Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Awarded Patent For iPhone Interface

Posted by kdawson on from the can't-touch-that dept.

Toe, The writes "Apple's 358-page patent application for their iPhone interface entitled Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics has been approved after more than two years of review by the US Patent Office. Apple's claims include: 'A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.' As Apple seems eager to defend their intellectual property, what will this mean to other touch developers?"

9 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. Waiting.. by adonoman · · Score: 5, Informative

    It means 20 years of waiting for the patent to expire before this kind of interface can be advanced at all.

    1. Re:Waiting.. by Sentry21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, because Apple's been well-known lately to rest on its laurels.

      The whole point of patents is to reward and encourage innovation. I don't recall having seen anything like the iPhone until the iPhone came out; all the companies since are just jumping on the bandwagon, and generally doing so pretty poorly.

      The patent seems like it might be pretty broad, but it seems to basically cover touch 'gestures'. Developers should be able to innovate their way around that specific interface - unless, of course, no one else out there is up to the task of innovating.

    2. Re:Waiting.. by fabs64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering the rapid movement of the tech industry, doesn't 18 YEARS seem like a fairly significant time to stop anyone else from using your innovation as a foundation for further innovation?

      Also "innovate their way around" is one of the craziest phrases I've ever read. We're happy to waste creative energy on getting around artificial restrictions now rather than simply creating?

    3. Re:Waiting.. by Fallen+Seraph · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right, because Apple's been well-known lately to rest on its laurels.

      Yeah! Apple's multi-touch tablet notebook is totally the best thing on the market!
      What's that? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm being told that they don't even have so much as a traditional tablet with a digitizer, let alone one with multi-touch.

      Here's what you're not getting: From the looks of it, this patent basically gives them exclusive rights to a multi-touch gesture system. Now I ask you, how exactly are you going to make an alternative UI for a touch screen that does not use gestures? Or even different kinds of gestures for that matter. Gestures work because of innate instincts and preconceptions about the physical world, as well as our own assumptions. The law cannot change what works and what doesn't as a gesture. Do you really want to have, let's say 3 multi-touch devices, each of which are forced to use 3 different gestures for the same damn action just because they're from different companies?

      In theory, patents are great, but in reality, they've never really worked the way they were supposed to. In the beginning, it was almost impossible to enforce a patent (see Evan's Mill, or the Cotton Gin), and now, it's too easy to do so. 20 years is a long damn time, and the end result is either going to be companies completely ignoring the patent, or Apple setting back any significant developments with this particular technology by DECADES. Think about it, decades.

      You might not realize this, but multi-touch has been around since the early 80s, and one of the reasons no one's cared is because of the patent on it. The reality is that the person/group who invents an innovation is not always the person/group that can best bring it to market, or make the most out of it technologically. Hell, Apple's the one that bought out FingerWorks, the original patent holder for lots of other multi-touch tech, but wasn't really getting anywhere in their implementation. Now imagine for a moment that it was the other way around. A small company named Fingerworks wants to build the iPhone in the mid-00's, but can't because a giant company, Apple, holds the patent, but it kind of floundering in its use. Yeah, that's totally spurring innovation right there.


      To be honest, I hope that Apple's just doing this to collect royalties.

    4. Re:Waiting.. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sometimes a patent is not such a good thing for the public.

      I'm curious if a patent ever is a good thing for the public. it really only ever seems to do exactly this.

      I mean, look at this. It's clearly Apple's IP. It's clearly a new invention.

      It's also clear that Apple has already gained the competitive advantage a patent is supposed to provide, without the patent.

      Which means that all the patent does, in this case, is retard progress for twenty years by preventing anyone else from beginning to compete with the iPhone. It's the difference between building new and exciting interfaces that start with the iPhone and expand beyond it, and instead having everyone else have to build ugly hacks to avoid infringing on that patent even when the iPhone is a horribly obsolete product.

      Patents should last the amount of time it takes to bring a product to market. That's a year, maybe two or three. Not fifteen or twenty.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Waiting.. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Truly.

      Where would we be if the creator of the first spider patented the concept of a spider building a searchable index of web sites, and a web form being utilized to query said database?

      Google, Yahoo, etc could have never been born, due to the inevitable litigation that would kill those portals before they got started.

    6. Re:Waiting.. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Apple is willing to license the use of the patent for a royalty fee; sure, it can be advanced by other companies.

      Apple isn't even willing to allow an interpreted language on the iPhone. What makes you think they would be willing to relinquish control here?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    7. Re:Waiting.. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's worth mentioning that this trend is not only in software. It's easiest to see here, because software moves so much faster, and it's so completely misunderstood by the patent office. But it's not just in software, and it's not recent.

      I'm sure someone less lazy than me will find the appropriate paper -- it discussed the development of the first steam engines, often used as an example of the patent system working -- but it illustrates just how clearly the patent system did not work here. Specifically, two competing steam companies couldn't use each other's improvements, so they had to work out less effective, more wasteful workarounds just to avoid being sued.

      I often sit and wonder about the cases where this truly causes harm -- suppose someone patented an affordable, powerful, stylish 100 mpg car (urban legend, I know). We'd have 20 more years of other car companies selling gas guzzlers because the one company sat on that patent. Or suppose it was medicine -- you'd have people dying because they couldn't afford the prices of the main supplier, and their competitors couldn't use the formula.

      I know I'm talking to myself, but I think I might also be talking myself into releasing my open source projects as public domain.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  2. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by jwdav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't believe any company has lost as much money as Apple due to not having proper patents and enforcing them. Microsoft alone built a large part of their business courtesy of Apple's prior ineffective enforcement, from Windows to QuickTime and a lot in between.

    The fact is, if Apple had not done multitouch first, they would have nothing to patent.

    Since they had the vision, did the R&D, bought a few companies and released an actual product incorporating the technology, it would seem they are entitled to a patent on that work. If there is nothing unique or prior art in the patent, it will not stand anyway.