Pinch-To-Zoom Apple Patent Rejected By USPTO 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."
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I bet you get all the laughs at parties.
Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 l
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 patente
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Well I'll be damned. (Score:1)
YAY!
that's all the text that is needed.
Re: (Score:3)
YAY!
that's all the text that is needed.
Disney has a trademark on Celebration, so watchit!
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cruise-ships.com/carnival-cruise-lines/sold/celebration/
Look forward to the media's annoucements of this (Score:1)
reason it was rejected raises some new questions (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
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 fas
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know others haven't been hit and settled out of court with a gag order?
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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? (Score:1, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should not issue patents.
If they cannot determine their validity why are they issuing them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 stil
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
You're mixing up what I said.
What you are describing is the cost of licensing a patent.
The end purchaser shoulders the cost of patent licensing.
What I described was the cost of validating a patent.
The patent filer shoulders the burden of patent validation (either directly through research, or indirectly through increased filing fees so that patent clerks do the research).
The patent filer can elect to recoup their costs by licensing or producing works that use their patent. However that is tangental to how t
Re: (Score:2)
ProTip: That agreement is negotiable.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 invent
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
So Apple wants to market a new device that uses someone else's patented tech. They enter negotiations to license it, and find that buying the company is a better outright solution strategically, financially, or otherwise.
They then assume control of the patent and defend it in court when it is stomped all over by competitors, as they found it to be a legally granted patent, and essential to their product design (thus buying the company). When it is struck down, all of a sudden Apple (who was playing the ga
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
Apple should have done their research in the first place. They count on the patent office being lax with their approvals.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Finally, some good news (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Seems to me like.. (Score:2)
Silly Putty (Score:5, Funny)
Any child with Silly Putty would have anticipated the pinch to zoom patent.
the best time of AAPL is behind us (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Those who can, innovate.
Those who can't, litigate.
Re: (Score:2)
This day happened years ago. Some would even say decades (ye olde Look and Feel lawsuit).
Two finger solution? From Apple? (Score:2, Funny)
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.
All those millions of dollars... (Score:4, Funny)
SUN had prior art (Score:4, Informative)
I remember back in the 90s SUN having a demo with 2 point zooming.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
It sucks anyway... (Score:2)
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.
Finally (Score:2)
Some signs of intelligent life at the USPTO
Yes, there is previous art for this way before Apple released any touch based device and I am glad someone at the USPTO is doing their homework and reviewing Apple's patent grabs and calling them for what they are.
What should happen is a 3 strikes policy where companies/individuals attempt to constantly patent prior art claims should be banned from submitting any patents for a period of time, pretty much penalized for wasting the patent office resources to deny som
Re: (Score:1)
From the linked patent application http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The 4 gigabyte iPhone was priced at $499. You are making stuff up by referring to "an $800 phone".
Re: (Score:2)
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.