Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
HotHardware.com
7860 Followers
Jake Rocheleau
2459 Followers
adamwarner420
236 Followers
Keith Sadler
349 Followers
terarealm256Oct 15, 2010
this reminds me, I gotta go pinch a loaf...brb
Forever_ZeroOct 15, 2010
This is why the patent system is broken; Apple essentially just patented intuition.
The "pinch to zoom" functionality is so good because people will intuitively use that gesture to zoom-in, especially with the new touch screen popularity. All this patent did is guarantee that products not made by Apple, regardless of how much better/worse they are then their analogous Apple counterparts, will not have this intuitive convenience for its users.
If this continues, Apple can come-out with crappy iProducts that are worse than the competition, but have a monopoly on a positive user experience via patents.
kellyOct 15, 2010
>"This is why the patent system is broken; Apple essentially just patented intuition."
I disagree at least on this point as it could be argued that pulling the fingers away is akin to moving forward.
An example of a bad patent is amazon's "one-click" patent.
"If this continues, Apple can come-out with crappy iProducts that are worse than the competition"
Apple doesn't typically do this though so this is unfounded concern.
You sound like Thom from OS NewsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Forever_ZeroOct 15, 2010
>I disagree at least on this point as it could be argued that pulling the fingers away is akin to moving forward.
I guess that what is intuitive means different things to different people. To me, the pinch motion implies, at the very least, focusing in on a given area. I can't really see how it could be seen as moving forward, but *shrug*, I'm sure some people could see it that way.
>"Apple doesn't typically do this though so this is unfounded concern."
Just because something has never happened doesn't mean that it is not something to be concerned about; that's faulty logic. I'm trying to demonstrate that if this patent pattern continues, that it could get out of control. Apple in-particular may not be the ultimate problem, I'm just using this example as a starting point for said demonstration.
>"You sound like Thom from OS News"
I don't know who Thom is, but I don't get why you needed to randomly imply animosity like this at the end of your reply.
kellyOct 15, 2010
>"Just because something has never happened doesn't mean that it is not something to be concerned about"
Correct however you can use a historical reference of something to consider its likeliness and thus reason to worry that something might happen. For example, I don't worry that the sun will burn out in the next 30 minutes but that doesn't mean its not possible because it hasn't done it before. I don't spend any time worrying about it because the probability is low based on its history of shining bright.
>"I don't know who Thom is, but I don't get why you needed to randomly imply animosity like this at the end of your reply."
I don't like Thom's opinions but nothing in my comment even remotely implied as much. Had I said you sounded like hitler (A globally disliked person) you might have a point, but Thom is an individual who's opinions on topics such as these are worth considering by some people.
I'm simply not among them but nothing in my comment even remotely implied as much.
Forever_ZeroOct 15, 2010
>"Correct however you can use a historical reference of something to consider its likeliness and thus reason to worry that something might happen. For example, I don't worry that the sun will burn out in the next 30 minutes but that doesn't mean its not possible because it hasn't done it before. I don't spend any time worrying about it because the probability is low based on its history of shining bright."
I definitely see your point. Just because something never happened doesn't mean it can't or will. I agree that you can't really say anything about either without context.
I don't think that the example of the sun burning out is analogous to my original statement though. The statement that I made was that if Apple continues to earn patents such as this one, then it would result in an obscene situation. I made this statement only because Apple just made the first "step" to the ultimate conclusion that I'm worried about. I think that something more analogous would be if the sun was in its first stage of burning out, and I then said "I am worried that the sun will burn out soon". The sun may or may not burn out soon, but if it follows down the path that it started on, it would be a valid concern.
I also wasn't trying to imply that Apple in-particular would be the cause of the "obscene situation" that I was talking about; I was more trying to use their action as an example of a first-step.
I'm not sure if that made sense or not.
>"I don't like Thom's opinions but nothing in my comment even remotely implied as much..."
Sorry about that, I assumed that Thom was an anti-mac troll and you were comparing me to him or something. That's the one bad thing about the internet, tone doesn't come across :P.
enantiodromiaOct 15, 2010
"The "pinch to zoom" functionality is so good because people will intuitively use that gesture to zoom-in, especially with the new touch screen popularity."
Sorry. It's only "intuitive" after the first time you see it. Most good patents seem logical once you see them in action. That's what makes them good.
Touch surfaces have been around for quite a long time. Who else was using this "intuitive" action before Apple? You could say a multi-touch surface is just an "intuitive" progression of single-touch technology. You could say LED TVs are just an "intuitive" next step from LCD TVs.
You can not like it, that's fine, but don't try to wrap it up in a morality issue. If this sort of thing bothers you, I suggest not having any technology in your life, because every single company patents their "intuitive" ideas.
What you want is a world where no one gets credit for their ideas and research, where every company is allowed to make the same exact product with no differences in them whatsoever.
The only reason you care is because this is an Apple story. If Nokia or some random company you never heard of before did something similar you wouldn't care.
Forever_ZeroOct 16, 2010
I'm not even going to begin to touch that; It seems like more of a troll than an actual reply.
The thing I'll respond to is...
>"The only reason you care is because this is an Apple story. If Nokia or some random company you never heard of before did something similar you wouldn't care."
I don't have any issues with Apple or Apple products (aside from the one in this post...), I actually own an iPod. Assumptions much? >_>
I've said multiple times that I'm only using Apple as an example, I really don't care who the company is. The point is the actual action.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zephyrninetyOct 16, 2010
No, no, no, no, the point of what he was saying is that the patent system is hindering the ability for products we buy to use a technology. It has NOTHING to do with Apple. I don't care who "invented" this first, it should be not copyrighted.
Forever_ZeroOct 16, 2010
Thank you.
amaoicanOct 16, 2010
patent != copyright. Not that it detracts materially from your case, but it certainly makes you look a bit foolish.
jo21Oct 16, 2010
it will bite em in the ass though, nokia got patents that apple have to license to even have a phone on the market. from bluetooth to wifi, how phones handle data.
everyone from samsung , lg etc pay to use em.
it was pretty clear apple pantenting to prevent to other phone get a similar experience even if they didn't invent it.
stewycvlOct 16, 2010
There is a video on youtube from 8 months before Apple ever filed for the patent, which features a Microsoft 'minority report' wall using pinch-to-zoom at a larger-than-handheld scale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMStDdR8TQw&feature=related
The patent system is flawed, IMHO. Ever since people started patenting life (ie Monsanto) and broad ideas (like making a machine respond in an intuitive way to certain hand motions), rather than specific technological and mechanical devices/processes, the patent system in the US has been f'd and in desperate need of an overhaul. Apple could just patent the specific technology and the software coding that goes into their own pinch-to-zoom process (and I would have no problem with that), but they know that everyone else would find another way to achieve the same thing, so they have to try to patent this broad idea, and it is f**king bulls**t. Think of a rubbery grip on a golf club. You can patent your specific grip design, including the materials and process used to make it, but you can't patent a grip in general, and expect to receive patent fees from everyone who produces other types of similar (but still different) grips. Furthermore one of the prerequisites for obtaining a patent is that the idea must not be obvious. This idea was obviously obvious to the makers of Minority Report, and to Microsoft, who both employed pinch-to-zoom technology (of the fictional and non-fictional variety, respectively) in their designs prior to the time that Apple ever filed for the patent.
cawpinOct 16, 2010
Yeah, I remember that video. It was during the development of the MS Surface. That's all that's needed for somebody to use pinch-to-zoom and not worry about Apple.
BillyLiuDiggsOct 16, 2010
If it is so intuitive, why didn't someone else patent the concept before 2006? Surely, with billions of people in this world, someone would've thought of it a couple hundred years before 2006?
Forever_ZeroOct 16, 2010
The technology that it works within wasn't around until before 2006. Find me a common, affordable, handheld, touchscreen device that was around a few hundred years ago and you'll have yourself an argument.
amaoicanOct 17, 2010
Granted, the 100s of years thing was a little dumb, but people are thinking of concepts that can't actually be created (at the time) all the time. How many times have we seen a movie with a time machine in it? How many times have we seen a movie with the pinch in it? Well, at least once (if I recall correctly) in Minority Report...
Forever_ZeroOct 17, 2010
You make a good point.
I'd argue that we haven't seen a movie with "the pinch" because the concept of a common, user friendly touch-screen interface didn't really come about before the iPhone (correct me if I'm wrong). I haven't seen such devices in any movies prior to them becoming "big".
I don't think that time travel can be completely analogous here. Time travel is a common sci-fi concept that has been represented many different ways in many different movies, and doesn't involve any sort of intuitive aspect; It's just an abstract concept. The "pinch" motion and other similar things are concrete implementations of abstract concepts that were implemented because of (in my/the-creator's opinion) their intuitive nature. I think that something more analogous to time travel would be the presence of an iOS-like-device.
Also, ZOOM AND ENHANCE!
amaoicanOct 17, 2010
Isn't there a scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise manipulates a screen using a gesture very similar to the pinch? There's the concept.
amaoicanOct 16, 2010
"If this continues, Apple can come-out with crappy iProducts that are worse than the competition, but have a monopoly on a positive user experience via patents."
My idea on patents: when you file a patent, you submit a detailed report of the expense and R&D directly related to developing the concept you are patenting. Then, if someone else wants to use your idea, they have to pay you that much money.
The problem: companies would try to game this - inflate their expenses - just like the movie industry does to get out of paying royalties. So then you need this, that and the other rule and regulation to keep it fair and honest. s**t.
Forever_ZeroOct 17, 2010
I really liked this comment, pretty thought-provoking. Nothing to add unfortunately :( just wanted to let you know.
melthornalOct 15, 2010
So you could make a pinch system where you press two fingers down, move one finger and keep the other still? A flicking pinch. I should patent this and make it free for everyone to use.
The obvious solution to the broken US patent system is to have everyone in the country patent every single idea that ever pops into their head, then make it so anyone can use this info. Corporations would never have power to sue people. Someone out there would have already patented the idea and made it freely assessable.
jrdnllrdOct 15, 2010
Not if I patent that solution.
bacwerdsmanOct 15, 2010
I'm going to patent "patenting of ideas". Everytime someone wants to patent something, they will have to pay me for using my patent to patent.
Closed AccountOct 15, 2010
Go ahead ... but I've already patented your patent to patent ideas ... and it will cost you dearly if you try it.
howitzer86Oct 16, 2010
Both of you must pay me, for I have patented the idea of patenting patent patents.
jrdnllrdOct 15, 2010
I want to patent human reproduction. Can I do this?
wiser87Oct 15, 2010
Based on how I'm reading this, it sounds like it's not actually the act of pinch-to-zoom (or other adjustment) that's being patented. It sounds like what's being patented is the ability for the adjustment to be performed smoothly when doing multiple gestures (like zooming in very close, which usually requires you to make the expanding gesture several times).
If you have an iThingy, you can see when zooming in on a webpage how the site seems blurry for a moment before it's re-rendered at the new scale. That's because (I think) the zooming works with an image of the screen instead of the live content so the animation can be smoother and more responsive. When doing several zoom gestures in a row, you can see that the page isn't re-rendered every time you lift your fingers off of the display. From what I'm understand, this is because the device is waiting a short period to see if you are going to continue the action. If you do, it's treated as a continuation of the previous steps.
My guess is that as long as other devices treat each pinch-to-zoom action individually, they probably won't infringe on the patent.
gogowesOct 15, 2010
Good news everyone! We've patented pinch to zoom! Bad news, it's not defensible...
ninjarickyOct 16, 2010
Well gee, by this logic, we owe Jobs thousands for every p[inch of salt, pinch to grow an inch, etc. f**k you Jobs, I just patented the fruit known as an apple. You owe me 2.5 Million dollars immediately.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zephyrninetyOct 16, 2010
In actuality, I think the creators of Minority Report should hold the patent for this, if anyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVBzx0LMNQ