Slashdot Mirror
Apple Awarded Patent For iPhone Interface
Toe, The writes "Apple's 358-page patent application for their iPhone interface entitled Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics has been approved after more than two years of review by the US Patent Office. Apple's claims include: 'A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.' As Apple seems eager to defend their intellectual property, what will this mean to other touch developers?"
Minority Report (2002)
iPhone multi-touch (2007)
I for one, welcome our Thetan overlords.
the other possibility is that with this type of patent, there will be swifter reform that rejects it
it seems to basically cover touch 'gestures'
Circa 1991-2 I was developing for an OS called PenPoint, it implemented gestures using "hueristics".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
And therefore Apple's patent is invalid, as it fails the test of not closing off the only way of doing something.
Fingers moving about on a point-detection surface are inherently ambiguous in their meaning, and therefore only a heuristic method can handle the problem -- a deterministic algorithm cannot.
The USPTO will happily allow you to patent breathing, but that doesn't mean that it will stand up in court.
It will be interesting to see Apple try to defend their Imaginary Property on this issue.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I don't use a Mac, I use Windows primarily. So my exposure to Apple software is iTunes and Quicktime.
I can therefore say that every bit of Apple software I've used is atrocious, as bad as anything from Microsoft. I'll mitigate that some by saying that the ipod UI is fine; I don't find it particularly better than most other mp3 players, but no worse.
I guess that you really need to switch completely over to Apple, to really get the benefits; maybe the Windows versions are partially crippled. Still, while I wouldn't go so far as to say Apple products suck, my experience with them sure isn't selling me on them.
It's worth mentioning that this trend is not only in software. It's easiest to see here, because software moves so much faster, and it's so completely misunderstood by the patent office. But it's not just in software, and it's not recent.
I'm sure someone less lazy than me will find the appropriate paper -- it discussed the development of the first steam engines, often used as an example of the patent system working -- but it illustrates just how clearly the patent system did not work here. Specifically, two competing steam companies couldn't use each other's improvements, so they had to work out less effective, more wasteful workarounds just to avoid being sued.
I often sit and wonder about the cases where this truly causes harm -- suppose someone patented an affordable, powerful, stylish 100 mpg car (urban legend, I know). We'd have 20 more years of other car companies selling gas guzzlers because the one company sat on that patent. Or suppose it was medicine -- you'd have people dying because they couldn't afford the prices of the main supplier, and their competitors couldn't use the formula.
I know I'm talking to myself, but I think I might also be talking myself into releasing my open source projects as public domain.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Sounds like you are better off with Linux or some other free OS/platform.
I don't think Apple ever really did care about the consumer. Apple makes products that it thinks are awesome; it certainly doesn't care whether the consumer thinks it's awesome. As far as I know, Apple has always been like this.
It's worked for me so far. I love my Apple products -- my iBook, iPhone, MacBook Pro, Apple TV. They've made life easier for me and given me far more enjoyment and entertainment than other products have.
Sure, I like free and open software and hardware as much as the next guy, but if a great product that suits all my needs comes along that is not free and not open, them I'm still going to use it.
I'm not going to pretend that Apple products are for everyone, and it certainly sounds like it isn't a good fit for you. You're a tinkerer, and in most respects Apple's philosophy does not play well with tinkerers.
There are usually plenty of other companies and manufacturers who make more open products. For my needs and wants, these products are usually not as good as the ones made by Apple.