Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Multi-Touch Tech Firm Seeks iPad Sales Injunction

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the good-luck-with-that dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Taiwan-based Elan Microelectronics just filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission alleging that Apple is infringing on its patents and violating the Tariff Act, and is seeking a ban on imports of the iPad as well as an order to stop selling the mobile device along with iPhones, iPods, and Macs. The move was taken as a 'continuation of our efforts to enforce our patent rights against Apple's ongoing infringement,' the company said." Considering many iPad pre-orders have tracking #s already, I suspect it might be a little late.

148 comments

  1. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Should be good for fags

  2. How do you say by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Don't touch me there' in Chinese?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:How do you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please keep your orange sauce to yourself?

    2. Re:How do you say by knappe+duivel · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Don't multi-touch me there' in Chinese?

      fixed that for you

    3. Re:How do you say by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Redundant

      In case you have sigs turned off: Let's have a voluntary moratorium on "fixed that for ya" replies. They have long since ceased to be witty.

      -Peter

    4. Re:How do you say by knappe+duivel · · Score: 4, Funny

      I must be new here

    5. Re:How do you say by SOdhner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that depends on the "fix". I've seen some pretty fantastic ones that are funny, insightful, or both. Of course I also see a lot of stupid ones, but if we stop the "fixed that for ya" replies a new meme will just step in to fill the void because the real problem is people who think something like that takes the place of quality content rather than accenting whatever is (or isn't) there to begin with.

    6. Re:How do you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, while we're at it let's make sure that nobody posts anything that Peter doesn't want to read.

      From now on, all posts must be pre-approved by Peter.

      Who is with me?

    7. Re:How do you say by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >>> 'I like to be touched' in Chinese?

      I like this version better. :-) Reminds me of those old Nintendo DS ads. Or this old Samatha Fox song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiuimDNlyuQ

      And still looking rather fine at age 40: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tr7omqkY5A

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:How do you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Let's all hail the "fixed that for ya" replies. They never get old.

      -Peter

      fixed that for you

    9. Re:How do you say by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mmmm. I'm not sold.

      -Peter

    10. Re:How do you say by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0

      OT: Let's have a voluntary moratorium on "fixed that for ya" replies. They have long since ceased to be witty.

      They're not meant to be witty. They're meant to make the replier feel superior. HTH.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    11. Re:How do you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wo mei you yuan" (I don't have money) usually works very well.

    12. Re:How do you say by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, reply fixes you.

    13. Re:How do you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's have a voluntary moratorium on "fixed that for ya" replies. They have long since ceased to be witty.

      And sadly, so have you.

    14. Re:How do you say by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      on the other hand, trolls have never been wanted.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    15. Re:How do you say by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      In case you have sigs turned off: Let's have a voluntary moratorium on "fixed that for ya" replies. They have long since ceased to be witty.

      -Peter

      I think you meant "you".

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    16. Re:How do you say by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro

  3. did anything come of the last suit? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They sued Apple a year ago with essentially the same complaint about the iPhone, iPod Touch, and MacBook.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Oh, I guess the article already says what came of it: it's still being litigated, as Apple was granted an extension to respond to it.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    2. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by C_Kode · · Score: 1

      It's ongoing. Which is why with the release of the iPad they are seeking an injunction against the sale of their products. They aren't suing them again, they are trying to stop the sale of the products to apply more pressure to Apple.

    3. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Apple was granted an extension to respond to it."

      Which I don't understand, because Apple already owns a patent on multi-touch, how can you sue the patent holder for infringement of their own patent?

      Apple's patent:
      "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."

      If they don't like it they can complain to the USPTO like everyone else.

      Even if they didn't multi-touch and "pinching" was demonstrated way back in 1991, long before anyone filed a patent

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      You can have multiple overlapping patents, for example MP3. Something like 13 different entities patented various overlapping chunks of MP3. The way patent extortion works here is that you have to license all the patents to avboid being sued. In general, companies pay off the top few leeching extortionists and ignore the rest for mp3, sometimes leading to suits.

      This i sjust one more piece of how patents are a minefield for legitimate innovators.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    5. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by raynet · · Score: 1

      I recall that Apple only has method patent for multi-touch, they don't have hardware level patent for it. Maybe this other company has something of that sorts.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    6. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by tyrione · · Score: 1

      I recall that Apple only has method patent for multi-touch, they don't have hardware level patent for it. Maybe this other company has something of that sorts.

      http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/03/the-patent-wars-apple-reveals-new-high-end-multi-touch-technology.html#more

    7. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is an example of how patents are a minefield but there's no example here of a legitimate innovator suffering. Apple uses its patents to implement as aggressive a "minefield" for others as anyone in the industry and, in this case, Apple's patents were purchased. It did not create the innovation itself.

    8. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      This i sjust one more piece of how patents are a minefield for legitimate innovators.

      How can you be an innovator if you're just implementing something that someone else has already done?

    9. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      You do have a point wrt the hypocrisy, but as I see it, the innovation is the product itself, not the idea. Anyone can come up with an obvious idea like multitouch but integrating it into a good product, as several companies incl Apple have done, that's what I'd call innovation. Or figuring out how to actually make it instead of just patenting the idea.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    10. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      * Do it better
      * Do it in a new way
      * Don't know that someone else already did it
      * Integrate it better into an overall system

      All I got off the top of my head.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    11. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by raynet · · Score: 1

      Did some quick googling and found out that Apple's multitouch patent was filed September 25, 2008 whereas this competing patent (US Patent no. 5,825,352) was filed 02/28/1996. Both seem to be reasonably legitimate patents at a glance.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    12. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by perlchild · · Score: 1

      The more I think about it, the more I think the current legal climate(extra penalties for checking for existing patents, almost wilful neglection of prior art, etc...) is a deliberate attempt to skew the patent system towards large companies holding portfolies of defensive patents so broad and vague they are a revenue stream for those companies(think ibm), and the "patent trolls" are actually just small remoras hanging on to the big sharks. The innovators work for neither, the innovators are the enemy of this system.

      The laws don't just have to be changed, they have to be reversed, to do anything to help innovation.

    13. Re:did anything come of the last suit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no shit Sherlock!

  4. Wait... by AequitasVeritas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt Apple suing HTC over, among other patents, multi-touch? Now Apple is being sued over the same thing?

    So who actually owns this patent?

    1. Re:Wait... by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am secretly hopeful that this will eventually turn into a great big litigation circle-jerk.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone, that's the main problem with the patent system. patents are increasingly broad and granted with very little review. thus a patent over a jukebox can be seen to cover mp3 players.
      the entire system needs to be thrown out. the only way a patent ever makes money is by suing someone who actually makes a product. if the idea was so good in the first place you would have obviously taken it to market.

    3. Re:Wait... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's tricky and unless you know more details about the specific case, it's hard to say who actually owns what. This is what I know from the case:

      Apple bought a company called Fingerworks in 2005. Fingeworks made multi-touch keyboard and mice. Shortly after bought by Apple, Fingerworks ceased to sell or make any products. The best guess is that Apple bought Fingerworks solely for it's patents and technology. As of August 2008, Fingerworks continued to file patents.

      Apple releases the iPhone in 2007. Elan Microelectronics sues them thereafter.

      When looking at these patent cases, there has to be certainty about the specific technology involved. Multi-touch is large collection of differing technologies. MS Surface for example relies on cameras whereas the iPhone appears to use capacitance. The devil is in the details and that's what lawyers are for.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Wait... by msauve · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe that Apple is suing HTC over gestures which use multi-touch.

      The patent in this suit is related to sensing multi-touch, and is therefore a prerequisite to doing multi-touch gestures. Here's the patent.

      I have no idea of what relationship there is between Elan and Logitech (who was awarded the patent).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Wait... by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple bought fingerworks in 2005. They have their implementation of multitouch.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks

      That doesn't say who owns the patents, but this shows how stupid America pushing IP is... it's just going to bite us back bigtime when India/China compete on the high end.

    6. Re:Wait... by Steauengeglase · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because 2,495,510,734 people can't be wrong.

    7. Re:Wait... by mea37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This kind of confusion is what comes of seeing a patent that covers a method of doing something that facilitates X, and calling it "the patent on doing X". It's not. There is no such thing as "the patent on multi-touch".

      There can be, and probably are, many patents related to multi-touch. It's quite possible, since there's more than one way to implement multi-touch, that you could own a patent related to mullti-touch and I could make multi-touch devices without licesning or infringing your patent.

    8. Re:Wait... by mea37 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "this shows how stupid America pushing IP is... it's just going to bite us back bigtime when India/China compete on the high end"

      So... the argument against an IP framework is that those dern ferners might benefit from it too when they're the ones doing the innovative work? That soudns a bit nationalistic to say the least...

    9. Re:Wait... by rolfwind · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So... the argument against an IP framework is that those dern ferners might benefit from it too when they're the ones doing the innovative work? That soudns a bit nationalistic to say the least...

      My argument is, with China graduating 1,000,000+ engineers every year, it will be hard to compete in our own existing framework of vague and broad patents because they can certainly write as many or more as we do. Since they also have the manufacturing base, to get anything made, we'll have to fight in their courts if it ever comes to that.

      The competition is welcome, expanding a crappy framework the world over is not. It's bad enough as it is now.

    10. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The details are in the lawyers and that's what the devil is for.

      Fix'd. (I don't even know what this means, but it sounds profound, and it feels right.)

    11. Re:Wait... by Splab · · Score: 1

      Nah no worries there, at that point Apple et. al. moves their R n D department to China, mega corps gets to keep their patents and the rest of us suffer as usual.

    12. Re:Wait... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of idiot on slashdot - those who don't know what a false dichotomy is, and those who don't care.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2,495,512,936 now.

    14. Re:Wait... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      Eh as much as I hate IP bullshit, what precisely would America export if not IP? Food and weapons aren't going to carry us forever.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    15. Re:Wait... by John+Whitley · · Score: 4, Informative

      The best guess is that Apple bought Fingerworks solely for it's patents and technology.

      There's actually almost zero guessing on this point, although it takes some digging to find all of the facts. Much of the details were posted on the Fingerfans forum back when the purchase happened. Other useful info may exist primarily in the Internet Archive at this point.

      Synopsis: Fingerworks as a company was a young venture founded based on Wayne Westerman's Ph.D. work relating to capacitive multi-touch interfaces. Fingerworks was one of the first companies to have useful (awesome, actually) multitouch based products on the open market. These included the GesturePad, a multi-touch pointing device not dissimilar to the recent Wacom Bamboo Touch; and the TouchStream multi-touch keyboard. The TouchStream was pretty cool: max typing speeds were slower than a conventional keyboard, but the whole surface was usable for multitouch pointer input and gestures.

      Apple apparently liked what they saw and bought the company up -- its patent portfolio as well as Westerman and their core R&D team. This was not even remotely public knowledge at the time. To outsiders' view, Fingerworks practically vanished. The release of the first iPhone was the coming-out party for this technology at Apple. Westerman and his team have continued to do multi-touch research at Apple, issuing a variety of patents under the auspices of their new company. I recall a few of those being mentioned on Slashdot in the past, specifically one about ongoing work to improve haptics (touch feedback) for multi-touch keyboards.

    16. Re:Wait... by lastchance_000 · · Score: 1

      Are you a patent attorney?

    17. Re:Wait... by straponego · · Score: 1

      Secretly? ...k, I won't tell nobody either, man.

    18. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawyers are the devil and that's what the details are for.

      Or am I wrong?

    19. Re:Wait... by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with nationalism.

      My family, my kind, my countrymen... as for you? Out of sight, out of mind. I make laws to handle disputes among me and my countrymen, not you. I make laws in my own interest, not yours. My laws apply to me, by me, for me, as follows so do the Rights I have on account of those laws; if you want something similar, write up your own laws. My currency better have recognizable faces, those faces must be iconic to some fundamental aspect of my being or allegiance; a founding father of my own country is very fundamental, neutral and allows for social dynamics. You have your own founding fathers; my money is for my country. My country, given the variables, has developed it's own cultures and beliefs, practices, patterns of behavior and propensities. Those propensities and the like, govern severity of consequences, if there shall be consequences for any given act we deem to be illegal. Punishment must be relative to general lifestyles; so don't make a fuss about public executions in Saudi Arabia while a Saudi would be appalled by your ridiculous crime rates. When in Rome, so when you get here, leave your opinions, beliefs and preconceptions at the border because you're nothing but a tourist, a guest holding a hall pass, a permission slip, a perishable visa. A vagabond of sorts, a long ways from home. It's best to be on your best behavior, till you return home, anything good for you depends on our willful hospitality.

      Nationalism is self identity. Nationalism is self dignity. Nationalism is self respect. Nationalism is self pride. Nationalism is brotherhood. Nationalism is family scaled to society.

      There's nothing wrong with Nationalism.

    20. Re:Wait... by rworne · · Score: 1

      And don't forget that China blissfully ignores IP laws when it suits them.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    21. Re:Wait... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt Apple suing HTC over, among other patents, multi-touch?

      You're wrong. The patents Apple is suing HTC over don't deal with multi-touch.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    22. Re:Wait... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I believe that Apple is suing HTC over gestures which use multi-touch.

      What's your source for this claim? None of the patents in the Apple-HTC litigation involve multi-touch, let alone multi-touch gestures.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    23. Re:Wait... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Very funny, it is patents all the way down.

      But the fact is, to the surprise of all, THERE IS MORE THAN ONE MULTITOUCH PATENT. Amazing I know, how can there be more than one patent on any particular subject, but there is. (this is directed not at you, but at the moron you replied to).

    24. Re:Wait... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      That doesn't say who owns the patents, but this shows how stupid America pushing IP is... it's just going to bite us back bigtime when India/China compete on the high end.

      You have it the wrong way around. Why do you think the US is pushing patent policy ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Because it is all they have, they don't have the manufacturing capacity anymore, the don't have the numbers, all they have is the lead FOR NOW. So they get all the patents on stuff at the beginning, they can keep the money rolling in when these countries start to produce R&D results.

      The same reason they are pushing all IP, copyrights as well, with huge extensions.

      I am surprised this obvious tactic seems to elude so many people.

    25. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd venture Apple holds the earliest patents, or at least connected to the earliest research. Although the taiwaneese companies may have picked up some simple "multitouch" to make touch pads, Apple picked up Fingerworks which had products for 5 years and research and patents years before that.... at least the mid-1990's and Apple is barely scraping the surface of what the Fingerworks patents cover.

      So many of the patents overlap... the "touchpad" makers were getting patents for adding "one more finger or gesture" and the whole time somebody like fingerworks has patents for full surface 5 finger detection (excluding palms and stray touches) with gestures since the late 1990's the main problem with Fingerworks is that their devices were simply too expensive to make at the time with limited resources. Even iPad doesn't do everything the old Fingerworks boards can do with multitouch.

    26. Re:Wait... by raynet · · Score: 1

      Actually it makes sense to me and I think that is/should be the idea behind patents. You cannot (shouldn't be able to) single idea like 'multi-touch', instead you should be able to patent 'multi-touch that uses capasitive screen technology' and another company can patent 'multi-touch with resistive screeen' and another with 'infrared' and so on. That is how it should be, but with software patents and their like, companies seem to be able to patent 'a method of using device with more then one finger' and that is wrong in my mind.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    27. Re:Wait... by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      You mean like US did in the 19th century?

  5. Troll Worthy? by ircmaxell · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This depends on if they can prove that negotiations have failed. If there were little to no negotiations, then this appears to be nothing more than a Troll looking to strike while the iron's hot (or to hurt when the competitor is weakest). But for all we know, they could have been in negotiations for months/years, which would give them some credibility... But seriously, the iPhone's been out for what, 3 years?

    /me is starting to get sick of all the trolls...

    --
    If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    1. Re:Troll Worthy? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      These guys have a lawsuit pending against Apple, this is an injunction request to prevent further infringement pending to outcome of the lawsuit.

      On the surface at least, it sounds legit, as Apple has been fighting a number of patent lawsuits regarding their iPhone since its release.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:Troll Worthy? by rivertripper · · Score: 1

      Elan sued Synaptic in 2006, before the iPhone was launched. In 2008 they won and Synaptic licensed Elan's multi-touch technology. I suppose they wanted to win their patent suit before going after Apple.

    3. Re:Troll Worthy? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Elan make products of their own and therefore can't be described as patent trolls. Patents are also rarely used immediately after a product is released.

  6. Apple being sued for stealing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    What else is new?

    1. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by sopssa · · Score: -1, Troll

      What else is new?

      This is actually correct. Apple has been infringing patents from pretty much everyone and Nokia is also trying to protect their patents. Apple on the other hand just keeps infringing those patents, but at the same time itself sues everyone under the sun for infringing their patents.

    2. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by msauve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple on the other hand just keeps infringing those patents, but at the same time itself sues everyone under the sun for infringing their patents.

      What's unique about Apple? I thought this was just how the whole (broken) system worked, and everyone did the same.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by Altus · · Score: 1, Redundant

      [citation needed]

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by sopssa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/29/2143218/Nokia-Claims-Patent-Violations-in-Most-Apple-Products
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/22/1541220/Nokia-Sues-Apple-For-Patent-Infringement-In-iPhone
      http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/01/28/2055209/Fujitsu-Readies-Lawsuit-Over-iPad-Name
      http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/1854220/Nokia-Claims-Apple-Does-Legal-Alchemy-To-Mask-IP-Theft
      http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/01/17/069258/Apple-Seeks-To-Ban-Nokia-Imports-To-US
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/14/1941208/Kodak-Sues-Apple-amp-RIM-Over-Preview-In-Cameras
      http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/12/11/2048248/Apple-Counter-Sues-Nokia-Over-Patents

      Or just do slashdot search for apple patent or nokia patent..

    5. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Troll

      A citation shouldn't be needed for things that have appeared on slashdot a dozen times, is in fact common knowledge, and is also so easily findable that even your grandmother could google it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm taking all of these Company A is suing Company B which is suing Company C messes as a clear sign that the patent system (and in extension the entire Intellectual Property system) is slowly imploding. These days you couldn't invent the wheel without someone suing you since they own patents on "crafting an item out of a material", "objects made of matter" or any other silliness (I'm sure some pro-patent shill is going to start whining about how patents are needed to protect the little guy and whatever but in all honesty, the little guy can't afford patents, and if he is able to afford a patent or two the corporate giants will simply say "that's nice, here are 50 of our patents you're infringing on, now what do you think of our offer to purchase your patents/company for $low_sum?").

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    7. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I am OP.

      Of course it is correct. However anything here on AppleDot.com that is even perceived as anti-Apple is immediately modded. Even your post got modded. Same as it ever was.

    8. Re:Apple being sued for stealing? by schmidt349 · · Score: 1

      The Nokia-Apple cross-complaint is a monster of a suit and if it goes all the way will take years to litigate. Nokia and Apple are each accusing the other of infringing their patents. My assumption is that they do both use each other's technology to some extent and the lawsuit happened because neither company was satisfied with the result of their patent negotiations.

      The Kodak thing is a complete crock. Kodak didn't embrace digital until everyone else was doing it better than they were, so now they behave like a patent troll to stave off bankruptcy (they were pulled off DJIA in 2004 and they posted a $150 million loss last year). They've also sued RIM for the same ridiculous patent.

      The Fujitsu iPad thing was the second time Apple has stepped on someone's toes for using an "i" name; others here will remember that Linksys/Cisco got into a spat with Apple over the iPhone name. Both situations were resolved when Apple essentially bought the trademarks outright. Also, trademarks aren't the same thing as patents.

      What I want to know is this: why isn't there a compulsory license system for patents? No one should be able to hoard technological innovation. You don't necessarily need to publish all the steps to make your secret sauce so everyone else can do it, but if someone independently works out how to do whatever you're doing there ought to be (A) a standard formula for royalties and (B) absolute freedom to use anybody's patent so long as you pay them what you're supposed to.

  7. Patent Trolls by Yvan256 · · Score: -1, Troll

    I'm not saying Elan Microelectronics doesn't have a patent, however didn't they kinda give up their rights when they stayed silent when the iPhone launched three years ago?

    1. Re:Patent Trolls by sir_eccles · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thus proving that you didn't RTFA

    2. Re:Patent Trolls by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Informative

      you don't lose patents just by being slow to enforce them(I think they're already suing in any case).

      It's trademarks you lose if you fail to enforce them.

      copyright patents and trademarks are 3 completely different things even if people like to lump them together under "IP"

    3. Re:Patent Trolls by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      You don't actually lose your patent rights when not going after an infringement or a patent initially. The actual consequences depend on the jurisdiction. In most of Europe, for example, you would severely compromise your position in subsequent litigation, though. Especially if the opposite site can raise doubts whether you acted in good faith, e.g. you didn't know about the infringement, or out of malice, to make more cash by trollish litigation.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    4. Re:Patent Trolls by Yvan256 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is Slashdot, where it's standard to not RTFA.

    5. Re:Patent Trolls by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      didn't they kinda give up their rights when they stayed silent when the iPhone launched three years ago?

      You mean when they began patent negotiations, and finally sued for patent infringement a year ago? You can't sue for patent infringement until someone actually infringes on your patent. Two years is not a long time when it comes to doing research and preparing for a patent infringement lawsuit, and it was Apple who requested the trial be delayed so they could prepare. You might have a point if they had waited five or ten years, but at this point any patent infringement lawsuit against the iPhone is still within a reasonable time-frame. It is Apple who is delaying and stalling and generally being a douchebag toward the rest of the cell phone industry here.

      This is Elan Microelectronics basically saying Apple should not be permitted to release a new potentially infringing product while they have litigation in progress that directly concerns the type product they are releasing.

      I think their position is completely reasonable, but I'll admit I might think differently if I were an Apple fan.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    6. Re:Patent Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

      You must be new here....

    7. Re:Patent Trolls by Yvan256 · · Score: -1, Troll

      Well, I am generally an Apple fan, however if what you say is right then Slashdot is also to blame because this "news" is a year late?

    8. Re:Patent Trolls by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      True you don't lose your rights. The legal term you are looking for is laches.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Patent Trolls by Zordak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Short answer: No. The statute of limitations on patent infringement is six years. And in the case of ongoing infringement, even if you miss the six year mark from when infringement started, you can still get damages back to six years from when you filed your law suit.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    10. Re:Patent Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly, you don't lose the patents, but you may get significantly reduced damages if you wait until the defendant has been infringing on the patent for a long time before suing them.

    11. Re:Patent Trolls by exomondo · · Score: 1

      this isn't about elan micro's lawsuit, it's about them filing a complaint with the ITC, which only just happened.

    12. Re:Patent Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the legal team running this lawsuit at Elan against Apple. Let's just say that: 1) they did legitimately invent technology before Apple/Fingerworks, 2) there was IP theft with employees and such, and 3) it's really hard to sue Apple.

  8. ipod? by Aeros · · Score: 1

    or on the ipod complaint..didnt the ipod come out around 7 years ago?

    1. Re:ipod? by AequitasVeritas · · Score: 1

      The article mentions specifically the iPod Touch.

    2. Re:ipod? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Multi-touch ipods didn't, dumbass.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    3. Re:ipod? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you actually attempting to complete a thought here or just babbling?

  9. And Macs? by Akido37 · · Score: 0

    Where are these multi-touch Macs, and where can I buy one?

    1. Re:And Macs? by javakah · · Score: 2, Informative

      The trackpads on the Macbooks are multi-touch.

    2. Re:And Macs? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      as is that new mouse thing they released.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    3. Re:And Macs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, the apple store. I believe all MacBooks now have multi-touch trackpads.

    4. Re:And Macs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Way to look like an idiot man!

    5. Re:And Macs? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Multitouch mouse? How the hell does that work - can it be in two places at once?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:And Macs? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      You can read about it here. Best mouse I've used so far. No moving parts that can pick up dust. That ended up being the problem with my MightyMouse and various other mice with scroll wheels etc in the past.

      --
      Follow me
  10. If their customs works like ours by sjames · · Score: 1

    Considering many iPad pre-orders have tracking #s already, I suspect it might be a little late.

    If their customs process works like the one in the U.S., they'll just throw all the iPads in a locked room, tell the would be recipients that they are just out the money and that they owe them for the costs of storage, destruction, and disposal and that furthermore, they may feel free to FOAD.

    1. Re:If their customs works like ours by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Does Apple ship products to customers straight from China, or wherever they're made?

      Lenovo does - buy a thinkpad and it arrives in a box with a taiwanese or chinese return address, I forget which. But then, Lenovo has headquarters there.

    2. Re:If their customs works like ours by joebok · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mine started out in SHENZHEN, CN and is now in LOUISVILLE, KY. Hopefully past customs and unstoppable!

    3. Re:If their customs works like ours by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      Yes, and they have for years. Surprised the heck out of me when my first ibook's origin was China.

    4. Re:If their customs works like ours by tibman · · Score: 1

      Must be shipping via UPS then? Louisville KY is the UPS worldwide air hub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldport_(UPS_air_hub)

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    5. Re:If their customs works like ours by joebok · · Score: 1

      Yep, UPS. Now status is:

      "Brokerage released shipment. Shipment is submitted to clearing agency for further clearance"

      I don't know if that is good or bad!

  11. HTC buying this company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one who is seeing HTC buying this company?

  12. Pre-orders by Ziekheid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Considering many iPad pre-orders have tracking #s already.. many iPad pre-orders.. who in their right mind would order, let alone pre-order a- hm nevermind.

  13. How do they get these patents? by Mark19960 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes I know that prior art is not a slam dunk defense but with all of the prior art regarding 'multi-touch' I can't understand how these companies
    managed to get it patented.
    It seems that everyone has patented the idea except for the people that had it first!
    And it appears that it was not Apple, Google, HTC, or even these guys....

    I should patent something random and start to sue people myself, obviously someone is making money doing it.

    1. Re:How do they get these patents? by guttergod · · Score: 1

      I should patent something random and start to sue people myself, obviously someone is making money doing it.

      You got it all wrong, you should go to law school.

      --

      Apple built a platform for their ideas, Google built one for everyone's.

    2. Re:How do they get these patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they didn't patent multitouch. Their patents cover different technologies implementing multitouch. For example Apple with their capacity sensors patent witch they brought from FingerWorks.

  14. Ugh by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why I don't want to take out patents for my invention. They don't seem to actually protect you from litigation, and they hinder the development and deployment of new technologies. Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad? Why should there be a million lawyers involved in developing new technology (about the only people worse for technology than politicians are lawyers). Patents are a terrible idea. All the most successful technology companies simply ignore them (in a practical sense) and leave the issue for their lawyers to deal with.

    1. Re:Ugh by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      "They don't seem to actually protect you from litigation,"

      You need patent to be able to sue, not the other way.

    2. Re:Ugh by profplump · · Score: 1

      Patents are worth exactly nothing unless you can pay to defend them, and unless you're the size of Apple you can't.

      So getting patents is not really about protecting your use of the technology, it's about giving you something to fight back with if another big name ever tries to sue you for use of their technology. When you're fighting the little guy you just plan to outspend them (or if necessary, to buy them).

    3. Re:Ugh by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I have been told that I will need to take out patents in order to shield investors and customers from potential future litigation. In fact, my business partner and co-inventor has insisted on it, even while agreeing to issue a blanket license allowing anyone to use the patented technology for any reason without written consent.

    4. Re:Ugh by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad?

      Apple's patents aren't stopping you from buying an iPad now.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    5. Re:Ugh by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      But the justification given for patents in the U.S. Constitution is basically that they "promote innovation". Large companies don't even need patent protection since they have the funding to develop new technologies. And yet, due to the expense of patent litigation, large companies are the only parties that generally benefit from patents. This situation is unacceptable, to say the least.

    6. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also says copyright is for the promotion of "useful arts and sciences". What has, say, Lindsey Lohan (for example) ever done that was either useful or scientific?

    7. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boobs?

    8. Re:Ugh by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad?

      Because that worthless dipshit company may have spent years and millions of dollars developing that technology, and the US was held, as a principle for a very long time, that such investments should be rewarded by a temporary monopoly so that one can benefit from those efforts?

    9. Re:Ugh by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      That's called a defensive patent, and is exemplified by the patent portfolios of IBM and Microsoft, just to pick two. The idea is that if it turns out you've infringed on someone else's patent, you can threaten them with yours, and the result is usually a cross-licensing deal.

      But none of that invalidates the fact that, if a company (like, say, Fingerworks) pours millions developing a key technology like multitouch, it seems reasonable that another company like, say, Apple, shouldn't be allowed to simply steal that technology without having to pay for it (in this case, they bought the company).

    10. Re:Ugh by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad?

      I don't know anything about the patent in question, how obvious it is, whether it's software, etc. However, the general answer seems to be: because that "worthless dipshit company" invested time and resources into researching and developing the concept that they had patented, and because Apple used that concept in their device without paying the inventors their fair share.

      - yours, Captain Obvious

    11. Re:Ugh by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good, but it seems that Apple has spent quite a lot of time and money on the technology as well. Not to mention they've done more than anyone to popularize it. It doesn't make sense to say that Apple shouldn't have a right to sell it, patents or not. You know something's wrong when the "solution" is actually perpetuating the problem it was intended to solve.

    12. Re:Ugh by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense to say that Apple shouldn't have a right to sell it, patents or not.

      So far as I can see, the company holding the patent would very much like Apple to sell it - provided that they pay the fair share for the patent. They prevent Apple from selling it now because Apple wants to sell it without paying for their use of patented tech - it's a way to force Apple into paying, not an end in and of itself.

    13. Re:Ugh by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So what if they have the funding to develop new technologies. They shouldn't be able to profit from their work just because they're a "large company"? (It's not impossible that a competitor could make a different product that infringes.. in your scenario, the big company just gets screwed.)

    14. Re:Ugh by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. But a company that is already in a position to leverage it's invention will be able to make plenty of money off of it before a competitor is able to get something out the door. Also, being the first to market gets your name associated with the technology, automatically giving you an advantage over your competitors. You don't need a monopoly to benefit from being the first to market. That's what I mean when I say they don't need patents.

  15. Elantech has actual products. by krzy123 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Elantech makes the multi-touch trackpads in the eeePC.

  16. History of Multi-Touch by rivertripper · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have been following this story since April of 2009. This link http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html is the best explanation of how multi-touch technology was created.

  17. This is exactly why we have a legal system by Infonaut · · Score: 0

    A citation shouldn't be needed for things that have appeared on slashdot a dozen times, is in fact common knowledge...

    Um... because if an article wherein Nokia claims Apple is infringing is proof of fault, and "common knowledge" that Apple is violating patents is equivalent to a court ruling?

    Let's crowdsource the HTC v. Apple tangle, too. What does everyone think? Based on what we've seen from short press pieces and a flurry of Slashdot comments and the mood of the crowd, how should we decide their arguments?

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:This is exactly why we have a legal system by sopssa · · Score: 1

      Let's crowdsource the HTC v. Apple tangle, too. What does everyone think? Based on what we've seen from short press pieces and a flurry of Slashdot comments and the mood of the crowd, how should we decide their arguments?

      That Apple is bullying HTC.

      It would actually be a lot better if slashdot crowd could rule patent fights outcome.

  18. This just in :o by viamptor · · Score: 1

    Elan Micro Electronics just issued a press release We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Mr I. H. Yeh, ELAN MICRO ELECTRONICS CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

    1. Re:This just in :o by Robin47 · · Score: 1

      Elan Micro Electronics just issued a press release We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Mr I. H. Yeh, ELAN MICRO ELECTRONICS CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

      Think you hold of a couple more days? My iPad should be here by then.

  19. I am going to sue everyone! by Montezumaa · · Score: 0

    I am going to patent the patent system in the US, then sue everyone who has obtained a patent. Sadly, I am sure the U.S. Patent Office would issue me a patent, then continue to violate my patent. Of course, I am sure the courts will hear all of my cases, then issue injunctions against everyone. Shortly after that, someone would divide by zero and reset the entire world. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  20. I don't think they'll win, on iPhone/iPad. by DdJ · · Score: 1

    1) Bit misleading IMO to talk about this in terms of a "multi-touch tech" company using "their" patents. The patent in question was granted in 1998... to Logitech (it was applied-for in 1996). The patent has changed hands since then. This company didn't acquire the patents in question until something like 2008.

    2) Having read the patent, I don't think the iPhone and iPad infringe. Go read the actual text. Looks to me like it actually relates to touchpads attached to computers, used in an environment that was built around the mouse, and how to use multitouch gestures to improve trackpad functionality. So, yeah, if the patent is legit and all, I absolutely think the MacBook that lets you scroll with two fingers (emulating a mouse wheel) would infringe. But I don't think the iPhone or iPad (which were not designed around mice and don't really have a concept of a cursor as such) necessarily infringe.

    Of course, IANAL, so nobody should trust me. Go read it yourself! Especially if you're a lawyer.

    1. Re:I don't think they'll win, on iPhone/iPad. by rivertripper · · Score: 1

      The Fingerwork touchpad was a input devise attached to a computer. When Apple purchased Fingerworks the got their mult-touch patent which was used to create the multi-touch for the iPhone and iPad. So why is Elan's patent they purchased from Logitech not applicable against Apple?

    2. Re:I don't think they'll win, on iPhone/iPad. by DdJ · · Score: 1

      Oh, I think it's applicable against Apple, specifically relating to multitouch gestures on the MacBook trackpad.

      But I don't think it's applicable with regard to the iPhone because we're not talking about an input device operating in a mouse-like environment, with cursors and conventions about right-clicking and stuff like that. We're not talking about adapting multitouch, we're talking about an interface designed from the ground up with multitouch. And that's why I think this specific patent may not apply in this specific case.

      But don't trust me. Read it yourself.

    3. Re:I don't think they'll win, on iPhone/iPad. by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 1

      hang on.... multi-touch is a concept - and you can't patent a concept. What you can do, however, is patent the method you use to implement that concept.

      If Apple is using the same technology to underpin its multi-touch functionality in both the MacBook and the iPhone, and that technology is shown to be infringing upon a patent held by ELAN, then it won't matter what device the technology ended up in.

      What IT does is nowhere near as important as how it does it. "What it does" isn't patentable. "How it does it" most certainly is.

    4. Re:I don't think they'll win, on iPhone/iPad. by DdJ · · Score: 1

      But they didn't patent the concept of multitouch technology. They even point out that that's covered by a different patent. They covered the concept of using multitouch to do certain things and for certain purposes.

      Basic multitouch tech, including capacitive, is decades old. Here, look at this:

      http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

      He points out that capacitive touchpad tech predates personal computers, having been used in music synth before the advent of personal computing. And he discusses a working multitouch display in 1984. And there was a capacitive multitouch pad for computers in 1985.

      The basic multitouch tech isn't really an issue, there is too much prior art that is too old and well-documented. Seems like this is all about using multitouch in certain specific ways. It seems to me that this is more like the Amazon one-click patent -- it's not about patenting "clicking a button once", but "clicking a button once as a part of this elaborate process we're discussing".

  21. And where's Logitech? by earlymon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to TFA, the patent in question is US Patent No. 5,825,352. According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, Steven Bisset and Bernard Kasser are the sole inventors (filed 1996) of the multi-touch tech - and Logitech was the assignee as of 1998.

    According to this link, Elan was launched to do semiconductor R&D in 1994, per http://www.computex.biz/elan/

    SO - unless Elan bought this Logitech something's terribly wrong with the article. Can anyone help me with this?

    Elan is winning local awards, see - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-200983370.html

    but the idea that they themselves invented the tech on the patent in question is not accurate. Here's their list of their achievements - http://www.emc.com.tw/eng/about_elan1_3.asp

    I'm a little confused here. Nothing wrong with selling technology and if Logitech did that, fine - but this sure seems like there's a lot more to this than "Apple rips off Taiwanese firm" - in my opinion.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    1. Re:And where's Logitech? by initdeep · · Score: 1

      you don't have to be the original patent holder to currently hold the patent.

    2. Re:And where's Logitech? by earlymon · · Score: 1

      As I noted.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    3. Re:And where's Logitech? by krzy123 · · Score: 1

      Elan bought the original patent from Logitech.

    4. Re:And where's Logitech? by earlymon · · Score: 1

      k, thanks - I was having trouble finding that...

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  22. Know writing capability by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    I don't really follow Apple closely so I was surprised to find out that the ipad doesn't have screen writing capability? I'd assumed it did since tablet PCs have that capability.

  23. Patent Trolls should maintain their patents by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently the patent in question, 5,825,352, has expired due to failure to pay maintenance fees as of Oct 20, 2006.

    So if the patent is expired, what basis are they suing on?

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    1. Re:Patent Trolls should maintain their patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It didn't expire. Read the erratum here:
      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2007/week03/paterr3.htm

      In the notice of "PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 20, 2006 DUE TO
      FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" appearing in the Official Gazette of
      December 19, 2006, all reference to Patent No. 5,825,352 which issued from
      Application No. 08/608,116 should be deleted since the relevant maintenance
      fee was timely paid in that patent.

    2. Re:Patent Trolls should maintain their patents by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Three months later? Exactly when was it paid?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  24. Ok, you are wrong - no multitouch patents in suit by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt Apple suing HTC over, among other patents, multi-touch?

    Actually, none of the patents involved in that suit relate to multi-touch. They are other older, generally more obscure things... possibly even a few "real" patents as opposed to just software patents.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. gestures by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Apple's gestures patents that are the issue in the HTC case are incredibly stupid, rivaling Amazon's one-click shopping. I'd say the patents covered here are also amazingly stupid, but they're more reasonable than Apple's patents simply by virtue of being lower level.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  26. Hope apple has to pay (more) licenses. by Exter-C · · Score: 1

    I hope that apple will lose this battle if only to force them to pay license fee's for tech. They so often expect to walk over people due to their size and the little guys tend to loose thanks to a heavily bias legal system which requires large sums of money to fight your corner.

  27. circle-jerk this! Re:Wait... by gregconquest · · Score: 1

    oldspewey spewed:
    "I am secretly hopeful that this will eventually turn into a great big litigation circle-jerk."

    Turn into? Isn't that what we've had for the last ten years? Big tech companies saying, "I'll let you jerk my patent if I can jerk yours . . ." And "Hey, small fry! His portfolio is unzipped. Let's all jerk his patent. He won't fight back."

    And then there are the trolls walking around fully exposed. "I got this biiggg patent from a friend, and you seem to be jerking it. Pay up! And pay up big!"

    This big auto-erotic drama has taken the place of a working patent system. Patents are supposed to increase innovation. But under the current orgy, patents are government subsidized tools of aggression that can be hurled at a less-than-witting enemy.