is just a copier 45 years later, much less a truly valid patent holder of this invention).
Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
So Adobe InDesign was envisioned from SketchPad :P
Apple still has 2 months to proof that the pinch to zoom patent is valid. I am sure Apple will be able to proof this, and still get money from Samsung for patent infringement. The people that invented pinch to zoom did not patent it, so the patent should belong to Apple. And I hope Apple (the patent holder) sues every device maker with pinch to zoom on their devices. This feature should only be available on Apple products, and Apple products alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
Apple still has 2 months to proof that the pinch to zoom patent is valid. I am sure Apple will be able to proof this, and still get money from Samsung for patent infringement. The people that invented pinch to zoom did not patent it, so the patent should belong to Apple. And I hope Apple (the patent holder) sues every device maker with pinch to zoom on their devices. This feature should only be available on Apple products, and Apple products alone.
Women logic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade
Who cares who had the idea first... it's he who gets to the patent office first that wins.
Not when there's prior art. And there's a lot of it for pinch zoom, going back decades.
Which is why Apple does NOT have a patent on pinch-to-zoom itself. Nobody does.
--
Instead, this particular patent tries to do an end run, by claiming the combination of looking for one finger for scrolling and two or more fingers for zooming.
Apple will probably attempt to rewrite the claims to salvage the patent. Usually that works to some extent. Not sure it's possible this time, though.
For a lot more info on the prior art that the USPTO found towards invalidating this patent, see AI's original story back in December.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Not when there's prior art. And there's a lot of it for pinch zoom, going back decades.
Which is why Apple does NOT have a patent on pinch-to-zoom itself. Nobody does.
--
Instead, this particular patent tries to do an end run, by claiming the combination of looking for one finger for scrolling and two or more fingers for zooming.
Apple will probably attempt to rewrite the claims to salvage the patent. Usually that works to some extent. Not sure it's possible this time, though.
For a lot more info on the prior art that the USPTO found towards invalidating this patent, see AI's original story back in December.
Why do you even bother arguing with these Conservative filth? Isn't their average IQ in the low 90s?
Reason and facts are irrelevant when it comes to protecting their precious "American company".
lawyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
...
USB? Apple pushed that. Thunderbolt. Apple is pushing that. Touchscreens? Apple is well ahead of the game.
Apple pushed USB?? Sorry, USB was around and growing in the PC arena and Apple was pushing Firewire. They eventually came over to USB because that was dominating the market. Remember, the iPod launched Firewire only.
Thunderbolt? Apple bought the rights so they could have exclusivity blocking others from using it until 2012.
Touchscreens? Apple made them easy to use and mainstreamed them in phones, that part is right.
And where's this evidence of "growing USB usage" in 1998 before the iMac was released?
Bizarre. I'm not quite sure what exactly the USPTO / US government has against Apple. Maybe not enough backhanders to those at the top...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFPrice
Verification of Prior Art:
- SketchPad (1963): www.youtube.com/watch?v=USyoT_Ha_bA
- Starfire (1992): www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhe1DFY-SsQ
- T3 Tablet (1997): earlier 1994 concept demo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U
Anyway, I've watched the linked videos. Can't see that any of them include "Pinch to zoom" functionality. They contain examples of 'zooming' (i.e. scaling) an image, but I'm not aware of Apple seeking to patent the entire concept of graphical scaling.
If you think that there are example of "pinch to zoom" in these videos, please could you indicate the relevant timestamps? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion
Bizarre. I'm not quite sure what exactly the USPTO / US government has against Apple. Maybe not enough backhanders to those at the top...
It's not about being "against Apple". It's about the fact that the USPTO got overwhelmed, and was more concerned with quantity than quality. Now the mess has to be cleaned up.
As for your question about pinch to zoom history, I posted a link above. However, I see now that it's unlikely people will take the time to click it. So I'll repeat the info here to make it easier for everyone:
Finger pinch zoom on computers dates from at least 1983.
It was featured in both a 1993 concept film script, and a very popular 1996 book, from a Sun Microsystems UI developer:
It was demoed to Apple by a Mitsubishi inventor in 2003. (They had been doing multi-touch research since the 1990s.)
And of course everyone remembers Jeff Han showing it off at TED in 2006. (Han was also the one who stopped Apple from getting a trademark on "Multi-Touch", by pointing out to the USPTO that it was a generic industry term.)
Then there was the first publicly announced multi-touch phone, by the Open Linux movement. (The multi-touch unfortunately didn't come to production right away because of cost. But the idea was there. ) It was to have a 2.8 inch capacitive touchscreen with 640x480 display.
It was announced in Nov 2006, two months before the top secret iPhone was revealed by Steve Jobs. Note the four icon dock, btw.
Engadget noted it as having "multi-touch gesture recognition", and one of its unique features was to be pinch zoom. Pictures below are from the original Nov 7, 2006 Gizmodo article that was generally ignored at the time. It wasn't until the iPhone came out that suddenly they remembered the previous Linux phone.
There were even reporters at the time who thought that Apple had copied some of the Linux phone ideas, but I think it was simply more a matter of convergence due to the time being ripe for the technology. Which is another reason why many of these patents are a bad idea. Everyone was having the same ideas, but few were trying to patent them. That's something big companies do the most.