Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pinch-To-Zoom Apple Patent Rejected By USPTO

Soulskill posted 1 year,23 days | from the somebody-pinch-me-and-patent-it dept.

Patents 110

freddienumber13 writes "In another patent surprise, a patent application by Apple for pinch-to-zoom has been rejected by the USPTO on the grounds that its claims were either anticipated by previous patents or simply unpatentable. This will be welcome news for Samsung, who back in April asked for a stay of the trial. However, Apple has a short period of time in which they can appeal this finding."

cancel ×

110 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

tag (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428009)

#suddenoutbreakofappledouche

Re:tag (0, Offtopic)

rullywowr (1831632) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428223)

Fun fact for ya: Apple also got recently rejected for their patent "Pinch a loaf, then wipe" as it seemed there was prior art in this case.

Re:tag (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428243)

Yep. Your posts.

Re:tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428405)

Is there a patent on pinch to sue yet?

Re:tag (-1, Offtopic)

bmk67 (971394) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428657)

In other news, Apple was granted a patent for rounded/tapered turds, leaving manufacturers of competing products in the uncomfortable position of having to license Apple's tapered turd design, or risk thier customer's assholes slamming shut.

Re:tag (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428707)

In other news, Apple was granted a patent for rounded/tapered turds, leaving manufacturers of competing products in the uncomfortable position of having to license Apple's tapered turd design, or risk thier customer's assholes slamming shut.

I really don't know if Apple has a patent for rounded/tapered turds, but hopefully you will enlighten us which companies are actually building rounded/tapered turds and infringing on this patent that you claim Apple has, and we'll all have a laugh at these turd makers.

Re:tag (1, Offtopic)

bmk67 (971394) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428727)

I bet you get all the laughs at parties.

Re:tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428775)

I'll bet neither of you do.

Re:tag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428811)

On the other hand, your mom gets all the protein at parties.

Re:tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44431465)

Yep. My Mom is in fact a total whore. Cumbucket for the masses and loves the cock. Of course, only the really desperate will even go near her fat, hairy, stinking, unwashed minge.

See, "your Mom" jokes just aren't as funny when people don't actually care.

Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (3, Insightful)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428019)

It seems like the USPTO is doing a *slightly* better job of not granting these absurd and frivolous patents. Love to see if they keep up this kind of thing.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (3, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428137)

not granting? This is a reexam.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (1)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428139)

It seems like the USPTO is doing a *slightly* better job of not granting these absurd and frivolous patents. Love to see if they keep up this kind of thing.

Whoa, there cowpoke. Let's not acknowledged them for ordinary powers of observation over one "dee-NIED!"

Now if they start making a habit of it, there may be cause to light one cupcake on fire in celebration.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428633)

So in the past has it been more of a "I got there 1st" race to the patent office?

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428953)

No. The "first to patent" protocol is actually recent (and is probably not good for the small inventor).

It's just that examiners have been getting progressively more incompetent over the past couple of decades.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428687)

It seems like the USPTO is doing a *slightly* better job of not granting these absurd and frivolous patents. Love to see if they keep up this kind of thing.

Whoa, there cowpoke. Let's not acknowledged them for ordinary powers of observation over one "dee-NIED!"

Now if they start making a habit of it, there may be cause to light one cupcake on fire in celebration.

Spot on.
The re-examinations are starting to show some common sense.
After the community at large finds the prior art for them, the patent office seem to fess up to their mistakes more easily than most government agencies.

I'm not saying its the patent offices job to search for prior art, (but if Joe Random can find prior art [techcrunch.com] why can't they?), but voiding all of these patents only AFTER they have been issued
and appealed, and used in court, and enforced by various import bans, and inflicted untold damage on the market place just seems backwards.

Since we are now on a first to file basis, the idea of imposing a 1 year public comment period commencing just after the Patent office published an intent-to-award notice would seem a reasonable extension to the patent process. It would put the community or others in the field on notice of which patents need attention.

As it is now, thousands of patents are filed and even the community efforts can't find all the prior art on every filing and the effort isn't warranted when significant percentage of patent applications will be rejected anyway.

We probably need a Dewey Decimal System for patent claims, so that the search process would be faster.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (2)

Zordak (123132) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429283)

I'm not saying its the patent offices job to search for prior art,

Yes it is. That is exactly their job.

Since we are now on a first to file basis, the idea of imposing a 1 year public comment period commencing just after the Patent office published an intent-to-award notice would seem a reasonable extension to the patent process. It would put the community or others in the field on notice of which patents need attention.

That is a non-sequiter. What does first-to-file have to do with anything? That only comes into play if Samsung for example filed a patent application, and then Apple filed one later and wanted to prove that they had invented first. What's more, this is a bad idea regardless. Your patent term is calculated from your earliest priority date, which means that we arbitrarily deprive patentees of one year of term, or we tack a year on to every patent term, which doesn't seem like it would jive with the Slashdot anti-IP philosophy. And as a practical matter, when do you decide that prior art is significant enough to warrant reopening prosecution after it has been closed because somebody sent it some prior art? Who decides, for that matter? Are you going to make the patent examiner dig through a pile of crap every time, after prosecution has closed?

There is already an opposition period after a patent publishes, while it is still in prosecution. That's the time for you to muster your prior art and submit it to the examiner so he can look at it when it makes sense. After it's allowed is the worst time to do this.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (2)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429629)

I'm not saying its the patent offices job to search for prior art,

Yes it is. That is exactly their job.

 

Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art#Duty_of_disclosure [wikipedia.org]
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2001.html [uspto.gov]

Finding all prior art is the responsibility of the patent seeker. Failure to do so establishes a prima facie case of unpatentability.
37 CFR 1.56.

If you are indeed a lawyer, please stick to writing wills.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (5, Informative)

Zordak (123132) | 1 year,23 days | (#44430981)

I am a registered patent attorney. I live and breathe patents every day. I know what the duty of disclosure is. You do not. You sound like a twelve-year-old telling Richard Stallman that he doesn't know what the Free Software Foundation is all about because he heard the term "free software" and thought it was about warez. It's nice that you have the Google skills to find a link to the MPEP, but perhaps you should also try reading your own links. And while you're at it, read chapter 700 of the MPEP. Or at least read this page [uspto.gov] (the one that instructs the examiner to perform a search). Then try reading some patent file wrappers, and look at the examiner's search strategy that he puts in the record before every office action. And while we're at it, your misdirected ad hominem attack and your misuse of prima facie make you look all the more foolish (and yes, I'm aware that you pulled that phrase from s. 2001, but you don't understand what it means).

In short, you are clueless about how patents work, as are most people on Slashdot, who think that patent prosecution is merely a ministerial act of rubber stamping an application. Patent prosecution is arduous and expensive. While there are occasional cases where examiners allow questionable claims, I have also had many, many opportunities to personally deal with examiners rejected claims on sorely strained arguments. Under W's appointee Jon Dudas (who was not even statutorily qualified for the post), the "Reject Everything" culture got so bad that the patent bar was practically in open revolt. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44432283)

9/10, would read again. -1 for nearly unassailable grammar ( I spent 5 minutes reviewing it, but I did find a missing possessive apostrophe on "examiners' rejected claims". Harumph...)

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44433085)

I have also had many, many opportunities to personally deal with examiners rejected claims on sorely strained arguments

I find this part interesting. It seems to me that what one man thinks obvious, another man thinks innovative.

But I also think that most of the ridicoulous claims we've seen are really in the "patent examiner is too fucking dumb to see how obvious this is".

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (1)

immaterial (1520413) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429297)

I'm not saying its the patent offices job to search for prior art, (but if Joe Random can find prior art [techcrunch.com] why can't they?), but voiding all of these patents only AFTER they have been issued and appealed, and used in court, and enforced by various import bans, and inflicted untold damage on the market place just seems backwards.

I thought searching for prior art was part of a patent examiner's job. Is that not correct?

As you say, allowing shitty patents that later get overturned causes a great deal of damage to the market (and expense to our court system). It's interesting to note that Apple can also claim to have been damaged by this - after all, pinch-to-zoom (along with other gestures) was actually patented by Fingerworks, which Apple bought in 2005. Apple actually went the right way on this, legally - they wanted this patented technology, so they paid for it. Others went ahead and used it without buying or licensing, and now 8 years later the USPTO is essentially telling Apple their money was wasted.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429635)

I thought searching for prior art was part of a patent examiner's job. Is that not correct?

When you file for a patent, YOU have to search for prior art and document how your invention does not infringe each item.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56 [cornell.edu]

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | 1 year,23 days | (#44431255)

Duty to disclose is only for art that applicant is aware of or believes is reasonably pertanant to the current application. This is why you see information disclosure statements which may have references cited in other pending cases, but may have nothing to do with the current claimset.

If applicant searches and finds new art then they should disclose it in a later IDS. Strangely applicants do cite prior art which reads on their claims and may be found by a foreign office, but do not ammend the claims to get around the prior art until a US examiner writes a rejection. This seems counter to the various compact prosection practices that the office and AIPLA advocate and may cost applicant more money.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (1)

rtb61 (674572) | 1 year,23 days | (#44431833)

However reality is, once a company invented a multi-point touch screen, the application is obvious. Which is why the patent should not have be granted initially. Reality is the USPTO failures should be billed back to them or the patent applicant as that cost should not be pushed upon others.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428829)

Go back to 2007 when there really wasn't anything like pinch and zoom....wouldn't you patent it.? Thats a killer feature I wouldn't want anyone using what I came up with and making money off of it.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428877)

I should have patented every UI feature from Minority Report (2002) on the off-chance that someone else used one of them successfully -- I'd be making a killing on the licensing fees right now.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (4, Informative)

DickBreath (207180) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428979)

> Go back to 2007 when there really wasn't anything like pinch and zoom....wouldn't you patent it.?

But there was anything like it. That's why the patent was rejected. Prior art. I seem to recall from Groklaw recently, there was a book written in the 1990's about all sorts of UI gestures for touch interfaces -- even though touch interfaces were not popular.

Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44430265)

Yeah but how about invalidating all the bullshit patents that have already been granted despite being obvious and/or prior art and/or totally against the intent of the patent system.

Well I'll be damned. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428025)

YAY!

that's all the text that is needed.

Re:Well I'll be damned. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428149)

YAY!

that's all the text that is needed.

Disney has a trademark on Celebration, so watchit!

Re:Well I'll be damned. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428817)

I thought Carinval did (though finding the link I found out it was sold).

http://www.cruise-ships.com/carnival-cruise-lines/sold/celebration/

Look forward to the media's annoucements of this (0)

MrDoh! (71235) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428027)

Even made it to the evening chat shows when Samsung lost. I look forward to them now making jokes about Apple abusing the system, or the utter shambles that's the US Patent office. For more lulz, Samsung should buy the original IP holder of pinch to zoom and counter sue Apple for stealing THEIR patents.

Re:Look forward to the media's annoucements of thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428799)

The original IP holder of Pinch to zoom is finger works, an Apple subsidiary.

reason it was rejected raises some new questions (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428039)

The main reason it was rejected appears to be that its claims were anticipated by patent 7,724,242 [uspto.gov] . But now that patent still covers a pretty wide range of the same things, and is still valid (at least so far).

And if we look at who filed that patent, it's two people whose names appear at the list of Senior Inventors [intellectualventures.com] of everyone's favorite litigious organization that doesn't technically hold patents itself [slashdot.org] ...

Re:reason it was rejected raises some new question (0)

MrDoh! (71235) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428155)

At least deals could/would be done with the right people instead of Apple fraudulently trying to get the money? Or maybe it's part of MS's plan to weaken the opposition. Then again, don't all the Android makers pay MS for some patent they won't tell us about? Could this be related (as why everyone else hasn't been hit, just Samsung?)
Don't know, it's going to continue to get messier as we go on I'm sure.
But I still want to see Apple sued for infringing on someone else's patent. Which will make for fascinating reporting and highlight how bad the Patent office really is.

Re:reason it was rejected raises some new question (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428231)

How do you know others haven't been hit and settled out of court with a gag order?

Re:reason it was rejected raises some new question (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428411)

Worse how many still have to Apple for patents they no longer own due to licensing agreements?

Doesn't matter if they were invalidated if you agreed Apple can sue if you do not pay each month etc.

Next time you pay $699 for a Galaxy 4 S that cost $250 to make be happy you are paying Apple and other millionaires who invested in these rotten companies.

Re:reason it was rejected raises some new question (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428279)

When doing a re-exam they only look at one patent at a time unfortunately. At least now this one can't be weaponized in court.

Re:reason it was rejected raises some new question (1)

steelfood (895457) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428437)

Anticipated, but likely not covered.

Wouldn't stop the trolls from initiating lawsuits if they haven't already, but at least legally they'd be on shaky ground, and would have to settle for far less.

Re:reason it was rejected raises some new question (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428619)

Giving patents to trolls is better than giving them to big players. That way it's more obvious that the system as it is benefits leeches rather than creators and there will be more pressure on fixing it. (assuming actual tech giants have more political power than IV, which I find likely)

Do they get a refund? (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428045)

As much as I rag on Apple they should get a refund from the Patent Office, and something for their trouble.

The Patent office should not hand out patents then take them back. It should have never been issued and their fees should at least be refunded. The examiner who granted this as some serious explaining to do.

Re:Do they get a refund? (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428157)

Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business. If you tell the government that you've done something novel that isn't, and prevent competition through that mechanism, there are substantial social costs (none of the benefits of invention, but all of the costs of a monopoly).

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428265)

Sure, but if you think it is novel and the government agrees then changes its mind that is wrong.

I don't think it was novel, you don't, but someone did at some point.

Re:Do they get a refund? (2, Interesting)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428345)

How is it wrong? The government is not all knowing, or all seeing. It makes mistakes, and has to correct those mistakes for the public interest. If you penalize the government like you are stating than they will just let these patents stand, contrary to public interest, which will just cause a rise in crappy patents.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428419)

I want them to penalize the patent examiner.
By making the patent office pay they are encouraged to do that.

You might be correct though.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428477)

Again how is that in the public interest? Do you want the examiner to have info on every single patent ever issued? Do you know how unrealistic that is? There is no way a single examiner can know every single patent, and all its claims. There is no search engine that can get all that information in a way that can reasonably be consumed or compared.

Re:Do they get a refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428655)

If the office that is responsible for tracking these patents is not capable of knowing when something is novel, how can you expect an "inventor" who has "inventions" as his interest to know it? I think neither is fair to be penalized. However, all the settlements that have on going royalties should be freely canceled that were based on invalidated patent. Whether they should refund the collected money or not, should probably be decided by the court.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428673)

Then they should not issue patents.
If they cannot determine their validity why are they issuing them?

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

Dynedain (141758) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428373)

It just comes down to burden of proof.

Do you want the burden of proof to lie with the submitter (making the research process more expensive), or do you want the burden of proof to lie with the government (making the filing process more expensive).

Either way, the people filing are paying for it, it's just a matter of how.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428427)

The people filing. They should be subject matter experts on the patent. We cannot afford to have government employees who are SMEs on every subject working in the patent office.

Re:Do they get a refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428719)

The people filing. They should be subject matter experts on the patent. We cannot afford to have government employees who are SMEs on every subject working in the patent office.

Have to agree; I mean, if my dad, a high-school drop-out who worked in factory for 30 years, can be an expert on the handful of technologies he's patented (only one of which is related to what he's trained to do), STEM professionals and international conglomerates don't really have a legitimate excuse.

-- CanHasDIY (mod preservation mode)

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

iapetus (24050) | 1 year,23 days | (#44432733)

So you want patents to become increasingly the preserve of large companies who have the money to invest in the legal processes required to get a patent, and to discriminate against small businesses and individuals who want to protect their inventions? Because it's bad enough as it is - raising the bar for entry still further and worse, providing punishment for missing something would absolutely cut the process off for those without the resources to do the work upfront and weather the hit of potentially still being wrong.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428485)

No we are paying for it and all the competitors. A licensing agreement has clauses saying you will pay even if they are invalidated and they can sue you for billions if you violate it etc.

It should be illegal but money can buy a lot of things if you are rich and powerful including laws, favors, and corrution.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

Dynedain (141758) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429703)

What you described depends on the party-to-party licensing agreement. It is 100% between those two parties what to put in there. No laws force anything.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | 1 year,23 days | (#44431239)

What you described depends on the party-to-party licensing agreement. It is 100% between those two parties what to put in there. No laws force anything.

Except when your product uses fonts, touch, has a battery, etc

Now your at mercy with the monopolist who says pay @$2,000,000,000 or else! So you must sign the agreement or else pay the fine and have an injunction on your product. Thats not fair as in essence this was not an agreement but forced action.

Re:Do they get a refund? (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428663)

Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business. If you tell the government that you've done something novel that isn't, and prevent competition through that mechanism, there are substantial social costs (none of the benefits of invention, but all of the costs of a monopoly).

In other words, no small inventor would ever again dare filing a patent, due to the risk of bankruptcy if the patent is later found invalid. Only the largest companies will be able to find patents.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44429099)

In other words, no small inventor would ever again dare filing a patent, due to the risk of bankruptcy if the patent is later found invalid. Only the largest companies will be able to find patents.

It's not like the current patent system benefits the little guy or every will.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

mjwx (966435) | 1 year,23 days | (#44430919)

Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business. If you tell the government that you've done something novel that isn't, and prevent competition through that mechanism, there are substantial social costs (none of the benefits of invention, but all of the costs of a monopoly).

In other words, no small inventor would ever again dare filing a patent, due to the risk of bankruptcy if the patent is later found invalid. Only the largest companies will be able to find patents.

This is why you make the punishment in proportion to the crime.

Companies that file 100's of frivolous patents to in a shotgun approach to prevent competition need to get fined out of existence. A company who accidentally files a patent that is too obvious and is later revoked shouldn't be punished severely.

As always the intent of the crime comes into it. Apple has been filing patents to use as weapons against their competitors. As the patent system currently stands, no small inventor would risk inventing anything because patent trolls like Apple have everything and sundry patented in an overly broad patent that will be used as a cudgel to beat small inventors over the head with so they can steal their inventions.

Compared to this, no small inventor ever filing for a patent is a vast improvement.

Of course the US patent office could do something as logical as invalidating all software patents and enforcing some rules on obviousness.

Re:Do they get a refund? (2)

immaterial (1520413) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429341)

Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business.

But Apple didn't file for this patent - Fingerworks did. Apple bought them out in 2005 so they could use pinch-to-zoom along with other Fingerworks patents.

Re: Do they get a refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44429693)

Then Apple is buying it wrong. Just don't buy IP this way.

Seriously you mean Apple is 100% in the right of not looking carefully for what they're buying? How is it different then buying physical goods? And hey nobody tell they to sue others with obvious, trivial patents. (OK maybe their lawyers)

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

Sir Holo (531007) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429939)

...if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer...

The thing is, you can't know. Applications are made "public," but you'll need to know an exact application number to get to the application claims and description vie the public PAIR interface.

That is, pending applications are not available in a searchable database.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428161)

Or... don't submit stupid patents and you don't have to worry about wasting money getting them rejected/invalidated :P

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

msobkow (48369) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428359)

Nonsense.

Apple should have done their research in the first place. They count on the patent office being lax with their approvals.

Re:Do they get a refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428451)

no, apple should have to pay a penalty for filing invalid patents, many so absurg, and serve little purpose other than stiffling innovation.

Re:Do they get a refund? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428457)

As much as I rag on Apple they should get a refund from the Patent Office, and something for their trouble.

The Patent office should not hand out patents then take them back. It should have never been issued and their fees should at least be refunded. The examiner who granted this as some serious explaining to do.

Nope and if you are competitor you still have to pay Apple for patents they no longer own. After all you agreed to it out of court right?

So when you purchase a galaxy S that cost $250 to make for $699 you can rest assured Apple and CEOs of these shady IP companies like Intellectual ventures are stealing your money.

Re:Do they get a refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44429343)

Then don't buy the fucking Galaxy S, cunt. No one said you need to fucking own it. Why do Slashfags act like they have the right to determine who makes what on a product? GO FUCK YOURSELF!!! Sorry you're too fucking poor to own a Samsung. Maybe Verizon will give you a free iPhone 4 or some shit.

Obviousness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428049)

Seems that the obviousness of using your fingers to reveal more/less of an object is just about as apparent as using a certain gene to tell you if you are at high risk for breast cancer. Let's see how this one shakes out.

Finally, some good news (2, Interesting)

ianare (1132971) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428123)

Apple seems to be losing much of the gains they made during the initial trial. Not even at appeal yet and already getting patents invalidaded.

Hopefully this is part of a trend, where these ridiculous patents get thrown out, or even better, never granted in the first place.

Re:Finally, some good news (2)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428695)

It's too bad the jury in the original trial didn't do that patent invalidating itself.

They had the opportunity, but insufficient information. Perhaps the Samsung lawyers did not consider invalidating the patent as a tactic. Perhaps the prior art had not been identified in time. Or perhaps the jury, being selected for gullibility and passivity, was just not competent to that point.

Re:Finally, some good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44430579)

Its been widely reported how the jury foreman pushed an inaccurate interpretation of prior art in the case.

Seems to me like.. (1)

houbou (1097327) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428211)

If Apple or any of these other bigCs could patent the letters A to Z, they would.

Silly Putty (5, Funny)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428215)

Any child with Silly Putty would have anticipated the pinch to zoom patent.

Re:Silly Putty (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428487)

Any child with Silly Putty would have anticipated the pinch to zoom patent.

,,and any Italian-American adult male could tell you to expect the reality slap to follow.

the best time of AAPL is behind us (1, Insightful)

beefoot (2250164) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428217)

The day apple stops innovating and starts spending millions of dollars on lawyers, we know it is inevitable it will go down hill. What I'm surprised though is how fast it comes down. Looking at their slumping market share and the report about 40% drops in their quarterly iphone sales in China are very troubling for the company. I'm not a apple hater but I did short its stock twice in the past and made a few coins. You guess it right, I will be watching their sales very closely in the next few quarters.

Re:the best time of AAPL is behind us (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428507)

Apple is staying making money. Just off suing people instead even if the sales of iPhones are going down.

China is in a recession right now with only 5% growth! I know in the US that is considered 1999 days, but for China it causes many to save cash as they are more used to 15% per year growth.

Re:the best time of AAPL is behind us (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428723)

Founder loss. Happens to most companies.

Still, usually they coast along for a bit longer than this before the cracks start to show. I guess the consumer electronics market just runs at a faster pace than most. Shit, Steve died in, what, late 2011? The company started hitting the rocks before 2012 was over. I mean, Honda was able to coast along on inertia for about a decade after Soichiro died; what gives?

Re:the best time of AAPL is behind us (1)

PRMan (959735) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429029)

Those who can, innovate.

Those who can't, litigate.

Re:the best time of AAPL is behind us (1)

mjwx (966435) | 1 year,23 days | (#44430939)

The day apple stops innovating and starts spending millions of dollars on lawyers,

This day happened years ago. Some would even say decades (ye olde Look and Feel lawsuit).

Re:the best time of AAPL is behind us (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44431861)

The day apple stops innovating and starts spending millions of dollars on lawyers,

This day happened years ago. Some would even say decades (ye olde Look and Feel lawsuit).

Indeed. It happened with the iPhone. When they actually became the degree of dystopic evil they fought against in their 1984 advert.

Two finger solution? From Apple? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428235)

For years, Apple adamantly rejected a mouse that needs more than one finger.
Now, they require you to use two fingers to zoom?
Apple, please make up your freakn' mind.

who remembers pinch to zoom before Apple? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428289)

Oh, yeah... that's right... no one. Cause even though there might have been Hollywood movies and demos like diamond touch, no one actually did it in a production device before Apple. yeah this is kinda flame bait, but lets not kid ourselves... microsoft and other touch and tablet tech developers had almost 10 years on apple with the first "tablet" revolution... and NONE of them decided to do this.

Re:who remembers pinch to zoom before Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428347)

Oh, yeah... that's right... no one. Cause even though there might have been Hollywood movies and demos like diamond touch, no one actually did it in a production device before Apple. yeah this is kinda flame bait, but lets not kid ourselves... microsoft and other touch and tablet tech developers had almost 10 years on apple with the first "tablet" revolution... and NONE of them decided to do this.

Multi-touch screens were the prerequisite, and these were not common on handhelds until the "era of the iphone", so your point is relevant but you are not correct that Apple was the reason for it. And, since Apple didn't invent/patent the multi-touch screen, they might as well patent anything they can think it might be useful for!

Re:who remembers pinch to zoom before Apple? (1)

imnes (605429) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428349)

"In the example of FIG. 1B, a user 16 has gestured by placing his fingertips on the display surface and moving them in an outwardly separating manner. As discussed in greater detail below, this particular gesture 17 is associated with a zoom-in command. When the computer 126 performs a zoom-in command, it directs the projector to provide 128 a closer, more detailed view of the displayed imagery. "


From the linked patent application http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,724,242.PN.&OS=PN/7,724,242&RS=PN/7,724,242 [uspto.gov]

Re:who remembers pinch to zoom before Apple? (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428433)

Cause even though there might have been Hollywood movies and demos like diamond touch no one actually did it in a production device before Apple.

So what? Putting an something into commercial production is not a prerequisite for obtaining a patent, nor is it necessary for demonstrating prior art.

Hey ditz for brains... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428509)

It doesn't NEED to be done in a production device to be prior art. In fact zero inventions appear in a production device. They ALL appear in prototypes or limited use devices.

None of them did it, because a) the multi-touch haptic functionality had just came down in price b) Apple's #1 achievement was in selling an $800 phone. The market did NOT think that was sustainable.

Re:Hey ditz for brains... (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429959)

The 4 gigabyte iPhone was priced at $499. You are making stuff up by referring to "an $800 phone".

Re:who remembers pinch to zoom before Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428523)

I'm impressed at how quickly the cool, hip, confident Apple fanboys smugly bragging about every little thing their favoritest company EVAR did came crashing down to desperate, whining crybabies loudly clinging to any shiny plastic silver lining they can get once the very stylish brushed aluminum (or wait, is it all glass this month?) house of cards started falling apart.

Re:who remembers pinch to zoom before Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428923)

I'm impressed that that was one sentence.

Re:who remembers pinch to zoom before Apple? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429093)

meh. apple bought the company that did keyboards that did it and assumed that they pwnor the tech. capacitive multitouch with transparent screens just happened to came along at the same time iphone did.

deciding to do it has little to do with it being technically possible and that has even less to do with it being obvious once you have the sensors.

All those millions of dollars... (4, Funny)

Alejux (2800513) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428341)

...in research and development, gone to waste! Now any company can use such marvel of technological achievement, without paying a dime. The world is not fair!

Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44428473)

People have been pinching penises and watching them zoom for ages.

SUN had prior art (3, Informative)

cyber_rigger (527103) | 1 year,23 days | (#44428575)

SUN had prior art.

I remember back in the 90s SUN having a demo with 2 point zooming.

Re:SUN had prior art (2)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429023)

SUN had prior art.

I remember back in the 90s SUN having a demo with 2 point zooming.

I'd wager that pretty much everyone with 2 point touch surface trials had prior art... it's a pretty obvious application. sure, patent the tech for reading those two points but fuck no don't allow patents for the sw interaction with it..

Re:SUN had prior art (2)

markjhood2003 (779923) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429697)

Also back during that time there were many immersive VR demos with glove input devices that used thumb-finger pinching to scale objects. It's a very intuitive gesture that should never have been considered for a patent.

Even Better, Lets Reject More (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44429059)

Just for a couple minutes of your time, you can help stop more bad Software Patents from being granted.

http://patents.stackexchange.com/ [stackexchange.com]

If we stop enough of the lazy software patents, a lot of those companies will realize they are simply wasting their money on lawyers and will stop the practice.

It sucks anyway... (1)

jonr (1130) | 1 year,23 days | (#44429393)

It just a show off of touch tecnology; "Oh look, we have multi-touch screens!". But I find it annoying to use, you need to use both hands instead of just pressing zoom icons with your thumb.

Middle finger hand gesture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44431193)

I better try to pattent the middle finger raised up hand gesture! Just think of how much royalty money I'll get from all those people that use it.

Apple, Patent This Gesture (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,23 days | (#44431639)

My middle finger.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>