The problem can come when a guy files hundreds of similar patents blocking out wide swathes of tech on reasonable variations of what is known.

For the patent apple have I would suspect also there was an original filing that wasn't new but if you stick enough technical information you can pretty much find an invention in 99 percent of applications but often the applicant doesn't even know what it is yet! (that's not to say they haven't invented a thing but the quest is to find the widest patent for the invnetion they've created)

I kind of see where apple is coming from here. Its not like the technology Samsung infringed is fundamental to the phone (i would bet all of the key stuff is cross licensed and relatively easy to work with litigation wise).

I don't agree. It might seem natural now, but I don't think those functions were obvious when they thought of them. Somebody had to think of a way of indicating to a user a page had ended without using scroll bars. Or how to unlock a device (and not accidentally unlock it) without using physical buttons.

The right to protect those ideas/solutions should be protected just like any other intellectual property. Whether the current system is doing its job right at the periphery doesn't change the fact the central idea is an important one.

If people don't agree with the idea they can go open source like Google did (who hypocritically are actively litigating with the patents they got from Motorola, including trying to ban the sale of the Xbox).

As a minor aside, I'm not saying you do but if anyone is so deluded they think Google are a Robin Hood figure I've got a great bitcoin investment scheme they'll want to hear about.

They could buy Robin, Marion, the Sheriff and the whole damn forest with the cash they generate selling your personal information to advertisers.

As an aside, I've been thinking about the claims that google know more about you through what you search than anybody else.  specifically, I've been thinking about it every time I use google to search for the last month or so.  It's bobbins, because it has zero context.  If I search "amputee dwarf porn" it doesn't mean I like it or want it.  It could mean that I've heard the phrase and want to know if it exists.  I might have an amputee dwarf friend who has confided in me that they fancy a change in career.  I could be looking to see if any bands have already used that name, or if it's ok for my mates to use it.  It's all bollocks.

Well, I'm sure they'd know which of the links they provided I clicked on, but I still don't think that tells them a lot.  They don't know that I then watched ten videos from one of the sites.  I mean if.  If I watched ten videos.  Ahem.

100s of millions are using a Google computer every day. The one in their pocket.

Blue Swirl wrote:

AJ_ wrote:

I'm right in thinking that thing is just a stand and case for the keyboard, the iPad will have to be carried separately, yes? With regards to Dropbox, I did some research on those type of services for work a while back and Sugarsync came top quite easily; it lets you pick which folders you want to sync, rather than forcing you to put all your stuff in one place and drop aliases about everywhere. It also has a nicer icon, IMHO. If you want to try it, I believe using someone's referral link (like mine, conveniently available here: https://www.sugarsync.com/referral?rf=bs5vejpj27kef ) will nab you an extra half gig free storage or something. EDIT: Fuck you, graphic smiley.

It's a case for the keyboard that folds out into a stand for the iPad. I'll investigate SugarSync, and should it meet my requirements, I'll click your link. Cheers much.  Regarding Apple Vs Samsung, I want Xerox to sue the shit out of Apple for "stealing" the mouse and graphical user interface from them in the 1980s. Software patents are fucking stupid. If I've got this right, Apple have patented "unlocking your phone by swiping something on the lock screen" and "making the page bounce to let you know you've reached the end when scrolling". It'd be like patenting "putting one leg in front of the other in order to reach a new destination".

It's the internet and cast iron evidence is sometimes hard to find but a quick google search using "apple xerox user interface agreement" brings up many pages and many debunkings of the popular perceived history of the dealing between xerox and apple over the GUI.
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/

 

Moto70 wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

The EFF article just says: "patents covering a user interface are a bad thing, and hardware design should not be subject to patents or copyright."

I never heard such a crock of shit in all my life. So the EFF guy is seriously saying that if he had designed the look of the iPhone he would be more than happy if FlungDungâ„¢ copied it (and the way the it functions) to make some crappy far eastern knock-off? What an absolute prick...

I couldn't agree more.
There is an extremely fine line IMO about what you should and shouldnt be able to copyright. The 'swipe to unlock' is a genuine idea. The page bouncing when you scroll to the bottom less so. Completely arbitrary on my behalf, I know but still...

I am not so sure Apple are pissed at these specific things but more pissed at the whole sale rip off of the look and feel of the iPhone by Samsung. The similarities brought up in the court case seem petty but they are just ammunition for the larger argument. Which is that Samsung took what they saw as being successful and photocopied it to make themselves money.
The cries of you can't patent a rounded rectangle or a grid of icons are reasonable BUT putting all these design features together in such a way that they mimic your competitor, uncannily, is not on.

I would hope that anyone creates anything from design, art to music will see where I am coming from.

I don't know but I'm guessing you'd find someone did own that patent once upon a time.

Roujin wrote:

I would argue that for a group of devices which are almost solely operated by users touching the touchscreen that being able to patent the movements you need to make to operate the device is insane.  It's like someone patenting using shift+letter to generate upper or lower case on a keyboard instead of having two completely seperate rows of keys for upper case and lower case.

This is all well and good when it doesn't affect you in the slightest but imagine we did live in a world where we had 2 keys per letter and you invented the SHIFT option, are you saying you'd be happy for everybody to start using that or would you want your 25p for every object that was made using YOUR idea?

I know what I'd want...

Yeah good point, they have successfully peddled the line that iOS is first and Android is worst.

And whereas being able to patent everything about controlling a touch screen is obviously ludicrous, there are surely valid arguments that support patenting:

- Certain bespoke technologies that allow for that interaction, to defend the R&D that went into the creation of working, pleasant-to-use touch screens (underlying technology, if you like).

and

- Certain bespoke enhancements to the user interface (NOT just icons, but the whole interaction with the system (OS, application layer and hardware) to defend viable and provable innovation.

My issue is that the argument appears to be: Everything should be patented, or nothing should be patented. Both of these are ridiculous positions, right?

Funkstain wrote:

Yeah good point, they have successfully peddled the line that iOS is first and Android is worst. And whereas being able to patent everything about controlling a touch screen is obviously ludicrous, there are surely valid arguments that support patenting: - Certain bespoke technologies that allow for that interaction, to defend the R&D that went into the creation of working, pleasant-to-use touch screens (underlying technology, if you like). and - Certain bespoke enhancements to the user interface (NOT just icons, but the whole interaction with the system (OS, application layer and hardware) to defend viable and provable innovation. My issue is that the argument appears to be: Everything should be patented, or nothing should be patented. Both of these are ridiculous positions, right?

Too right, it is a minefield of subjectivity.
Where you actually draw the line, I have no idea.

Don't forget with any patent the end aim is to make cash monies. You can block all and fuck if you want but alternatively you can licence stuff to millions of people and take tiny patents off each.

as pointed out above the swipe to unlock is not the only solution to the problem. Its use in the iPhone has conned some people that its the only way to unlock a screen but that's just stupid.

mistercrayon wrote:

...as pointed out above the swipe to unlock is not the only solution to the problem. Its use in the iPhone has conned some people that its the only way to unlock a screen but that's just stupid.

Index finger and thumb placed on the screen and then rotated 90deg, ie like turning a key, would be a much nicer unlock...

I can't be arsed to patent that if it's not already been thought of but if anybody from here wants to I'll happily go 75/25 with you, you can even have the bigger bit!

Might have to root my phone. (Oo-er)

Boom: Apple was just awarded a patent on pinch-to-zoom for multitouch displays. That's the first directly applicable patent we've seen on the gesture since we first started looking during the Apple / Palm war of words in January 2009, and it certainly gives Apple some potent ammunition against its competitors -- although there are some specific limitations on what Apple's been granted that will prove to be important. Let's break it down, shall we? Patent #7,812,826 was first applied for on December 29, 2006, and over the course of the patent process the claims have been significantly narrowed to cover a very specific set of actions:
1.A multitouch display detects at least two contacts.
2.Those contacts perform a first gesture.
3.That gesture adjusts an image in some way: magnification, orientation and rotation are specifically claimed, but the patent is broad enough to cover virtually any adjustment.
4.The first set of contacts is broken.
5.A second set of contacts is detected.
6.The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time.
7.The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way.
It's steps 5, 6, and 7 that are critically important here: Apple doesn't have a patent on "pinch-to-zoom" generally, but rather pinching to zoom, and then pinching to zoom again within some fixed period of time. How long that period lasts is totally up in the air, but it has to be defined somewhere -- this patent doesn't really apply unless there's a clock running and a second gesture takes place. Still, it's the first granted patent on the now-ubiquitous gesture we've seen, and based on its filing history it's essentially effective as of December 30, 2005 -- long before anything multitouch products with pinch to zoom had arrived on the market. That's no small weapon to bear -- we'll see what Apple does with it.

P.S.- Apple was also awarded some 17 other patents yesterday, including two more that deal with multitouch, but none of 'em are nearly as interesting as this one. Hit the via link for more on those.

FYI Minority Report was released in 2002..... Didn't that show pinch to zoom, and other multi touch functions within the film? I thought you could only patent novel ideas or novel applications of existing stuff?