[IxDA Discuss] Apple's Gesture Dictionary [PATENT]

[Mark Schraad]

>From the readings I have done recently, it appears that a patent like this one basically deals with the 'long tail' of potential entries into the market. Those would be start up companies that could not possibly, or would not be willing to buck p the million dollars needed just to begin defending or attacking an existing patent. 

This is why patent laws desperately need reworking. The current legal system all but excludes the entrepreneur from innovation. They simply can't afford to defend  their ideas even if they are legitimately new and unique.

Mark



On Tuesday, August 07, 2007, at 04:18PM, "Will Parker" <wparker at channelingdesign.com> wrote:
>On Aug 7, 2007, at 6:13 AM, pauric wrote:
>
>> Lisa/Jack: 'can actually you patent a language? Isnt this a patent
>> for a dictionary?'
>>
>> Yup and yup, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.  This
>> patent would seem to make it difficult for users to learn an
>> alternative language if it comes with a non-infringing but hokey
>> dictionary design.
>
>Once again, please tell me how this patent limit the development of a  
>robust, open pattern language for gestures? Although Apple clearly  
>has certain gestures picked out for early adoption, these are not the  
>meat of the patent, which describes a series of designs "merely" for  
>the presentation and maintenance of gesture preferences.
>
>> My argument is that while we sit here on verge of a new interaction
>> paradigm, we can go segmented & closed or with a universal language &
>> differentiate on good design.
>
>I think that gestures are in the same state as keyboard shortcuts in  
>the mid-80s. Everyone has a different approach, and no one is willing  
>to settling on The One True Pattern just yet. It'll come down to  
>which gesture set is used on the device(s) that gain market dominance.
>
>Actually, strike that.
>
>The core of the first universal gesture language will be the _default  
>set_ provided by the OS for the first popular general-use computer  
>equipped with multi-touch. That core set will be enshrined as a  
>formal standard much, much later. Not a chance in hell that the  
>International Interaction Design Cabal is going to get a chance to  
>define a standard early in the game (more's the pity).
>
>> I believe the entity that defines the first universally adopted  
>> language will reap greater rewards in the long term.
>
>Should we _really_ get into that whole emacs/vi thing? };->
>
>> Let me turn your question around.  We are going to have a  
>> multitouch gesture language for the foreseeable future. How does a  
>> closed language benefit Apple?
>
>It doesn't, and the patent doesn't suggest anything of the sort.  
>Quite the reverse, as it indicates Apple intends to provide quite  
>robust support for user-defined gestures and gesture strings.
>
>BTW, one thing we as interaction designers need to nail down early on  
>-- if it hasn't already been done by some previous master of the art  
>-- is the language to describe the individual aspects of gestures and  
>of gesture sequences.
>
>The language in the Apple patent that sparked this thread leans  
>heavily on musical terms, but is this in fact the best way of framing  
>discussion of gestures? Are there _other_ commonly-understood domain  
>vocabularies that could be adapted as a "handier" set of conceptual  
>tools?
>
>- Will
>
>Will Parker
>wparker at ChannelingDesign.com
>
>?I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If  
>that were the case, then Microsoft would have great products.? -  
>Steve Jobs