Slashdot Mirror
Multitouch Gesture Patents Could Prevent Standardization
ozmanjusri brings us a Wired report on Apple's efforts to patent the multitouch gestures used on their laptops, smartphones, and tablets. The article discusses concerns over how this could affect the standardization of certain gestures in developing multitouch technology. We've previously discussed the patent applications themselves. Quoting Wired:
"If Apple's patent applications are successful, other manufacturers may have no choice but to implement multitouch gestures of their own. The upshot: You might pinch to zoom on your phone, swirl your finger around to zoom on your notebook, and triple-tap to zoom on the web-browsing remote control in your home theater. That's an outcome many in the industry would like to avoid. Synaptics, a company that by most estimates supplies 65 to 70 percent of the notebook industry with its touchpad technology, is working on its own set of universal touch gestures that it hopes will become a standard. These gestures include scrolling by making a circular motion, moving pictures or documents with a flip of the finger, and zooming in or out by making, yes, a pinching gesture."
I say they all deserve a middle finger gesture if they can't work out a sensible standard. Apple should especially be chastised for trying to patent this stuff. It's like patenting an 'x' for denoting closing a window.
It makes sense for competitors to collaborate on certain things to move the industry as a whole forward.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
> that it hopes will become a standard. These gestures include: scrolling by making a circular motion and move the finger up and down to turn the picture? Come on!
The original multitouch demo used pinch to zoom in and out on images and on the workspace. How can Apple patent it after that?
In the 1980's, Apple tried to claim ownership of all modern GUIs; they lost on a technicality.
Multitouch as an input method goes back a long time; it wasn't put to much use because the hardware was expensive and GUI library developers were still coping with bigger issues.
Apple shouldn't be allowed to monopolize multi-touch, in any shape or form: not only would it be bad public policy, Apple simply didn't invent this stuff. Pretty much the only patents that should be valid in this space in 2008 are patents on better multi-touch hardware and low-level firmware.
Why isn't it just another setting? Sure, the defaults could be generally agreed upon. But why make everyone use the same set of pinches and twirls? I thought this new technology was supposed to obsolete rigid things like keyboards.
Because with the exception of phones and other "toy" devices most people need keyboards to get work done. I have never used a touch screen that I can type as fast and as accurate as I can on a keyboard. Also, most people know how to type on keyboards and the keyboard has been used ever since the typewriter. I don't see the keyboard going away anytime soon for any serious device.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
I'm very curious as to how someone is supposed to easily ctrl + and - on a tablet or a small gadget. Mouse+keyboard only works on devices with mice. 2 of the 3 device categories mentioned do not typically have mice, and the third (laptops) frequently do not - the one I am typing on right now does not. If I had a single standard way to zoom, move text around, etc. - like a scroll wheel on a mouse - I might be more inclined to use this laptop for my regular day-to-day activities. As it is, I'm only using it right now because I have to.
Then your mention of CAD is completely irrelevant. CAD requires a great deal of precision and control, and is not likely to be used often even on laptops, let alone the smaller devices. Reading an email, on the other hand, just needs a simple way to manipulate the screen. Who cares if it is a very coarse method of control, as long as it enables me to quickly get to what I want?
Skype is too convoluted... Now I'm reverse-engineering the Kyoto Protocol.
On the other hand, Apple has the momentum. They've been shipping products with multi-touch features for almost a year now. The most Microsoft has done is demo something that they haven't even begun to sell yet. They're playing catchup just like the Zune is doing.
The Apple patents are good for business and the rest of the computing arena, as they will spur creativity and growth as a work around to the patent issues, assuming no one wants to license the patents. After many years of being in the Slashdot community, I am really struck by the number of members who still chant 'It should be FREE, it should OPEN, bring this GOOD to the masses...' I can see the case for intellectual property protection and for open standards. Fine, then if people like Apple's intellectual property enough to make it a standard, then pay the licensing fee until the patent expires. There's no harm done in that, and based on the number of iPhones and iPod Touches that sell, it appears that the masses approve of the device and its technology. My point is that we live in a free market economy, people, nerds especially who have developed personally enough to have familes need to make money from their ideas by working for big business. You're not going to make money writing code for free / developing a 'new human interface standard' for free by living in your dark, damp, parents' basement. We all have to grow up, developed, and become a cog in the machine. Of course, one always can be a big cog or a little cog, sometimes we can choose that too, other times the choice is made for us.
This submission was made on an iPod Touch.
They didn't patent the single click. They patented a process that was initiated by a single click. The process (method) is the point.
Hitchhiking Gesture Patent
:)
The thumb is positioned in an erect manner with the rest of the fingers clenched into a fist. Optionally the forearm can be successively pivoted at the elbow joint.
If any of you want to go hitchhiking you will have to invent gestures of your own that do not violate my patent. Perhaps you could do a sort of Egyptian walk to attract attention instead, although it is possible that the Bangles have a patent on that particular gesture. I will of course licence you to use my hitchhiking gesture at a fee that renders the whole purpose of hitchhiking completely pointless
I don't think so.
Microsoft doesn't have any significant marketshare of devices that accept touch input. Outside of tablets, I can't think of any serious product that currently exists that accepts that interface. It's not like new computers come with a Wacom tablet by default, or some other "touch-interface".
The iPhone and the Touch will be popular devices for years to come; I'd be very surprised if they don't significantly oversell tablet laptops, if only because they're cheaper, if they aren't already in that position. This is all reminiscent of the iPod's UI patents.
Watch for gestures to be supported big time in new Apple laptops.
That's right - these same laws that are obstructing innovation and progress are intended to have the opposite purpose.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Trying to become the new Microsoft by patenting its way to obnoxiousness.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
What company, in their right mind, wouldn't patent multitouch gestures and protect themselves? I'd much rather see a company patent this and actually use the technology than a troll come along and assert their litigation power on every company who adopts a defacto standard.
Easy. Design device so that gestures are trainable. I will train every device I own the same way....
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
I wonder if there is any chance that these patents could fail on the basis of obviousness.
I figure that the better the gestures are for doing specific tasks, the more obvious they should be. I don't have a problem with patents on the technology behind the touch and multi-touch sensors, but I have to say that it would be a bad idea to use patents to prevent people from moving their hands in a particular way. Otherwise, you might get in the situation where you have a multi-touch sensor on a computer, but only the licensee of the software is allowed to use those gestures.
More Caffeine. NOW
No, they are not. They are patenting gestures. Don't make this more magical than is necessary.
What bothers me is that they prattle on and on about this kind of interaction being "intuitive." If the gestures are "intuitive," doesn't that by definition mean that they are already "inside" every person? That is, the gesture-as-representation-of-information, if it is "natural," is something discovered, and not invented. If this is not the case, then it's not "intuitive." So which is it?
If I develop an interface that interprets "waving goodbye" as "turn off computer," can I patent "waving goodbye?" Can I make it illegal for everyone else to use this very "intuitive" gesture?