

Apple Patents Portrait-Landscape Flipping: the patent system is broken - jancona
http://gettys.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/apple-patents-portrait-landscape-flipping-the-patent-system-is-broken/

======
econgeeker
Everything in this article is false. The author admits having not even read
the patent. This is just misrepresentation to further an agenda that wants to
pretend that Apple didn't invent anything with the iPhone.

Reality: That compaq used a stylus, it was not a touch screen. And the patent
doesn't say what is being alleged anyway... but then, its easy to construct
arguments when you get to make up your oppositions position, right?

By definition, this whole thing is knocking down a strawman.

FWIW, every time I research one of these "alarming" "absurd" patents on an
"idea", the turth turns out to be something else.

I'm convinced that the target audience never reads the patents or isn't
conversant in the art sufficiently to comprehend them.

And thus these are essentially political posts to foster the idea that Apple
doesn't deserve any protection for their inventions in the iPhone, because
those making the claim are android fans or apple haters.

Reality is this: Prior to the iPhone, android was ripping off the blackberry.
If Apple hadn't done this work, you'd still be arguing over which phone had
the best physical keyboard and bespoke facebook interface.

~~~
snaaaake
1\. The author has a valid reason for not reading the patent: there is an
enormous disincentive to reading patents built into patent law (treble
damages). Even if it was possible to glean useful information from the vague
gobbldeygook that is a modern software patent application, reading them would
still be a risky proposition.

2\. The "prior art" in this article isn't valid, but that doesn't make this
patent good. Patents like this are bad for the industry.

Imagine if the WIMP interface had been patented out the wazoo like this back
when Microsoft and Apple were duking it out for the PC market the first time
(or even better, when Apple copied it from Xerox). Would that have resulted in
a better outcome for consumers? For the industry? For _anyone_ other than
patent lawyers? Absolutely, positively not.

Nobody invents in a vacuum; everyone builds on each other in a process of
iterative improvement (even Apple; for the most recent example check out the
blatant copy of Android's notification tray in iOS 5). If we all had to pay
royalties to the entire stack of inventors who came before us, innovation
would grind to a halt.

~~~
PXLated
You're repeating a long disproved fallacy - Apple didn't steal from Xerox,
they actually licensed the tech and then hired some of the key people like
Alan Kay. Microsoft saw the same tech but didn't license any of it. They kind
of went the same route they did when they created Ariel (an Helvetic clone).
Apple licensed the font rather than just ripping it off.

~~~
snaaaake
I didn't say they _stole_ it, I said they _copied_ it. Despite what the
content industry would like you to think, the words are not synonymous.
Copying is not a crime.

Furthermore, Apple's license wasn't a patent license. It also didn't cover all
of the things they copied. Xerox later sued Apple for copying (and,
thankfully, lost, as did Apple when they sued Microsoft, because they tried to
use copyright law instead of patent law).

------
GHFigs
This tragically recurrent idea that you can make up your own idea about what a
patent covers without reading it is _absolute fucking horseshit_ and should be
abhorrent to anybody that values truth over ideology.

No, Apple did not patent potrait-landscape flipping. It took me _about two
minutes_ to verify this by reading the _actual_ description on the _actual_
patent.

[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,978,176.PN.&OS=PN/7,978,176&RS=PN/7,978,176)

You don't even have to understand exactly what _is_ claimed to see that
orientation-flipping itself _isn't_ being claimed. Just look at the background
section:

 _Some portable devices use one or more accelerometers to automatically adjust
the orientation of the information on the screen. In these devices,
information is displayed on the display in a portrait view or a landscape view
based on an analysis of data received from the one or more accelerometers._

Again, this is background information leading up to the actual summary of the
claims. This is what Apple patented a specific enhancement to. They did not
patent mousetraps. They patented what they think is a better mousetrap.

------
jsz0
From Apple's patent filing:

 _Some portable devices use one or more accelerometers to automatically adjust
the orientation of the information on the screen. In these devices,
information is displayed on the display in a portrait view or a landscape view
based on an analysis of data received from the one or more accelerometers. For
these devices, the user may occasionally want to override the orientation
displayed based on the accelerometer data. At present, such devices contain
little, no, or confusing heuristics for ending the user override of the
orientation displayed based on the accelerometer data.

Accordingly, there is a need for portable multifunction devices with more
transparent and intuitive portrait-landscape rotation heuristics. Such
interfaces increase the effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction with
portable multifunction devices._

Sounds like Apple is fully admitting they were not the first to do this but
their way of doing it is unique and better. It's more like they are patenting
the user interface changing depending on orientation than the act of switching
orientation itself?

------
sambeau
I don't want to defend the patent system, but, I thought this patent was a
page flipping lock gesture, not page flipping itself.

~~~
redthrowaway
Does it really make a difference to the quality of the patent?

~~~
sambeau
It makes a huge difference to the case against it.

