Its worth noting that software patents are a uniquely American thing.

You can’t patent an idea in Europe, only a thing.

Software is protected by copyright.

So in Europe if X wrote some software to control pinch to zoom, the Y could also write some software to pinch to zoom, in the same way that X and Y are both free to write a love story in which the hero dies at the end.

However if Y copied X’s pinch to zoom code word for word (or their love story) they would be infriging their copyright and could claim damages.

This is sensible.

The US patents harm inovation and just adds cost for the consumer. Who do you think pays for Apple’s army of lawyer or Samsung’s $1 billion in damages? We do. It should be stopped

Pinch to zoom is a very specific thing (regardless of the mechanics of how it’s done). Someone had that original idea and deserves to benefit from it. If that idea is stolen then the thief should be punished. No argument will ever convince me otherwise.

Pinch to zoom is a very specific thing (regardless of the mechanics of how it’s done). Someone had that original idea and deserves to benefit from it.

No its not. Its basically the only way to zoom a touch screen without the use of buttons.

And even if it wasn’t specific, its an idea. You shouldn’t be able to patent ideas as its uncompetitive. To stretch the car analogy its the equivalent of patenting the idea of steering the car using a wheel held by the driver!

No its not

Yes it is.

You shouldn’t be able to patent ideas as its uncompetitive.

That’s rubbish and the car analogy doesn’t work either. Everything was an idea at some point. FSR/VPP/DW link. It stinks of “I want the apple features but didn’t buy an apple product”. Tough.

Its basically the only way to zoom a touch screen without the use of buttons.

Mmmm… plenty of touch screens had zoom functionality before multi-touch capable displays came along: +/- buttons, magnification sliders, draggable zoom selection boxes, magnifying glass…

Pinch to zoom is a very specific thing (regardless of the mechanics of how it’s done). Someone had that original idea and deserves to benefit from it. If that idea is stolen then the thief should be punished. No argument will ever convince me otherwise.

The inventer of the multi-touch display has the valid patent, not the person who says “oh, you could touch it this way”. That’s the equivalent of patenting the double click after someone else invents the mouse. Or to go with the car analogy, someone invents the steering wheel and I patent “turning left”.

US patent system is broken.

Yes, pinch to zoom is very specific, but as mentioned above, its the only sensible way to zoom on a touch screen. As was much lauded by the Apple lot, its intuitive! What about dragging a finger up and down the page to scroll? Could that action be patented? Or indeed panning left or right once your zoomed in? Surely the way in which we interact with devices (be it pc’s, tablets, phones or just about anything else) will inevitably become standardised (kind of like a mouse generally has some buttons on it and a scrolling wheel) once the most desirable method for doing so has been established for a given media. Sure, things will evolve as firms innovate with new tech, breeding a new standard, and yes, the code for that can and should be protected, but not the action in itself.

plenty of touch screens had zoom functionality before multi-touch capable displays came along: +/- buttons, magnification sliders, draggable zoom selection boxes, magnifying glass

In case you missed it…..

Everything was an idea at some point. FSR/VPP/DW link.

That is a good example.

Specialized patent for the FSR is only valid in the USA as its just an idea to put a pivot on the chain stay.

My bike has FSR only its not a Specialized and I bought it here.

VPP isn’t patented either. Some bike companies specfic implimentations designs may be. For example the DW link is just a specific implimentation of VPP.

Patenting “pinch to zoom” is as generic as patenting rear suspension on a bike via linkages. I’d bet we would all be pretty hacked off if we could only get a proper suspension bike from Specialized and it was only URT or hard tails from everyone else.

Patenting “pinch to zoom” is as generic as patenting rear suspension on a bike via linkages.

I absolutely agree but I think that people should be rewarded for innovation. If all ideas automatically become the property of industry then people will stop having them 😀

companies do get rewarded for innovation. time to market. they’re making money off their innovation while other companies are trying to work out how it’s done. some things take longer than others.

If all ideas automatically become the property of industry then people will stop having them

That is obsurd. If the idea is so generic that anyone could have it then people will still have them.

But if the competitive advantage stands with having and implimenting new ideas to maintain a competitive advantage, rather than spending resources protecting old or generic ideas, then people will actually have more new ideas.

Are you realistically say that if ideas couldn’t be patented in the US then my iPhone wouldn’t exist?

Not only would it exist, it would be significantly better and cheaper.

A good example of how patents harm inovation is the Workmate. (often heraled as a sucess of the patent system).

The designer, a clearly inovative chap, came up with the product to fill an suprisingly obvious need. He then spent years defending the patent but the product hardly changed since it was invented. Lots of money was spent on lawyers and 1 man got very rich though.

Now the patent has expired the product has been improved, inovation has had to happen to stay competitive, but its still profitable to make them, so they still get made, people still get their money.

Are you realistically say that if ideas couldn’t be patented in the US then my iPhone wouldn’t exist?

No. That would be obsurd (sic)

The designer, a clearly inovative chap, came up with the product to fill an suprisingly obvious need. He then spent years defending the patent but the product hardly changed since it was invented. Lots of money was spent on lawyers and 1 man got very rich though.

This is absolutely correct and exactly how it should have happened. Are you saying that anyone should have been able to steal the idea and tweak it/undercut him?
Are you the poster boy for big business?

Are you saying that anyone should have been able to steal the idea and tweak it/undercut him?

Yep – That is exactly what I am saying. It certainly wouldn’t harm inovation as you are saying. Exact copying shouldn’t be allowed like chineese knock offs but if someone wants to take the idea and make a better version why should we stop them?

Name a sport that is famed for the speed of its inovation. F1 maybe.

Do you think F1 designers make use of patents to protect their ideas?

Unreal.

Unreal

Please expand.

Do F1 designers stop having ideas because they know within weeks someone will have copied their idea?

If instead of spending billions protecting existing ideas* we spent that money inovating imagine what we could achive.

*(I’m all for protecting things. I’m not saying you can just go and copy anything and pass it off as your own)

I agree (mostly) with jfletch. I worked in the design department of a large production comapany and we would regularly file patents on products we would almost certainly never build just to stop our competitiors. We’s also regulary independently develop great ideas only to have them blocked by someone else patent on a product they never produced. The system is pretty flawed

If instead of spending billions protecting existing ideas* we spent that money inovating imagine what we could achive.

It’s a bit chicken and egg though isn’t it? If companies spent more on development then they wouldn’t need to steal ideas and no protection would be needed. When all companies try their best to outdo each other rather than nick stuff then we get real innovation (and value).

*(I’m all for protecting things. I’m not saying you can just go and copy anything and pass it off as your own)

That’s how it sounds.

At least the patent on “A rectangle with rounded edges” was kicked out.

Having had the pleasure of trawling through some software patents there is some speculative sh*te in there.

The hard test is to see if the solution is an invention or just the obvious solution that the average developer would have come up with.

End of the day we now have patent trolls and people hoarding ideas in case someone else uses them. So instead of using innovation to make your product better people are using it to stop the competition doing anything.