January 27th, 2009 at 2:33 AM

The disclosed embodiments relate generally to electronic devices with touch screen displays, and more particularly, to electronic devices that apply heuristics to detected user gestures on a touch screen display to determine commands.

And once again the USPTO has proven incapable of discerning the obvious from the innovative.

Just to let you all know, heuristics means “common sense” or possible “the most obvious of meanings.”

So basically the innovative way Apple has come up with to intrepet hand gestures is to use “common sense.”

January 28th, 2009 at 12:19 PM

To clarify, antivirus software uses patented heuristic algorithms to determine whether something is a virus or not, based upon various indicators. The quality of those algorithms determines the accuracy of the AV system. It is certainly more involved than “common sense.”

January 28th, 2009 at 3:43 PM

I have issues with our current patent system, too, daemon, but I think there’s a devil’s advocate position on your complaint. 

Namely: If what Apple was doing was truly obvious, it seems likely that it would have been patented long ago. No one else has been able to make “common sense” gestures (ignoring the discussion on the definition of heuristics) be usable on track pads or touch screens, and I personally think this is one of those things that’s only obvious after someone else has done it first and made it work.

Apple brought these gestures to market, and I think they’re entitled to some protection from copycats.

To emphasize: There are many problems with the U.S. patent system, but in this case I think Apple deserves protection for the innovations they brought to market.

Bryan
Editor
TMO

January 28th, 2009 at 5:49 PM

You make some good points, daemon, but I am still left with the overarching concept of Apple deserving protection for bringing this stuff to market.  Not sure how else they can do so in a meaningful way, which is, of course, far different from having an actual solution for this issue.

I’m usually the last Mac fan to reflexively defend Apple, but when it comes to what they did with the iPhone, the company stands head and shoulders over every other competitor in the market.

Still, we have a lot of common ground on the very patent system itself—were it not so borked, this sort of approach to applying for patents wouldn’t be necessary.  For whatever that’s worth.

Bryan
Editor
TMO