Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patents Portrait-Landscape Flipping
theodp writes "On Tuesday, the USPTO granted a patent to Apple for Portrait-landscape rotation heuristics for a portable multifunction device (USPTO), which covers 'displaying information on the touch screen display in a portrait view or a landscape view based on an analysis of data received from the one or more accelerometers.' Perhaps the USPTO Examiners didn't get a chance to review the circa-1991 Computer Chronicles video of the Radius Pivot monitor before deeming Apple's invention patentable. Or check out the winning touchArcade trivia contest entry, which noted the circa-1982 Corvus Concept sported a 15-inch, high-resolution, bit-mapped display screen that also flipped between portrait and landscape views when rotated, like our friend the iPhone. Hey, everything old is new again, right?"
I'm going to patent the First Post.
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
Neither of the two cited examples of "prior art" cited in the summary were portable as is claimed (also according to the summary) by the Apple patent.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
The others used other gravity sensors like little metal balls and contact sets or mercury switches not accelerometers. And they weren't touchscreen devices. Trivial differences, but different technology. Better to argue it was obvious than say the others represent prior art. Still accelerometers in portable media players and phones is pretty much an Apple thing for display orientation, since everyone before had an attached keyboard!
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Did the Radius monitors use accelerometer data? Nope, they used a positional switch mounted on their stationary base. Since this specifically addresses use of accelerometer data (no fixed mount on a netbook or smartphone) that isn't prior art here, sorry. Making in-jokes about the patent system mocks its all-to-real deficiencies, of which this is not one. Oh, and way to write a terrible headline - Apple hasn't patented portrait-landscape flipping. You really did read about this before writing.....didn't you?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
First, have more money than Apple to use for legal fees.
Second, have more money than Apple to use for legal fees.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Many cameras - not phones - cameras, had this functionality way before the iPhone did. Granted that in most circumstances it was only available in a camera application, but I had my Nokia N95 about three months before the original iPhone came out, and it used the exact same chip to do the same thing...
I'm pretty sure that some high end digital SLRs had this function, possibly as far back as 2003 if memory serves me correctly.
Stupid question I know, but Apple is NOT patenting rotation, but rather two gestures to lock the screen in either portrait or landscape mode, regardless of detected orientation. Whether or not such a matter is patentable is another kettle of fish.
On a related matter, Apple long ago bought a patent from British Telecom that appears actually to be for screen rotation.
Look at Google. They've (seemingly sensibly) not accumulated a huge portfolio of patents. The unfortunate consequence of that is that Android is going to get squeezed more and more by patent claims.
Patent trolls' strongest weapon is the fact that they don't make anything, and so there's nothing against which a counter-claim can be made.
The long-term bright side of this is that sooner or later Google and others will have no choice but to mount a campaign for sweeping change in the patent system. But until then, small developers will find it harder and harder to produce useful software and devices without spending all their income defending patent claims.
If you can get legal fees if they sue you and you invalidate their patent, then I think any lawyer might want that job.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
...that a /. title is inaccurate!!!????
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
As far as I can tell, both the "prior art" monitors used a contact switch rather than multiple accelerometers to determine orientation. Apple's patent is on figuring out which way is "down" based on accelerometer readings and selecting "portrait" or "landscape" based on that.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Unenforceable but widely applied patent is an extremely powerful tool in big corporations' hands. It can be used as a part of a package to hit smaller companies who simply do not have the resources to debunk such attacks, as a deterrent to competition, as an additional bargaining chip in patent negotiations, etc.
The sheer amount of effort and costs associated debunking the patent against a crack team of lawyers backing it up, and en-masse usage where focusing on these elementary patents takes away from harder aspects of the case are what makes it valuable.
Third, just put a gun against Jobs head and pull the trigger.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
And my Kodak C743 has done EXACTLY that WELL before Apple ever thought of it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
They figured out how to use an accelerometer to measure changes in acceleration.
Who would have thought acceleration occurs when you rotate something? Genius!
if big business back in the 1980s had come down on Apple like Apple comes down on joe blow hacker nowdays, Apple could never have gotten out of the garage.
a linkage to make the engine connect to the wheels, thats a patent.
a method to make the engine work reliably, thats a patent.
a device to crank the engine through a battery, thats a patent.
"stick motor on wheels" should not be a patent.
The question is, shouldn't a patent be awarded only for something non-trivial even for experts in that field ? I mean this is hardly a genius work. You write a function that depends on the values of the accelerometer and voila you get the proper orientation! What am I missing here?