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."
If there's a company that stands to lose from having a non-standard input scheme, it's definitely not the one that has >90% of the desktop market. I mean, if you not only have to learn a new OS, new shortcuts, in some cases new applications, and now a new input scheme, it seems that Apple would be erecting a new barrier to Mac adoption, not encouraging Mac adoption. If Microsoft implements gestures of its own (like what it has said it'll do in Windows 7), I'd bet those are more likely to become the standard than Apple's gestures.
It probably wouldn't kill device manufacturers to make the gestures on their devices customizable. That way, if you are used to the Apple gestures, you can use them; otherwise, you can use the defaults or whatever else you prefer. That would make Apple's patents irrelevant, as well as leave Apple at a disadvantage with its One UI to Rule Them All philosophy.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
with the exception of phones and other "toy" devices ... that by far outnumber keyboard-mouse-and-monitor computers, and for large parts of the world will be the only "computers" they'll ever use. Besides gaming most tasks done on desktop computers could (and will) easily be done (albeit with better user interfaces - which is what the article discusses) on what is known as "Mobile Internet Devices" (webpads, mobiles, ... ).
The desktop computer as a separate box is a dead end, and the reason you're seeing many companies moving into "mobile" is because they know this.
it's in my head
Have we forgotten Apple's "look and feel" lawsuits over 20 years ago where they tried to claim that they owned windows and icons? OK, maybe not that far, but they tried to block Windows from the market over claims that it violated Apple's patents. Never mind that Apple copied the Xerox PARC GUI almost verbatim.
That nonsense seemed to fade away after Komrade Jobs released NeXTstep in 1988 which cleverly replaced the trash can with a black hole, therefore "was totally different".
Apple is at least as evil as Microsoft, and I will contend that Apple is more evil. Many (but not all!) of the bad things done by Microsoft can be attributed more to incompetence rather than malice.
I am surprised nobody mentioned that those other companies (RIM, Nokia and Synaptics) also hold spurious patents that could block iPhones? It seems Apple is just joining the fray by carving its own territory. Hateful but oh so typical of the industry.
In a sense, the industry uses patent minefield in the same way that France used the Maginot line. When someone blitzkriegs around it with a paradigm shift, everyone is in a hurry to dig new trenches and claim new territories.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
This is one case where an industry standard is the only thing that makes sense. Make the gesture set standard and allow people to patent specific implementations (physical not software) which offer new features.
Unfortunately, in my experience it's the marketing and sales departments who, because of their competitive mindset, don't understand the benefits of collaboration in growing the overall market. When they do turn up at standards meetings as observers, the results are sometimes laughable but usually cringeworthy for the engineers from their companies. Microsoft XML is a case in point. I confidently expect these people to continue to act as a brake on the wheels of input mechanism progress.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Just because something is patented doesnt mean people cant use it, and companies wont license it.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Patent law specifies that you have 1 year after the "release" of a product to patent its technologies. It is also quite easy to get around this, however, as I would assume MS showed with their FAT filesystem patent. I am still baffled how they actually got a patent on such old technology. I would agree that Apple patenting such trivial items goes contrary to the original intention of the patent system, but it is my belief that the problem is with the patent laws and not with how Apple is using them.
In short, we need a congress that will actually try to update the patent laws to make them relevant in todays world. Actually specifying digital copyright laws would be a nice bonus as well. Unfortunately, though, considering the death grip that the corporate world has on our US government right now, I strongly suspect nothing will change anytime soon. In fact, I think we will need a major economic disruption for any real change to occur, and I do not see this happening anytime soon...
Apple users will be using one set of gestures and the other 95% of the population will be using another set. So kids will grow up knowing the gestures almost everyone uses and they will not choose Apple products because of the foreign user interface. This guarantees Apple's failure in the future.
http://researchoninnovation.org/
I am really struck by the number of
The reason I believe that laptops haven't become as popular as they could is the price.Just like that girl with her macbook folks are scared of breaking their expensive laptops.But a cheap,easy to use,and lightweight laptop that you can just chunk in your bag without freaking if it gets scratched? That thing will take off,as we have seen somewhat with the Asus,and will will definitely see if they come out with an under $200 laptop.And like the above poster said,folks can just work faster with a keyboard.They have used them all their lives,they know the shortcuts they use the most,and are generally happy with them.While I can see gestures becoming popular on things like mp3 players and cell phones,I think ultra cheap,ultra portable laptops will become the "must have" of the next 5-10 years.As always my 02c,YMMV.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
To add to some comments from others, apple is not pattenting 'multi-touch' as an interface. They're trying to pattent the meanings of the physical patterns. (e.g. pinching to zoom out/in)
This isn't about apple's 'creativity' in designing a new interface. The interface has been around since the early 90's with various different mechanics. This seems more like them trying to take ownership of the limited number of blatantly obvious hand/finger gestures practical on a small to medium size screen. If granted, they essentially 'own' multi-touch even though they don't own and actual multi-touch interface. Yet another failure of our pattent system. Also a failure of many to realize that apple doesn't innovate much, they simple take existing technology and put it together in convinient ways (e.g. they bought the click wheel, they didn't develop it)
While they DO make innovative and 'sleek/sexy/cool' products it does not change the fact that they behave just like lots of other 'evil' companies.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
You know, sometimes I wonder if companies patent stuff like this mainly to head off patent trolls. Apple has been stung by quite a few of these, and so it's no surprise that they are now patenting stuff that really shouldn't be patentable. (Yes, I'm one of those idiots who feel software patents are harmful, as software is instructions, but not an invention in and of itself.)
It would be nice if Apple could come forward and state that anybody may use their patents for stuff like this free of charge, but their history with the iPod scroll wheel interface is not very encouraging.