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."

Comments

Let's see if Apple's patent survives Slashdot

[Steve1952]

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.

Re:Let's see if Apple's patent survives Slashdot

[PopeRatzo]

My guess is that Apple will follow this discussion

Considering the large number of unpaid sales and public relations staff Apple has here at Slashdot, I wouldn't be surprised.

I sincerely hope

[Archimonde]

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.

Re:I sincerely hope

[es0vyr4fVY9LD8ub]

I'm sorry, but are you somehow implying that patent law can be used to hinder competition in a so called 'free market'? Shame on you, sir.

If this follows the Bluetooth patents scenario...

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

and the iPhone trademark

[Toe, The]

Not unlike the word "iPhone" itself... which Apple announced they would use even though clearly Cisco already held the trademark to it.

Problems with patenting...

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Problems with patenting...

[Zackbass]

On the other hand, the problems that patents present to progress along a line of design can actually work in our favor. I've run up against patents in the past and in working on an alternate way of solving the problem I run into a better solution. There's no reason that what was patented is the best solution, it's most likely just the most obvious. It's actually a cool little trick for forcing development out of local minima (assuming a cost function on optimality like all sane people do).

Random rant: I've found 90% of the patents I run into are stuff someone patented to sit on and aren't actively developing. Apparently actually making the thing and marketing it are too hard, it's much more efficient to patent a swath of bad ideas and try to force licenses upon those who actually want to make progress.

The Android G1 & Multitouch....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Interesting Analysis

[rm999]

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.

Re:Interesting Analysis

[crmarvin42]

Apple is most likely not going to pursue Palm unless their hand is forced. I don't see anyone having a problem developing non-infringing multi-touch UI guidelines, or baring that lisencing them from Apple.

Legal battles cost money and risk having patents invalidated. They are the Big Stick in the line "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." By having the patent they can intimidate their competitors into using only obviously non-infringing multi-touch features. Thus maintaining the novelty of their device.

Besides, I fail to see how their patent can stifle innovation. They were awarded the pantent for doing something innovative in the first place. If Palm wants to stay competetive they'll just have to do some more innovating to keep up.

Re:It is inevitably infringing itself.

[DustyShadow]

No, you are only talking about damages. A patent is a right to exclude others from making, selling, etc.
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.

Re:It is inevitably infringing itself.

[Miseph]

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.

Re:Backtrace

[Daimanta]

No.

I'd rather read exactly the same comments in this section.