Slimy morons at Microsoft try to patent “pinch and zoom”

A new patent application published by the US Patent Office this week shows that Microsoft’s delusional engineers think that they’ve actually invented Pinch and Zoom as if Apple’s technology never existed.


  • Yep. Well what do you expect? Microsoft can try but they will not succeed. Their failure to see (once again) a major shift in technology is going to be their downfall. They thing that they can just embrace and extend is not going to work this time. Consumers, Developers and even the Enterprise are finally waking up. Tablets, SmartPhones and SoC (Systems on a Chip) are the future.

  • Apple? Surely you mean like this tech didn’t exist:

    • The pinch-to-zoom gesture was part of the multi-touch gesture library developed by Wayne Westerman for FingerWorks, Inc. since at least 2001. Their iGesturePad was supporting this gesture since at least 2003. It was neither Apple’s nor Han’s invention.

      The difference is that Apple did buy FingerWorks and its patents, and neither Han, nor MS did.

      • I wasn’t saying Han created it. I was merely pointing out Apple did not with a video prior to their use.

        • And I did not say, or suggest, you did 🙂

          I only wanted to point out that there were shipping products (not just demos), long before Han made his video.

          • Scruff0

            I was responding to John’s comment. Agreeing with yours 🙂

          • Yeah, once you get too far down they just stack up.

          • Who? FingerWorks?

        • Scruff0

          I think you’ve misread the lede – it never said that Apple created it, just that Microsoft is trying to patent pinch to zoom, when its fairly obvious that the tech exists already in a shipping product.

          • Nope, I didn’t.

            “…that they’ve actually invented Pinch and Zoom as if Apple’s technology never existed.”

            The notion is they’re patenting something as if they invented it while discarding Apple’s tech, which is preceding it. It reads to me as it should note the inventor of the tech they’re trying to patent rather it says Apple. Just saying.

        • kibbles

          if apple bought the patents, it’s their tech. simple as that. no skating around it…

  • Oh Microsoft, late to market as usual.

  • I think too highly of my remaining sanity to read that MS patent in depth, but I don’t think it is simple pinch to zoom as we are familiar with it.

    It seems to be altering the layout depending on the zoom level.

    Still, I hate pretty much every software patent. Most of them seem to have been more expensive to file than they were to invent. The patent system is supposed to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. It seems like it does more to promote the useless arts (aka, patent law).

    • You may not have done any deep research on the patent application, but it seems you’ve thought about it for longer than the one word insult man.

    • Steven Fisher

      Reading the patent, they are trying to patent something else in addition to pinch-to-zoom.

  • yummyyummyfly

    I think you folks have it wrong. This is a different type of technology that Microsoft is proposing. This tech involves using p.thurrot’s butt-cheeks to do pinch to zoom. Not finger tips. Completely different. Obviously.

  • It should be pointed out that “patent” does not mean “invented.”

  • Lukas

    You do realize that first to patent wins? This is what all companies do, including Apple.

    Also: whenever Apple uses some of their moronic patents to go after another company, you call the other company the “thief”, regardless of whether Apple actually invented the thing, or just patented it.

    • That’s because usually the other companies are thiefs Apple usually does try and pay FRAND royalties, but companies such as Samsung, want to charge Apple extra. For this particular case, Apple does have the patent for it, not matter if it invented it or not, and MS does not.

    • Scruff0

      No. If prior art exists, AND can be proven in a court, then the patent is invalidated

      • Prior art is completely irrelevant in this regard.

  • CJ

    They should patent copy and suck.