"portable devices that translate displayed content in response to detected finger gestures"
Seriously? This is a patent on moving the screen contents as a response to touching a display? How is this even possible to patent? This is not a technology. This is like putting a patent on "drag and drop". Next we'll see a patent on scroll bars and buttons.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I believe you ruin your own argument. Example, finger gestures, I do not consider the "spreading of thumb and forefinger" for zooming in to be a normal human gesture nor do I consider swiping, rapidly downward to be a normal human gesture for paging down or flipping a book. Finally your comment on drag and drop which I believe Apple sued Microsoft over for Windows 3.1 and Scroll bar and buttons completely kills everything you stated. Scroll bar and buttons is how computers have been doing in for past 15 years..so anything different is a new approach or idea. The problem with patents whenever one is shown in the press for a "milestone" invention is that they apply to ideas, and are submitted with badly, ill conceived diagrams. Well if the patent applies to something manufactured, than a working prototype with more detailed diagram should be submiited within a few years. Otherwise you patent could apply to a non-feasible, non-manufacturable design that you conceived
That is half of the marketing strategy for Apple. It's natural intuitive gestures. Pulling the sides of something to stretch it into a bigger object is natural. Putting your finger on something and expecting it to slide in the direction your finger moves is natural. Just because someone was sued for something doesn't mean that it is a valid argument. I believe that Apple lost the suit against Microsoft so that would lead me to believe that the court system also found this to be an invalid patent.
Bill
Bill
I know one finger gesture the iPhone can't respond to... 
Personally I think almost anything Apple is a hemorrhoid! Everytime I view a stupid QuickTime video clip, it automatically reloads my registry with the little, what do they call them - applet?, that continually checks for updates to the QT program, sucking up resources unnecessarily. I agree with gtatransam@... about Apple creating negative atmospheric pressure and Mr. Jobs becoming the marshmallow in Satan's S'mores!
Personally I think almost anything Apple is a hemorrhoid! Everytime I view a stupid QuickTime video clip, it automatically reloads my registry with the little, what do they call them - applet?, that continually checks for updates to the QT program, sucking up resources unnecessarily. I agree with gtatransam@... about Apple creating negative atmospheric pressure and Mr. Jobs becoming the marshmallow in Satan's S'mores!
You can keep Quicktime from auto-updating by going through the user interface to disable the auto-update. Edit -> preferences -> quicktime pref -> update.
Bill
Bill
Everything we do on our computers, has a patent, Even the power on button has a patent.
All non-US based companies (Samsung, Nokia, HTC etc ) should drop support for sales over there and concentrate their efforts in the rest of the world, leaving the US with inferior products and less choice. Quite simple.
Samsung, Nokia, HTC needs the sales to stay alive Jayton. Quite simple.
Surprises me that Jobs ain't patented the patent process!
Losers sue for patent rights, winners pay the losers a pittance.
God knows he has little else to offer except copying other technologies, then using his money to grab the patent before they do - lmao.
Little Apple versus the mighty Microsoft = lost battle.
Little Apple versus the world-taking Android = lost battle.
Common denominator = 'little' (and always will be).
Jobs - dream on boy - dream on and keep being a little loser.
Losers sue for patent rights, winners pay the losers a pittance.
God knows he has little else to offer except copying other technologies, then using his money to grab the patent before they do - lmao.
Little Apple versus the mighty Microsoft = lost battle.
Little Apple versus the world-taking Android = lost battle.
Common denominator = 'little' (and always will be).
Jobs - dream on boy - dream on and keep being a little loser.
Apple has in its bank an estimated $70billion in cash, which can buy Nokia ($22.6b), RIM ($13.8b), HTC ($25.4b), Motorola ($4.2b) and Sony Ericsson ($3b) and still have change of $1billion to spare.
Apple invented, created, developed & manufactured the device - closed book, end of story, and they will win the lawsuits (great news too)>
We've lived in a copy-cat world for too long, and it's nice to see (for a change) something as simple as a patent, get put to good use. It's the reason why companies and inventors still submit to this organization - not just to waste time and "hope" that it'll pass, but to get paid and put their stamp on their creations.
Bravo -
We've lived in a copy-cat world for too long, and it's nice to see (for a change) something as simple as a patent, get put to good use. It's the reason why companies and inventors still submit to this organization - not just to waste time and "hope" that it'll pass, but to get paid and put their stamp on their creations.
Bravo -
Apple Invented Nothing... Zerox at its PARC invented virtuaslly all aspects of the GUI, including touch screens.
Created? Created what? A phone with a screen?
Developed? Developed what? A GUI? See above?
Manufactured? See Production Overseas..
Created? Created what? A phone with a screen?
Developed? Developed what? A GUI? See above?
Manufactured? See Production Overseas..
There absolutely no reason to have software patents, it is undermining technological development. What people don't understand is patents are very different than copyright. They allow companies to monopolize and "idea", not just specific code. If patents had been around in DaVinci's era, airplane manufacturers would still be paying his family for the production in airplanes.
A software programer has a new idea for software that will be a game changer, lets say he lives in a little town next to Steve Jobs. He goes over to Steve one day and sells his "patented"new program. Steve buys the program for 10 Million US. Now Apple incorporates this new program into the next iPhone. So far this is all done in the USA, making money for all American people. Now lets go into the future of the year 2015, and in some low life back room programer in Moscow reverse engineered that same bit of programing and sold it on the black market for 10,000.00 Chinese Yuans. Then a year later, that same little program shows up in that new smartphone android based smarphone from china.. Now Apple sues the pants off them and wins a ton of cash. Without that software patent, Apple would lose. And you say "There absolutely no reason to have software patents" think again, you just cost your country millions of revenue.
This patent is very much like claiming that drawing a line in the sand with your finger i.s.o using a stick is a new invention.
Pressure sensitive screens have been invented ages ago and people have been using their fingers as pointing/touching/scrolling devices since the beginning. The old iPaq and palm pda's just provided a stylus as one of the input options. In what essential characteristic is Apples "invention" a new and unique extension of technology ?
The problem with patents at the moment is that , in stead of "stimulating and protecting innovation" as its protagonists claim, it has become a method of stifling innovation. One can't avoid doubting the level of technical competence in the patent office....
Pressure sensitive screens have been invented ages ago and people have been using their fingers as pointing/touching/scrolling devices since the beginning. The old iPaq and palm pda's just provided a stylus as one of the input options. In what essential characteristic is Apples "invention" a new and unique extension of technology ?
The problem with patents at the moment is that , in stead of "stimulating and protecting innovation" as its protagonists claim, it has become a method of stifling innovation. One can't avoid doubting the level of technical competence in the patent office....
I wonder who patented the car's steering wheel ??? Just wondering if we would have had more lawsuits than cars if that was the case... I do not believe that basic human gestures and the ability to use natural functionality, which enables the consumer to better communicate and use these devices, should be impaired by stupid laws and patents... and the only winner will be..... The legal buzzards ofcourse!!!
FingerWorks INFO
Founded by John Elias and Wayne Westerman of the University of Delaware in 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
Founded by John Elias and Wayne Westerman of the University of Delaware in 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
I'm no fan of Apple but I think they have a point - they definitely had the multi-touch screen first and if they got a patent on it, that patent should be enforced. This isn't a patent on touchscreens, it's a patent on multi-touch touchscreens. I can't honestly believe some of the comments in this thread, if this patent win is upsetting you, I have a feeling you're going to be very upset indeed when HP gets memristors into PCs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
Check the history section. I have yet to come across an example of a technology that Apple "invented". Apple takes young or overlooked technologies and expands them then files for patent rights to stifle competition. There is huge value in this technique, as can be seen by the sales and revenue generated by the iPhone and iPad, I hardly see how granting this patent does anything other than hurt consumers; not having it certainly hasn't hurt Apple as it skyrocketed to the 2nd highest capitalized company in the world.
All apple did is expand the market of multi-touch and give it wider exposure, that hardly deserves a patent. I agree with others here, this is an example of patent abuse, and a 20th century patent office that pays it's officers by the number of patents they push through not on the merits of the patent itself.
Check the history section. I have yet to come across an example of a technology that Apple "invented". Apple takes young or overlooked technologies and expands them then files for patent rights to stifle competition. There is huge value in this technique, as can be seen by the sales and revenue generated by the iPhone and iPad, I hardly see how granting this patent does anything other than hurt consumers; not having it certainly hasn't hurt Apple as it skyrocketed to the 2nd highest capitalized company in the world.
All apple did is expand the market of multi-touch and give it wider exposure, that hardly deserves a patent. I agree with others here, this is an example of patent abuse, and a 20th century patent office that pays it's officers by the number of patents they push through not on the merits of the patent itself.
Did Microsoft gains market share by innovation?
The sad truth is that Microsoft gains some of its market share by shady back-room deals and by threatening and intimidating its own customers.
Is Windows 95 is innovative?
The alleged innovations in Windows'95 were "borrowed" from other operating systems.
Microsoft invented DOS?
There were many Disk Operating Systems before Microsoft. IBM had DOS for its then-small System/360 mainframes as far back as 1964. The DOS that we know and hate today was not even written by Microsoft.
Seattle Computer's SC-DOS becomes MS-DOS
The sad truth is that Microsoft gains some of its market share by shady back-room deals and by threatening and intimidating its own customers.
Is Windows 95 is innovative?
The alleged innovations in Windows'95 were "borrowed" from other operating systems.
Microsoft invented DOS?
There were many Disk Operating Systems before Microsoft. IBM had DOS for its then-small System/360 mainframes as far back as 1964. The DOS that we know and hate today was not even written by Microsoft.
Seattle Computer's SC-DOS becomes MS-DOS
that companies can make such broad patents. You want to patent your idea, fine, patent your idea, but don't make the patents so broad that they could cover your product and everyone else's that's remotely similar. Patents destroy innovation and competition. If you want to make it big, build something new, then continually improve upon it to stay ahead of the pack.
Why is the entire background a link to an advert? I click the page to get focus so I can scroll it and another web page opens.
Not good TR, think about your users please.
Not good TR, think about your users please.
I remember another reader's comments about "stealth advertising" links, "hidden" where you don't realize they exist and suddenly find yourself looking at marketing bilge and wondering what happened to the article you were trying to read. It's a real good way to lose dedicated, long-term subscribers and advocates. Recommend TR to other professionals and peers? Not while this is going on ar at least not without warning them strenuously about the covert marketing tactics.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
