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.<p>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?<p>By definition, this whole thing is knocking down a strawman.<p>FWIW, every time I research one of these "alarming" "absurd" patents on an "idea", the turth turns out to be something else.<p>I'm convinced that the target audience never reads the patents or isn't conversant in the art sufficiently to comprehend them.<p>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.<p>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.
This tragically recurrent idea that you can make up your own idea about what a patent covers without reading it is <i>absolute fucking horseshit</i> and should be abhorrent to anybody that values truth over ideology.<p>No, Apple did not patent potrait-landscape flipping. It took me <i>about two minutes</i> to verify this by reading the <i>actual</i> description on the <i>actual</i> patent.<p><a href="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" rel="nofollow">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...</a><p>You don't even have to understand exactly what <i>is</i> claimed to see that orientation-flipping itself <i>isn't</i> being claimed. Just look at the background section:<p><i>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.</i><p>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.
From Apple's patent filing:<p><i>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.<p>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.</i><p>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?