Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple's Multi-Touch Patent Valid?
An anonymous reader writes "There is evidence that Apple's multi-touch patent application may have failed to list some prior art that showed gestures in multi-touch interfaces as early as the mid 1980s. Some of these examples even appear in the bibliography of Wayne Westerman's doctoral dissertation, and he's one of the inventors on the application's list. If true, that could leave them wide open for legal attack, should they try suing someone like Palm for patent infringement.
Also, Apple may be infringing some key multi-touch patents owned by the University of Delaware — and co-developed by Westerman while getting his doctorate."
Before posting, read the ~450 comments on the previous article.
It will be interesting to see if Apple's patent survives the next few days of Slashdot analysis, or even the next few hours! If the Westerman thesis is relevant, than not citing it is unfortunate for them. My guess is that Apple will follow this discussion, and then file for continuations and re-examinations based upon what shows up here.
NOT!
Or we'll have 20 years of touch screen stagnation. Great. Just as we are trying to get out of classic mobile phone layout stagnation.
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
Apple will end up paying the University of Delaware a few million, and then happily proceed unencumbered - which is what happened when the University of Washington's Electrical Engineering department took on Matsushita et. al.
#DeleteChrome
Not unlike the word "iPhone" itself... which Apple announced they would use even though clearly Cisco already held the trademark to it.
But a patent infringement case can only proceed once the Pre hits the market â" widespread expectations call for a May launch â" and Apple has analyzed the deviceâ(TM)s software for possible infringement.
Totally not true! You are liable for patent infringement once you make the patented invention. You don't have to sell it to become liable.
The problem with patenting multi-touch gestures is it can lead to a huge learning curve challenge. For example the Linux/Windows/BSD/etc multi-touch is going to be totally different than OS X's methods because of these patents, making it not only hard for people going to OS X but from people who primarily use OS X but can't use the gestures they are used to when on a different computer. This is similar to patenting QWERTY so every other keyboard manufacturer has to pick different keyboard layouts to typing becomes unbearable on different systems.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Interestingly, the G1 android phone has built-in support for multitouch, as demonstrated here. However, there are some issues which make it more useful for pinch-gestures than other types. (See here for a description of why this is.)
Multitouch "proof of concept" pinch-zoom support has already been incorporated into unofficial Android firmware for the G1 (which incidentally is an AMAZING phone). If Apple's patent claims are busted-- and I'm still not clear on what types of multitouch it supposedly prohibits competitors from using-- it probably won't be long before we see multitouch show up on hardware that "officially" hadn't supported it previously.
Engadget wrote a surprisingly well thought out analysis of the patent situation between Apple and Palm:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/
It's interesting that the motivations behind their patents aren't as obvious as they may seem. For example, Apple has several patents in the pipeline simply so they can tweak them later to specifically target Palm's Pre.
35 U.S.C. 271(a):
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
He is correct, patents do not require sale or commercial implementation by ANY party to be enforceable. Most patent holders won't go after DIY types who violate for personal use, but that's not because they have no legal ability to do so... rather it is because there is generally very little to gain by doing so other than bad publicity.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
You are still incorrect. Liability does not turn on commercial activity. The patent holder could seek an injunction, which is often just as bad as financial damages. Apple could easily file an infringement suit against Palm to stop them from releasing the phone. Read the case Madey v. Duke. What you are claiming is common and incorrect belief.
The IP owner has to be able to specifically show how the infringer did X which caused the IP owner to lose the ability to do Y.
I don't know where you are getting this requirement that the patent holder has to suffer some type of damage. That is completely untrue. Read the statute that I showed you. There is nothing in it that says damages are required before bringing a lawsuit. Then read that case like I told you to.
Good luck telling a judge that you THINK someone is infringing on your patent in their basement for their own use and you want in on the action because you're legally entitled.
Suing someone who you think is infringing is a different issue. That has to do with discovery. But once again I will point out, a DIY inventor in his basement cannot use a patented invention for his own use/research without a license or the risk of an infringement suit. The argument here is that the DIY inventor should be forced to buy the invention from the patent holder before he is able to use/research it. Sure, no one would probably find out about a DIY inventor but that again is a totally different issue.
And since you asked, I am a law student. And as far as I know, the RIAA deals with copyrights, not patents.
The court noted that even projects undertaken without direct commercial application often âoeunmistakably further the institutes legitimate business interests ... These projects also serve for example to increase the status of the institution and lure lucrative research grants, students and faculty.
You don't actually believe that Palm could argue that their phone development is solely for its amusement, to satisfy its idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry do you?
Look into Dave Sturman's research in the mid 80's. He was using a Dataglove for gestural research. The Media Lab made a demo tape of him using gestures to pick menu items. I probably still have a copy of it kicking around somewhere.