New Apple Multi-Touch Patent Is Too Broad

adeelarshad82 writes "Nearly three and a half years later, Apple has finally been awarded the U.S. patent number 7,966,578, which according to the patent experts should worry rivals. According to exclusive interviews with patent experts, the incredibly broad patent puts Apple in a strong position when it comes to displaying content and using certain finger gestures on smart phones. The patent is so broad that not only will Apple's legal team target iPhone competitors but will also look to go after iPad and iPod rivals. Experts also discussed the scenario of Apple licensing its patented technology or for that matter, the courts completely scrapping the patent in public's interest."

Comments

Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[sandytaru]

Next thing you know, Microsoft will try to patent "waving" as it is used on the Kinect, and anyone who builds a motion detection gadget or system will have to have a license for "waving" issued from them.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Caratted]

Oh yes, much better to have lawsuits between corps, wasting money on patent lawyers that don't do anything, trying to drive a monopoly on a tech that's been used since the 90's, than to waste money on development and innovation that would increase competition and benefit the consumer...

I'm looking at Jobs...

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[doodlebumm]

I can think of a gesture that I'd like to wave at Apple and Microsoft.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[sosume]

Because the iPhone was totally new and original ... and Apple is an 'inventor' .. whatever.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[tooyoung]

I am no fan of software patents, but given the reality that we are living in, I think you are over simplifying quite a bit. A Microsoft patent for detecting and responding to waving wouldn't simply state "if the user waves, do XXX". Rather, the patent would cover a method for detecting that the user had waved, and then initiating the proper system response.

If detecting a wave is so obvious, could someone please reply with the process that would be used to detect a wave? Please include how you detect the body parts.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[stewbacca]

Waving is already patented by those obnoxious paper towel dispensers in airports.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[dougisfunny]

I am no fan of software patents, but given the reality that we are living in, I think you are over simplifying quite a bit. A Microsoft patent for detecting and responding to the letter w wouldn't simply state "if the user writes w, do XXX". Rather, the patent would cover an OCR method for detecting that the user had written w, and then initiating the proper system response.

If detecting a the letter w is so obvious, could someone please reply with the process that would be used to detect the letter w? Please include how you recognize characters.

Patenting the detection of a specific gesture is like an OCR (text recognition) patent specifically for detecting the letter w, rather than patenting the actual detection system. Not saying that a patent specific for detecting the letter w wouldn't be granted, but still.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Yvan256]

Here's a quick idea, feel free to refine it if needed.

The system only needs two hardware components and one software program:
1. kid
2. USB keyboard
3. translator

Explanation of the system:
The kid, sitting in front of the USB keyboard, looks at the user. When the user moves, the kid types on the USB keyboard to describe what the user is doing. The translation software translates text such as "teh dude iz weaving is and at the xbox" to a proper computer-recognizable command such as "user is waving hand at xbox".

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Grishnakh]

In what was wasn't iPhone new and original? The way I remember it, before iPhone came out, all there was were crappy Windows/WinCE phones, and Crackberries. Neither had easy-to-use touchscreens. In fact, they frequently used styluses and tried to look just like Windows desktop UIs. WTF? A phone that makes you use a pen to use it? On top of that, the competitors didn't have app stores either, so you were stuck with whatever shitty apps that MS or RIM decided to include.

Sure, these days the iPhone is nothing special thanks to Google and Android, but back when it first came out, it was quite revolutionary.

Unless you have a better point to make, and some evidence for your allegations, you're nothing more than a worthless troll.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Grishnakh]

There were Pocket PCs sold around 2001 running Windows CE that had a phone. These were slow but still usable,

IIRC, they had styluses. That makes them not usable. A phone that you need a pen to use? Are you shitting me? Or how about those shitty Crackberries that you had to use a miniature trackball to move a cursor around the screen? MS and RIM: two vendors that just couldn't conceive of a UI that wasn't related to a standard Windows PC.

There was a development community but apps were not supplied by the vendor.

Ok, where was the app store? I don't remember anyone putting much effort into developing apps for mobile phones until the iPhone came on the market. Now Zynga's a multibillion dollar company, and there's tons more companies making a killing on mobile apps.

There were quite similar phones on the market from Samsung, LG and others at the time the iPhone launched.

Were they as easy to use as the iPhone? Did they have touchscreens (and no, a screen that needs a stylus doesn't count)? Did they have app stores? It's not just the touchscreen UI where the iPhone revolutionized phones; it was the app store, allowing nearly any software maker to sell apps to customers, directly on the phone, without having to hook up a USB cable or do a bunch of bullshit. Suddenly, there were all kinds of revolutionary apps for phones, from games to grocery-buying aids to Trapster for helping you avoid speed traps. No, Apple's app store isn't perfect; lots of apps are crap and Apple has too much of an iron fist, but nowadays we have Android as an alternative, but before the iPhone, there was nothing.

These screens would have appeared on the market anyway if the iPhone were never invented.

What was taking so long? You can make that claim, but there's no way to prove it. If it was "just around the corner", why didn't one of the established players make a phone with an easy-to-use touchscreen? Why did it take a total newcomer to do it? It's not like there weren't tons of companies in the mobile space already: MS, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, etc. It's not like touchscreen technology is all that new, and surely the idea of using your finger to interact with your phone instead of a stupid pen or trackball isn't all that brilliant, but apparently it escaped all these other companies.

I don't remember all that much marketing with the iPhone introduction. All they had to do was put them in their retail stores and let people try them out, and suddenly everyone was willing to pay $600 for a freakin' phone, even though they could have easily gotten some shitty WinCE phone for a lot less. It's not always marketing that sells products, sometimes the products sell themselves, especially in a market totally devoid of decent alternatives. Of course, the market is much better now, and we can thank Google for that (another company that was a complete newcomer to the mobile phone market--how about that? Really says something about the established players doesn't it?), but back when the iPhone came out, there was no Android and everything else was total crap.

Now all we need is a third company, again totally new to the mobile phone market (since the non-Apple/Google established players have all proven themselves to be totally incompetent), to come up with an alternative to iPhone and Android, so we can have a "big 3" situation with three primary competitors, as competition in mature markets seems to work best when there's 3 main players. And no, Windows Phone 7 isn't it, it sucks just like everything else MS has ever made. MS has been working on smartphones for over a decade now; what kind of idiot would bother with a company that takes this long just to come up with something that's a poor imitation of the two dominant products on the market?

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[GameboyRMH]

Oh fucking please, the "innovations" in the iPhone were mostly cosmetic. You could install apps on WinMo and PalmOS for years before iOS, and without any idiotic restrictions. You could use PalmOS phones without a stylus, I did for over a year. When it comes to accuracy, the option to use a stylus is a strength. The iPhone not shipping with that option was a weakness. My PalmOS PDA had a Paint-like app for editing photos, good luck using that on an iPhone.

And those early phones had Copy & Paste, wireless sync, and HTTP download, all before the iPhone.

No other phone manufacturer would have made an app store because it was a stupid idea. Before the iPhone locked in tens of millions of users, the idea of intentionally restricting the users' and developers' choice seemed suicidal, and it would have been to any company without such a huge base of fanboys.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Grishnakh]

You iPhone revisionists are morons.

Using a stylus, on a PHONE, is stupid. If I want to just dial a number and talk to someone (you know, the normal reason that most people have a phone?), why the fuck would I want to get out a pen and do it? It's just stupid. You don't agree? Fine, how successful were stylus phones in the marketplace? Oh yeah: they utterly failed!

My PalmOS PDA had a Paint-like app for editing photos, good luck using that on an iPhone.

Editing photos on a phone? Why the fuck would anyone want to do that? You don't have enough screen real estate to see anything!

And what happened to Palm? Oh yeah, they failed too.

And those early phones had Copy & Paste, wireless sync, and HTTP download, all before the iPhone.

So what? Why would normal people care that much about doing these things? Copy/paste is somewhat useful, but it's not enough to use some shitty stylus phone over.

The fundamental problem I see here is that these other companies all tried to make small computers that could also act like a phone. The iPhone was a phone that could also do some stuff a computer can do. It doesn't take a genius to see why the iPhone won out here. Consumers didn't want a handheld computer that they could get to work like a phone if they tried hard enough. They wanted something that was easy to use as a phone, and which they could also do some limited computing stuff on (like web surfing).

No other phone manufacturer would have made an app store because it was a stupid idea.

So stupid that it sold like hotcakes even at ridiculous prices, and made Apple a fortune, making it more valuable now than MS. Here's a clue: consumers don't think about 'lock in", they don't even know what it means. They want something that's easy to use, and lets them do things they couldn't do before. They don't think about the lock-in aspect until later, if it bites them in the ass. If it never bites them in the ass, they don't worry about it, and the iPhone store hasn't really bitten anyone in the ass except for a few small app makers, and the lack of VoIP (which is really the carriers' fault, not Apple's).

and it would have been to any company without such a huge base of fanboys.

Typical idiocy from the iPhone haters. The people who all ran out to buy iPhones weren't apple fanboys, they were regular people who saw something they really liked and bought it. In case you don't recall, Apple didn't have much marketshare with their Mac PCs, and they still don't. Anyone who's an Apple fanboy would have a Mac, not a Windows PC.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[GameboyRMH]

You realize those old stylus phones will register a touch with any object, not just a stylus, right? It's not like the opposite of the iPhone that will only work with a finger. I say this because you've clearly never used one. The PalmOS PDAs had touchscreen phone dialing buttons bigger than the physical buttons on regular phones of the time. I used a PalmOS phone with my thumb for OVER A YEAR. No problems. These old things also had hardware buttons including a full thumb keyboard and a D-pad that worked like Tab/arrow keys, so you could even use them without the touchscreen at all.

Apart from your stylus-hate you seem to want an anachronistic device, an old smartphone using the latest technology that can communicate using the latest media. I want a pocket computer that can make phone calls, the natural evolution PDA-phones were headed for before the iPhone came out and made that concept unfashionable by showing the profitability of the high-tech low-capability phone.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Grishnakh]

Apart from your stylus-hate you seem to want an anachronistic device, an old smartphone using the latest technology that can communicate using the latest media. I want a pocket computer that can make phone calls, the natural evolution PDA-phones were headed for before the iPhone came out and made that concept unfashionable by showing the profitability of the high-tech low-capability phone.

Obviously, you're completely out-of-sync with what the vast majority of the public wants. Companies that cater to small niches usually don't do well, unless they're happy remaining small; nothing wrong with that, but that's not what Palm et al did, they were a big company, and went after the big market with devices that catered to techheads, and predictably failed. Apple made a device that catered to the mass market, and succeeded brilliantly. This isn't a case of fooling people with marketing, as the iPhone-haters keep saying, it's a case of making a device that's exactly what most people want.

Personally, I don't give two shits about having a "pocket computer that can make phone calls". If I want to do computer stuff, I have a powerful computer with dual 24" screens in my (home) office that I can do anything I want on, without being constrained by a tiny little handheld screen. Sometimes it's nice to be able to look at a website when I'm out and about, and it's fun to play a simple game once in a while, but I really don't care about being able to run ssh or whatever on a phone, because I can do that easily from my main computer with a real Model M keyboard, not some crappy little thumb keyboard. I also don't care about text messaging since I'm over 30.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[HermMunster]

The fault in your logic is in believing that Apple invented the screen and that the natural progression to gesture based interface control would have not gone the same route.

Apple did not invent the touch screen nor do they manufacture them. Those are licensed technology and the screens are bought from various companies all that do similar touch technology.

As far as the gesture based system goes even an average person of average intelligence would tell you that moving your finger down should cause the contents of the screen to scroll down. Not only is that obvious to those skilled in the field, but the average person would consider it obvious.

The patent system is screwed up and it tends to grant for the sake of granting rather than granting because the implemented ideas are novel and non-obvious.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[HermMunster]

Your logic is fallable. The reason they used a stylus was to make them more precise due to the size of the screens (small due to manufacturing limitations of the day). When the screens became bigger and the resolution themselves more precise, the need for a stylus wasn't necessary. And again, Apple did not invent the screen nor the precision of use. They were only responsible for connecting the dots of pre-existing technology. Many people have shown how to use a vienna sausage to operate the touch screen of the iphone and other iOS devices.

Another OBVIOUS reason we would go away from a stylus was demonstrated by Palm Computing's use of a stylus. After a period of use you would begin to scratch the screen and other touch areas. So, to ensure that you did not scratch you would choose something softer and the only really usable soft touch device that didn't wear out and you didn't need to carry extra's with you were your fingers. Bottom line, the choices were obvious not unique or even an invention. And, again, Apple didn't invent the screens they just buy them from 3rd parties.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[ScrewMaster]

I can think of a gesture that I'd like to wave at Apple and Microsoft.

Yah. I got your gesture right here.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Grishnakh]

I completely agree; Apple is mainly an integrator, and certainly not a manufacturer. But there really weren't any similar UIs around before the iPhone, so I'm giving credit where credit is due.

However, you're absolutely right about the patents. If I had my way, I'd just eliminate patents altogether (software and otherwise). I think they're outgrown their usefulness and just hinder technological progress, and I can't think of any cases in my lifetime where patents have helped the little guy against larger incumbents, rather than the other way around. Maybe they were a good idea in the late 1700s, but not now.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Grishnakh]

Exactly, on both points.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[jon_doh2.0]

I could be wrong, but wasnt (one of) the reason(s) they used stylus due to the need for a focussed pressure from the input device, in order to make contact between the two layers of the screen, generating coordinates of the input? This was a technical limitation, necessitated by the functional capabilities of resistive touch screens.

An interesting, related, aside: apparently stylus driven input is pegged to make a comeback, particularly driven by the need to input Asian characters in much of the expensive phone buying world. Which might itself (and this is me thinking out loud) boost research interest in hand writing recognition more generally, feeding back into the "western" market. Hey if worked well, it would be better than those little untactile on screen keyboards, right?

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[bingoUV]

Now Zynga's a multibillion dollar company, and there's tons more companies making a killing on mobile apps.

While you are correct that Apple did a lot of things right with iPhone, but ...

Zynga owes its billions to Facebook rather than Apple; by a huge extent. There is no iPhone app company worth billions.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, I didn't think about that and I'm sure you're right.

However, I'll bet there's a lot of much smaller companies that owe their success to the iPhone and Android app store model, and simply wouldn't exist if iPhone and Android had never appeared. The market for paid PC applications is pretty terrible, with only giant companies able to make money there now, but lots of people are happily ponying up $1.99 or $2.99 each for little apps on their phones.

Re:Intuitive gestures should not be patented

[bingoUV]

That's right, small companies / individual software developers have a huge opportunity in the form of app stores and markets. Kudos to Apple for starting that, and Google to follow the example.

They all do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

If companies like Nokia can hold broad patents and require Apple to pay them $10 for every iPhone in licensing fees. Apple should be allowed to do the same to Nokia. The patent system has upheld these broad patents time and time again. If you want to do something in the publics interest, the entire patent system should be reformed.

Re:They all do this.

[recoiledsnake]

Broad patents? Nokia holds some very specific patents related to the GSM communication hardware/software technology unlike Apple patenting a mechanism that has been around for ages. Example from 1991 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g

Re:They all do this.

[DriedClexler]

Someone explain to me, seriously, how the fuck is this kind of patent even granted? You can patent the very idea of allowing multipe touches on a touchscreen, no matter how it is implemented? Isn't that like patenting the idea of rolling to your destination, no matter if you do it by chariot, train, car, etc?

Re:They all do this.

[s73v3r]

If that really is prior art, then the patent either shouldn't have been granted, or it just won't survive the first challenge.

Re:They all do this.

[sdguero]

Fyi, arguing with apple fanbois is pointless. It's like telling a catholic priest that god is a woman, or a prius owner that organic food isn't any better for them. Pointless.

Re:They all do this.

[beelsebob]

At what point in this demonstration do they do the thing Apple has patented? I don't see any use of (a) multithouch (b) panning multiple frames around with different numbers of fingers.

Re:They all do this.

[Simulant]

That video seems to be prior art. Is it not?

Re:They all do this.

[hedwards]

You could patent the wheel, and the axle and you'd be there. Obviously, there's enough prior art that you couldn't do it, but if you were to be awarded that patent you would indeed get money for all those modes of transportation.

Re:They all do this.

[DriedClexler]

But Apple's patent wouldn't be like patenting the wheel -- it would be even worse. It would prevent you from having any remotely-circle-like shape that rolls (say, a decagon).

That seems to be the pattern with all the worst patents: they claim an *end* rather than a means. Patents are supposed to protect the inventor of a *way* of doing something (such as a *way* of accomplishing multitouch, or of buying a product with one click), and yet they're being used to cover _anything_ that accomplishes some end goal whatsoever!

Re:They all do this.

[qubezz]

That youtube vid is not prior art on multi-touch gestures. This sure is though: Feb 2006. Apples patent was filed December 19, 2007.

About the only thing the patent has going for it is claims 'a portable multifunction device', which might not have been specifically shown or actualized previously, but it is not novel to extend the scope this way. If we use that logic, I can then patent multi-touch gestures on a car, on a space craft, on electric pants, because nobody thought of it before.

Re:They all do this.

[Yvan256]

But Apple's patent wouldn't be like patenting the wheel -- it would be even worse. It would prevent you from having any remotely-circle-like shape that rolls (say, a decagon).

According to South Park, Canadian cars wouldn't be targeted by this patent.

Re:They all do this.

[LoganDzwon]

no. as others have posted, it's not multitouch. Aside from that, the patent was filed 2007, but the invention was created much earlier, by a different company that Apple bought, then filed patents for.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

Someone explain to me, seriously, how the fuck is this kind of patent even granted? You can patent the very idea of allowing multipe touches on a touchscreen, no matter how it is implemented? Isn't that like patenting the idea of rolling to your destination, no matter if you do it by chariot, train, car, etc?

Simple: the patent is not what the knee-jerk nerdlings make it out to be. It's "scroll different areas of the screen based on how many fingers you use".

1 finger, scroll the whole page, 2 fingers, scroll the text box.

This is unique and non-obvious and without prior art.

Patents don't mean someone else couldn't come up with it, it means someone did come up with it and it's not obvious. Obvious is "touch something to interact with it", non-obvious is "touch it like this to do that".

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

Fyi, arguing with apple fanbois is pointless. It's like telling a catholic priest that god is a woman, or a prius owner that organic food isn't any better for them. Pointless.

"What? My argument makes no sense? Well, the other guy must be a fanboy!"

The video doesn't cover what's in this patent. *You're* the one acting like the "fanbois" you are attacking. This is, however, par for the course here.

Re:They all do this.

[sdguero]

So you think Apple's patent is solid?

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

I think the argument you were specifically referring to is *not* solid. The video does not contain the interaction that's being discussed here.

Re:They all do this.

[DriedClexler]

So, an input-function mapping is patentable. Brilliant. Can I just generate all possible mappings and file a patent on all of them?

Re:They all do this.

[The Dawn Of Time]

It's easy to boil things down to absurdity and claim they are obvious after someone else has done the actual hard work. That doesn't make you a genius, it just makes you a Slashdotter.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

So, an input-function mapping is patentable.

"When you do this, this other thing happens" can be an invention. If it's an invention, hasn't been done before, and is non-obvious, it's potentially open for patenting.

Brilliant. Can I just generate all possible mappings and file a patent on all of them?

Probably not. But it depends on the specifics. If you are half as clever as you think you are, why don't you file a patent on "all possible mappings", and make yourself the richest man in the world?

But it's not that simple, is it? Things don't just invent themselves. This isn't someone simply "generating all possible mappings". It's someone inventing a specific interaction model and patenting it.

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

1 finger, scroll the whole page, 2 fingers, scroll the text box.

That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.

It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.

Almost any patent is "obvious" in retrospect. Even a mouse trap or a light bulb has people saying, "what? each part involved is *obvious*!" What about Polaroid? It's *obvious* that if you want instant film, you'll need to combine chemicals in a certain order, with delayed reactions that will bring out, in the end, a properly developed photograph. But the *specific* chemicals and mechanism to get them to work in the right way? *THAT'S* an invention.

With this, scrolling in a text box on a web page is a desired action. The invention is to have a specific gesture to do it with. It's by no means obvious that it should be two fingers. In fact, the *obvious* choice is scrollbars, like everyone else uses!

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.

It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.

I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.

It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.

I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.

I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.

My apologies.

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.

It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.

I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.

I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.

It is about patents, you just didn't read it properly and interpreted it wrong which is why I said to you need to re-read it. The obviousness of mapping a gesture to a function is no different than mapping a key combination to a function, yet you seem to think such things should be offered patent protection.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.

It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.

I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.

I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.

It is about patents, you just didn't read it properly and interpreted it wrong which is why I said to you need to re-read it. The obviousness of mapping a gesture to a function is no different than mapping a key combination to a function, yet you seem to think such things should be offered patent protection.

Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:

"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"

Either it is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. This patent is about a specific pairing. Saying that pairings of inputs and outputs in general is an obvious thing has no bearing on any specific pairing. The patent isn't "a pairing of a user input results in a program behavior".

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:

"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"

Because your response was to something i never made claim to. I'm not saying the mapping is obvious, in fact if you'd bothered to read what i wrote (like i keep insisting) you would notice im directly comparing it to a non-obvious example: Ctrl-V to paste from the clipboard, that is not obvious yet you seem to think that just because it isn't obvious it should be patentable.

Re:They all do this.

[ScrewMaster]

If companies like Nokia can hold broad patents and require Apple to pay them $10 for every iPhone in licensing fees. Apple should be allowed to do the same to Nokia. The patent system has upheld these broad patents time and time again. If you want to do something in the publics interest, the entire patent system should be reformed.

But they're not just doing to Nokia. They're doing it to everyone.

Re:They all do this.

[ScrewMaster]

"When you do this, this other thing happens" can be an invention. If it's an invention, hasn't been done before, and is non-obvious, it's potentially open for patenting.

That's the thing. Apple should be allowed to patent their particular implementation, for example, how they managed to recognize those gestures. They want to patent all implementations, without having to actually invent those implementations. That's pretty much the definition of an overbroad patent. This should never have been granted.

Besides, let's face it ... patenting finger gestures. Here's one for you, Mr. Jobs ... patent this!

Re:They all do this.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Broad patents? Nokia holds some very specific patents related to the GSM communication hardware/software technology

"Method for doing something dome on wire-based networks for ages over Radio".

unlike Apple patenting a mechanism that has been around for ages. Example from 1991 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g

Gee, I didn't know the iPhone had a camera hidden behind the screen that detected where the user pressed.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:

"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"

Because your response was to something i never made claim to. I'm not saying the mapping is obvious,

But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.

Again, I apologize for thinking you were trying to make a relevant point.

in fact if you'd bothered to read what i wrote (like i keep insisting) you would notice im directly comparing it to a non-obvious example: Ctrl-V to paste from the clipboard, that is not obvious yet you seem to think that just because it isn't obvious it should be patentable.

It's not because of prior art. Go back ~40 years or so before prior art existed, and software patents didn't exist. But if they did, it's quite possible it would be a valid patent. Additionally, that patent would have expired by now.

But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.

And while that specific mapping may not be obvious there are potentially millions of non-obvious mappings, does every non-obvious mapping deserve patent protection or is there something different about this one? What is it about this patent that makes it different from other non-obvious mappings?

It's not because of prior art.

So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?

But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.

It's pretty clear if you bothered to actually read what was written: an obvious gesture (2 fingers on a multitouch display) mapped to an obvious function (scrolling a text box) does not imply the mapping is obvious, in fact i even clarified it with an example, which you again either didn't read or couldn't comprehend.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.

And while that specific mapping may not be obvious there are potentially millions of non-obvious mappings, does every non-obvious mapping deserve patent protection or is there something different about this one? What is it about this patent that makes it different from other non-obvious mappings?

Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.

It's not because of prior art.

So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?

Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art. Which is what I wrote right there in the part you quoted.

But some new *type* of keyboard mapping (such as a new type of chording keyboard) might do the trick.

But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.

It's pretty clear if you bothered to actually read what was written: an obvious gesture (2 fingers on a multitouch display) mapped to an obvious function (scrolling a text box) does not imply the mapping is obvious, in fact i even clarified it with an example, which you again either didn't read or couldn't comprehend.

You deliberately chose to call them "obvious". It was both unnecessary and irrelevant. That I responded in a way that assumes you used the term for some reason is not something that deserves your initial response.

If you want to get word-mincey about it, I never said you said the patent was obvious. I just said it's not obvious. I pointed that out specifically since it appeared that you were using the term to try to refute the patent in question.

So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.

What is so innovative about this mapping that makes it patentable? What is it specifically you think they have actually *invented* that is new?

Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art.

So do gesture mappings, mapping a gesture to a function is not *new*. Which is why i wrote:
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?

So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?

The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive. The only thing that could possibly even be considered to be an 'invention' is the mapping, but this would mean i could come up with a list of gestures and a list of functions and patent all the possible mappings then sue anyone who uses them.

Re:They all do this.

[node 3]

Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.

What is so innovative about this mapping that makes it patentable? What is it specifically you think they have actually *invented* that is new?

It's an invention, there's no prior art, and it's not obvious. That's what makes it patentable.

Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art.

So do gesture mappings, mapping a gesture to a function is not *new*. Which is why i wrote:

So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?

Probably not, but a new *type* of keyboard shortcut, or a new way to apply a keyboard shortcut, sure. Good luck coming up with a new type of keyboard shortcut, or a new way to apply an existing keyboard shortcut, that isn't covered by prior art.

"A device that traps a mouse" is not patentable. But a specific type of device that has never existed before *is*.

So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?

The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.

Cite an example of prior art.

The only thing that could possibly even be considered to be an 'invention' is the mapping, but this would mean i could come up with a list of gestures and a list of functions and patent all the possible mappings then sue anyone who uses them.

Only if they are new inventions. Multitouch is a new thing, there's a lot of open territory. You can't just patent a generic idea, or a list of examples of a generic idea. If you were to come up with a new way to scroll a sub-area in a window via multitouch that no one else has thought of, you could most certainly patent it.

You keep thinking Apple patented some generic thing or some old thing. They didn't. They patented a specific thing that had never yet existed. That's exactly the sort of thing patents are meant to apply to!

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

It's an invention, there's no prior art, and it's not obvious. That's what makes it patentable.

That doesn't answer the question, what have they actually *invented* here that is new?

Probably not

why not? how is that any different? there is no difference at all in terms of 'invention'.

The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.

Cite an example of prior art.

You need an example of 2 fingers on a multitouch display? Really? You've never seen a 2 finger swipe before this? An example of scrolling a window within a window? You've never seen that before? Come on, don't be obtuse.
Moreover they aren't trying to patent the gesture, they know the gesture isn't new.

Only if they are new inventions. Multitouch is a new thing, there's a lot of open territory. You can't just patent a generic idea, or a list of examples of a generic idea.

Why not? By your logic I could patent a 2 finger swipe to make a game character jump, or a triple-tap to close an application, or a 3-finger-split to open an application, the list goes on and on and on. See how moronic that would be? Or would you consider me to be 'inventive' in doing something that doesn't already exist.

You keep thinking Apple patented some generic thing or some old thing. They didn't. They patented a specific thing that had never yet existed. That's exactly the sort of thing patents are meant to apply to!

The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic. I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?

Re:They all do this.

[exomondo]

No, I need an example of prior art for this patent. This patent isn't "two fingers is different than one finger".

Im not saying the patent should be invalid based on prior art, im saying it has absolutely nothing inventive about it. Just like keyboard combinations a gesture has absolutely no purpose except to map to a function, all they are saying is 'this gesture maps to this function', that is *EXACTLY* what this patent is and that is *NOT* inventive.

This isn't simply patenting a mapping. It's not, "well, for each menu item or action a program can take, let's patent each possible keyboard combination!" You're reducing the issue to something less than it is, then refuting that. You are refuting an inequivalent stand-in.

Of course it is, what is the difference between this patent and all the inventions i came up with like 2 finger swipe to make a game character jump, or a triple-tap to close an application, or a 3-finger-split to open an application, etc...? There is no difference but you would consider me inventive if i went and patented those, that's idiotic. I could come up with thousands of those and patent them all!

The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic.

"absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention'" is utter nonsense. You are equating things that aren't equal.

If it was nonsense you would've told me what the difference is, they are equal. A gesture is the touch equivalent of a keyboard shortcut so mapping a gesture to a function is expected, in fact a gesture has no other purpose.

I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?

You keep making up these stupid claims.

I think you'll find it's a question, not a claim.

Unfortunately

[imamac]

Apple and others will continue to try for broad patents like this for the forseable future in order to protect themselves from crazy lawsuits made by others who have broad patents. Vicious cycle...

Re:Unfortunately

[UnknowingFool]

At first glance, this patent appears to be one of the technologies Apple acquired when they bought FingerWorks in 2005.

Re:Unfortunately

[Tsingi]

Apple and others will continue to try for broad patents like this for the forseable future in order to protect themselves from crazy lawsuits made by others who have broad patents. Vicious cycle...

It does serve to guarantee that all the ideas in the world are owned jointly by corporations that can afford to create huge patent portfolios.

And to hell with the rest of us.

Re:Unfortunately

[ciderbrew]

stop :( I wanted one of those keyboards and now I can't have one.

Re:Unfortunately

[poetmatt]

protect themselves? What do you think they are, google?

hint: apple sues over patents, not "defends themselves". There's a big difference there. Not only that jobs and ellison are longtime friends too.

Re:Unfortunately

[s73v3r]

It's because the Patent office is completely understaffed and underfunded. If they had more funding, they could afford to hire decent people from industry, even if only on a contract basis, and many of these patents wouldn't hold up, because most people in industry would say that's not a new invention.

Re:Unfortunately

[steelfood]

Apple uses patents offensively to stifle competition. Your statement is loaded by implying otherwise.

They're not Google or even (arguably) Microsoft, who'll use patents defensively.

Re:Unfortunately

[poetmatt]

Apple whores out your information too. What do you think itunes + cloud + ios is? hahaha. What a joke.

At least google's honest about it, and has a page that they tell you what they are tracking and what you are enabling it via . Think apple would EVER do that? hint: no.

Google had plenty of technology, and has admitted that they only get patents to defend themselves. In fact, it's very telling that MS is flipping out over google's patent acquisition.

Re:Unfortunately

[ScrewMaster]

Apple uses patents offensively to stifle competition. Your statement is loaded by implying otherwise.

They're not Google or even (arguably) Microsoft, who'll use patents defensively.

Yes, it's surprising, in fact, how unlitigious the Evil Empire is when compared to Apple. Oh sure, Microsoft does sue, and gets sued a lot, but for a company their size they let a lot of infringement slide on by. Don't really need the money and headaches, I guess.

Really, when you get right down to it we've always known, for the better part of thirty years, that Microsoft is a schlock outfit run by headcases (Gates, et al.) Good at business deals, good at marketing, and not good at much of anything else. Apple, on the other hand, is still playing off the nice-guy image they laid down in the Apple ][ days. It's amazing, really ... incredible example of marketing prowess and the general gullibility of the buying population. Fact is, Apple is a particularly overbearing and obnoxious example of Corporate America. I won't give them a dime.

Don't hate the player ...

[gstoddart]

Experts also discussed the scenario of Apple licensing its patented technology or for that matter, the courts completely scrapping the patent in public's interest.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. The problem isn't so much specifically that Apple applied for (and got) this patent. It's that the patent system itself is out of control and stupid, and encourages companies to apply for overly broad patents.

I'm sure if Microsoft had a product in the works at that time, they'd have applied for this patent -- same goes for IBM, Google, or pretty much anybody.

If the courts are going to start scrapping individual patents in the public interest, they should do this for a very broad set of patents which do nothing but patent something which lots of people independently came up with.

Overhaul the patent system or fix the damned patent office ... but don't cherry pick which patents we figure should be over-turned so other companies can come out with products as well. Because there's a lot of patents which are just as fundamentally blocking to developing products as this multi-touch one.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[gbjbaanb]

true, and its only going to get worse untl the public, industry, judiciary and executive give a particular "finger gesture" to software patents, and especially broad ones like this.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[pandrijeczko]

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's a shame then that they don't practice what they preach and "Think Differently".

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft already had Surface (which was stupid product) which was capable of multi user multi touch

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[geekoid]

The patent system lost its way when it had to pay for itself instead of getting money from a general fund.
Once again, the republicans trying to push there flawed 'free market' approach to everything fails.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[geekoid]

Also, you can hate the player. Stop giving excuse to these jackholes.

The could play the game differently. They could push for a more rational system.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[JasterBobaMereel]

.. corrected ...

"It's that the American patent system itself is out of control and stupid" .

Most of these patents do not actually apply to most of the world, but hobble systems anyway because it is too expensive to do a US and Non-US system ...

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[gstoddart]

Also, you can hate the player. Stop giving excuse to these jackholes.

Fine, hate the player ... I don't care.

The could play the game differently. They could push for a more rational system.

Yes, they could push for that, and they quite possibly do.

But when we see stories that say that Oracle figures Google owes them 6.1 billion dollars, then you'd have to be an idiot to think that Apple would be able to simply not patent this stuff and sing kumbaya and pass out flowers. If someone patented this very thing, and suddenly sues Apple for $6 billion ... well, they'd be screwed. And, they'd pretty much have nobody to blame but themselves.

Like I said, go ahead, hate the patent system ... hate Apple if you think it makes you feel better or bolsters your argument ... the reality is, in the current legal climate where the big players sue each other for vast sums of money, not patenting this would be stupid. Expecting Apple or any other company to act like some other company wouldn't fuck them over if they had half a chance is mostly just ignoring the realities of the situation.

But, hey, go ahead, pick something you think we should "fight the power on" ... start setting up a booth on the street corner to sell pirated copies of Microsoft windows and hit albums. Tell them it's unjust and that you're just trying to change the system. And, when they drag you off to the big house or seize all of your assets, you can feel all warm and cozy in the knowledge that you took a principled stand.

You seem to expect that Apple should throw themselves onto their own sword to make a dramatic point ... companies don't work like that. As long as this is how the patent system works, companies don't have much of a choice than to play by the rules of the game.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[gstoddart]

"It's that the American patent system itself is out of control and stupid" .

Most of these patents do not actually apply to most of the world, but hobble systems anyway because it is too expensive to do a US and Non-US system ...

Well, the way the US has been exporting the entrenchment of protection of copyright and IP into treaties, so that other countries are more or less responsible for policing this ... I disagree.

The US of late has been making sure that copyright violations are pursued at a higher level than organized crime, drug trafficking, and pretty much everything else. Other countries were more or less told that if they didn't sign on to this, they would face barriers to trading with the US.

If they haven't done so by now, enforcement of their patents is not far behind. So, you'll forgive me for failing to believe your assertion that this is only affecting the US.

This is why the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are now pursuing enforcement of such things.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[hypergreatthing]

The main problem with these broad patents aren't so much that they hurt other big players, but it completely eliminates anyone else from entering the marketplace. Completely artificial barriers to the market place means that only the big players can make a profit. There can be a electronics designer who enters the marketplace with a new cool idea (like lets say infra red sensors for a cell phone and a 3d display so you can interact with it 3d by pressing virtual buttons) without them violating 300 extremely broad patents and being litigated to bankruptcy.

Since no one else can enter the market, there's no real competition and you can bet that anyone stupid enough to try will be eaten up by any of the major patent holders, therefore the competition and innovation will be drastically reduced.

The time when someone could take an idea and improve and existing product/idea is over, unless you have an army of lawyers and a fortune to pay them.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[s73v3r]

Wait, really? Got a source for that? Because requiring a government office to sustain itself, especially one with such a limited appeal but that requires expertise in just about every realm of science, technology and engineering, is beyond foolish.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[s73v3r]

No, they really couldn't. It's basically the Prisoner's dilemma. If all agree to stop playing and reform, then things would work out better for everyone. However, because they are run by humans, that won't happen, because if even one company keeps playing, then all are fucked. And if only one stops playing, then that company is royally fucked.

So no, you can't really single out a single "player" for hating.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[zeroshade]

It's simply not possible for a company the size of Apple to not engage in patents, even if they do suck.

However, it's entirely possible for a company the size of Apple to not offensively use its patents, yet Apple does.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[KarrdeSW]

true, and its only going to get worse untl the public, industry, judiciary and executive give a particular "finger gesture" to software patents, and especially broad ones like this.

Too bad they can't since that gesture is patented.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[Windowser]

But, hey, go ahead, pick something you think we should "fight the power on" ... start setting up a booth on the street corner to sell pirated copies of Microsoft windows and hit albums.

That would be a copyright violation, not a violation of software patents.
In your rush to defend good-old Apple, you got confused.
Take a break, have a coffee and think about this for a second.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[gstoddart]

Let me fix your statement there:

"If you cannot win without cheating, then cheating to win is perfectly okay."

It's not 'cheating' if everyone is playing by those same rules -- in fact, it's the opposite of cheating. So, not only have you NOT 'fixed' my statement, your version of it ignores reality.

If the system is befouled, do you continue to help muddy it, or do you work at cleaning it up? Unfortunately, most companies are only in it for the profit, damned be all else.

Companies who take an idealized stance that they maybe should stop patenting stuff because it's bad will eventually find themselves sued by someone who didn't feel the same way, and patented stuff behind their back. If the system is fouled, their interests are best served by playing according to the shitty rules.

This isn't a game you can win by not playing. Yes, patents suck, they get granted for stupid things, and used for basically strong-arming other companies into paying you money.

But, if Apple suddenly stopped playing, they'd get steam rolled by companies who were engaging in this stuff. Not only isn't there an incentive for Apple to not apply for patents, there is a disincentive against not applying for them -- they'd lose money.

Why is Apple the only company people expect to withdraw from the patent game if their competitors would just turn around and patent the stuff and sue them? Do you seriously expect Microsoft, Oracle or IBM wouldn't do this?

Welcome to capitalism -- it's cut-throat by design.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[gstoddart]

but for creating responsible patents that only cover their products and not just vague ideas.

Why, nobody else does? That's a problem with the whole patent system, not Apple.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[node 3]

It's simply not possible for a company the size of Apple to not engage in patents, even if they do suck.

However, it's entirely possible for a company the size of Apple to not offensively use its patents, yet Apple does.

How so? They use them when people copy their products. They don't just go around looking for companies to sue or extract royalties from.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[edmicman]

The thing is, how does the public, judiciary, and executive know this affects them? The public will continue to buy its shiny toys not caring who makes them or how. The courts will readily continue to process patent suits and not care. And how will the people making the laws/rules care if their public and the people trying the cases don't care?

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[tyrione]

It's simply not possible for a company the size of Apple to not engage in patents, even if they do suck.

However, it's entirely possible for a company the size of Apple to not offensively use its patents, yet Apple does.

One has to defend them from infringements upon their research or they lose them. Grow up.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[amorsen]

One has to defend them from infringements upon their research or they lose them. Grow up.

This is NOT true. If you allow someone to use your patent, you may not be able to later enforce your patent against that particular person/company (estoppel), but you can still enforce it against everyone else. Estoppel is rather narrow, it only hits you if you have fraudulent intent. Having a policy of defensive-only use of patents is certainly not fraudulent.

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[ScrewMaster]

One has to defend them from infringements upon their research or they lose them. Grow up.

This is NOT true. If you allow someone to use your patent, you may not be able to later enforce your patent against that particular person/company (estoppel), but you can still enforce it against everyone else. Estoppel is rather narrow, it only hits you if you have fraudulent intent. Having a policy of defensive-only use of patents is certainly not fraudulent.

I think the GP must be thinking about trademarks ... if you don't vigorously defend them you can lose them. People seem to regularly confuse patents, copyrights and trademarks around here ...

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[ScrewMaster]

Wait, really? Got a source for that? Because requiring a government office to sustain itself, especially one with such a limited appeal but that requires expertise in just about every realm of science, technology and engineering, is beyond foolish.

Yes, the USPTO sustains itself from the maintenance fees paid by patent holders (another incredibly stupid innovation which biases the system towards the large holders who can easily afford them.)

Re:Don't hate the player ...

[zeroshade]

The point of a defensive-only use of patents is that if someone sues you, you use your patents to say "Hey, if you sue us...we'll sue you for these patents of ours that you infringe so you might not wanna do that." Essentially its the mutually assured destruction route, acquiring patents because you need them to defend yourself if sued, but acknowledging that you only have patents because the system requires you get them to survive.

An optimist view.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not bad after all. This will make the competitors take a step back, review their existing designs and come up with more innovative ideas for display systems and interaction with them.

Re:An optimist view.

[ciderbrew]

How do you better the use of hands & interaction with stuff?

I'll show them a finger gesture...

[bennomatic]

I've got your patent *right* *here*.

Re:I'll show them a finger gesture...

[pandrijeczko]

Here's $1,000,000, I'll take two fingers-worth for the V-sign I'm about to use.

Re:Hate Apple

[EraserMouseMan]

Oh, stop it. You only feel that way because of all the $$$ you threw after Apple products and media. And now are wondering how you fell for it in the first place.

Mod me down, but...

[Phleg]

This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.

It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[OKK77]

Ever heard of LG Prada? Probably not because I bet you hardly look across the ponds surrounding you.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[spire3661]

THe iphone was absolutely obvious and deriviative. The problem is all the phones that came before didnt have the full ecosystem to back it up. The iphone by itself is a an ok phone for the most part. its the software and ecosystem behind it that really drives the device. And Apple benefited greatly from seeing others mistakes and missteps too. The street goes both ways.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about companies that manufacture these touchscreen devices? Aren't they the ones who should be holding the relevant patents? Why is it that apple has the power to artificially limit the touchscreen manufacturer's market just over "use cases" ??

Re:Mod me down, but...

[DontBlameCanada]

Touch screens have been in use for a very long** time in military applications. Nothing the PlayBook, iPad, Windows or Android tablets do of the gestures they use is new or unique. In a commercial space, maybe, in general no.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept.

You obviously missed the TED talk (from before Apple filed for the multitouch patent) where a researcher demonstrated a multi-touch interface. If you had seen that talk, you'd know that the iPhone is both obvious and derivative.

If anything, Apple et al should be paying that researcher millions of dollars for researching the multitouch concept.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[MoldySpore]

Sorry, but allowing Apple the ability to stifle competition by suing anyone who makes a rival product, which would end the potential for anything BETTER being created, is not only stupid but backwards thinking of the worst kind. We should encourage competition and rival products, not award companies who are the first through the gate with a free pass to take companies who want to compete to court. If you think that is what patents are for, then you should not be commenting on the patent system.

The only thing this highlights are the huge problems with the current patent system and shows a prime example of why it should be reformed from the ground up. Apple getting license to say they own certain finger gestures and touch technology is worse than Best Buy trying to say they own the word "geek", because this could actually effect real technological innovation as the market shifts more and more towards touch based devices.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[SquareVoid]

I find patents like these hardly on par with something like the combustion engine or other real inventions. What we have here is just user interface stuff. It is no different to when MS received a patent for double clicking. I am open to being corrected on this though. What is it about this patent that truly was innovative? Also, I think there is a fine line between an innovative invention and one that takes existing technology and "combines" it. Remember, a lot of patents were granted because something that existed had "with a computer" added and recently adding "with a mobile device" or "on the internet" to the patent application instantly became a patent. These kinds of things are iterative which, if I am not mistaken, should fail to meet the criteria for a patent.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[khb]

Well put. The upside to the patent system is that innovation can be rewarded better than simple mimicry. Most of the post iphone devices ARE clearly derivative ... just as all keyboards are substantially similar.

Obviously, whoever invents the first one does deserve to benefit from it.

Perhaps Nokia and Microsoft will skip the legal posturing and just balance the $10/device "tax" Apple now pays to Nokia and balance will be restored to the Force.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Missing.Matter]

A full screen multi touch iPod was the number 1 rumor for years before the iPhone came out. Putting a GSM radio in it doesn't make it completely unexpected. Further, multitouch devices have been around for decades, including the associated (and obvious) gestures. See http://billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Re:Mod me down, but...

[intheshelter]

That's about as stupid as saying the finger was already invented so touch gestures have prior art. LG Prada is not an example of prior art, but nice try.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[pscottdv]

It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed...

It's not hard for me to remember watching "Minority Report" in 2002 which demonstrated every gesture in this patent. And as part of a user interface, no less.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Phleg]

You do realize there's a giant fucking chasm between merely theorizing about a device and actually building it, right? The Jetsons had flying cars decades ago. Does that make the guy who figures out how to make it practical and widespread any less deserving of a patent?

Re:Mod me down, but...

[MikeBabcock]

Apple's own Newton combined most of the same features into such a device years before.

If you need a GSM example, the Palm offerings come to mind.

The IPhone's unique feature was eliminating nearly all input aside from the screen. Mind you they did that on the Newton as well.

The Newton supported gestures, by the way. Some of my fav's were in text editing: stroke upward over a letter to capitalize it. Stroke across the screen below your text to create a new entry. zig-zag over a word to erase it.

No, I don't find the IPhone revolutionary, although I still give them credit for the Newton. I still own working OMPs and MP120s.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[darien.train]

Um....the iOS gestural interface is the very definition of derivative and obvious.

We need a gesture for navigating to the next page! How about swiping the screen like when you go to the next page like in a book? Wow...How did you come up with that?

The interface is primarily derived from manipulating tangible objects in the real-world. How much more derivative can one get?

Re:Mod me down, but...

[s73v3r]

Yeah, but that doesn't really hold up in a patent lawsuit, as it's not an actual implementation of the idea. It's just a rendering. You'd have to show a device actually using it.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[MrSteveSD]

It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar

I remember looking at the Onyx Concept Phone with some excitement. It pre-dates the IPhone.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Missing.Matter]

True, but this is not a patent for multi touch technology; this is a patent for multi touch gestures. "An N-finger translation gesture is detected on or near the touch screen display. In response, the page content, including the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page, is translated to display a new portion of page content on the touch screen display." In other words, touch and drag. People do this with a mouse, and it's intuitively obvious to they layman how the finger can be used instead.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[DeadCatX2]

The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept.

I disagree with great fervor. Smartphones were clearly the next step in the evolution of mobile phones. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there were smartphones before Apple made one. They benefited greatly from everything that came before them.

It takes a lot of time to design and test a product. It needs to go through FCC testing, UL testing, CE testing, etc. You can't just copy someone else's mobile phone design and put a product out in the market in a few months of turn-around time. These things are in development for years, and yet they all head in the same general direction at about the same time.

In order for this to be a proper application of the patent system, you must show that multi-touch would not have existed without granting Apple monopoly rights to it. Can you with a straight face tell me that multi-touch interfaces would not exist today if not for Apple?

Patents are being abused, allowing the first competitor to patent an idea to get a slice of every other competitor's pie. It has nothing to do with the incentive to create since these things would be made with or without the patent system, and everything to do with barriers to entry for other competitors.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[mark-t]

The point of it having appeared in a movie previous to that point does not demonstrate any actual prior art, of course, although it should be sufficient to demonstrate that it was obvious.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[JBMcB]

On a portable, multifunction device. I think that bit matters.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[organgtool]

This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.

It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.

When it comes to multitouch, Apple didn't invent shit! Apple was just one of the first companies to use the multitouch technology developed by a German company called Balda AG. The only thing Apple did was create software that took advantage of the one intended purpose of Balda AG's technology. If this patent is as broad as the summary makes it out to be, then Apple's patent may cover almost any use of Balda AG's multitouch technology. That would mean that all of Balda AG's customers, and possibly customers of any other type of multitouch technology, could be at risk of violating Apple's broad patent.

Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways.

If Apple had to create some new technologies in order to integrate this multitouch screen, then those specific technologies would be worthy of patents. However, the only thing Apple did was place the screen in the iPhone and write software that made use of its one intended purpose - multitouch. How can anyone argue that using a technology for its one intended purpose is worthy of a patent?

The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept

Please explain what new technology Apple invented for the iPhone. I frequently hear claims such as yours, but no one can seem to provide specific technical details of why the iPhone was not derivative. Yes, it revolutionized the smartphone market, but it was far from a technological revolution. The best technological components of the phone were the multitouch capability (we already established that technology was not invented by Apple) and its nice glass screen surface (thought to be made possible also by Balda AG's touchscreen technology).

This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.

Not even close! That is unless you can provide specific details of new technology that Apple invented in the iPhone. Otherwise, the iPhone was simply an integration of other company's technologies with a nice software interface. Yes, it was extremely popular, spurred incredible interest in the smartphone market, and is worthy of all of its success, but patents are not granted based on the results of popularity contests.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[s73v3r]

So when someone gets around to inventing warp drive, their patent should be denied because Star Trek, along with every other sci-fi show, did it first?

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Phleg]

I disagree with great fervor. Smartphones were clearly the next step in the evolution of mobile phones. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there were smartphones before Apple made one. They benefited greatly from everything that came before them.

Nobody's arguing that Apple invented the smartphone. The iPhone did, however, effectively redefine the word "smartphone" nearly overnight.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[DeadCatX2]

I imagine that's the same way iPod redefined "mp3 player" "nearly overnight", huh?

So what you're basically admitting is that even though other competitors were coming up with similar products and had them in the pipeline before Apple released their smartphone, Apple still deserves monopoly rights to the technology because they have a good marketing strategy.

That you dodged the question of whether multi-touch would exist without giving Apple patent protection is, I think, implicit acknowledging that such innovation would have happened without the patent.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[ad0gg]

Multi touch has been around forever, Microsoft started working on it in 2001 ( Microsoft Surface ). Apple just took the concept(gestures) and applied it to a smaller computer.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[gstoddart]

Touch screens have been in use for a very long** time in military applications.

They didn't patent touch screens ... they patented the system which allowed for muti-finger gestures.

Did your military applications basically implement the "button" paradigm, where you click a region on the screen like it was a physical button ... or did they truly implement multi-touch with gestures?

I'm not defending the patent ... but I am curious to know if what you cite has having been in use actually correspond to this specific patent.

Obviously, the USPTO thinks it's worth a patent, but most of us generally think they'd approve a patent for "method of wiping front to back" if it came across their desk.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Shados]

The implementation of gesture is trivial if you have a screen that supports multi touch, which Apple didn't invent and even licensed from someone else.

If someone makes an engine capable of going to warp speed, and I stick it in a space ship, the guy who made the warp speed engine can patent it, not me.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Phleg]

Similar products? Point me to the pre-iPhone multi-touch smartphone. Hell, point me to the first multi-touch smartphone competitor to the iPhone. The length of time before its release ought to give you an idea of how far "in the pipeline" these devices were.

And I merely didn't see your later assertion about multi-touch. There was enough wrong in the part I'd read so far that I didn't bother reading further. Reading it now, I see I still shouldn't have bothered. Firstly, the patents do not cover multi-touch as you claim, but multi-touch gestures on a smartphone device. Second, the assertion that multi-touch must never have existed without the patent system in order for it to be considered a reasonable patent is just plain laughable. The patent system exists to promote innovation and invention. Nobody has claimed that they would cease to exist without it.

You are more than free to debate the merits of the patent system as a whole, but given the current goals of our patent system, I firmly believe that this is a worthwhile patent that describes a meaningful, non-obvious (both in implementation and holistic design concept) innovation and as such it should be protected.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[St.Creed]

No, but patenting the fact that you can use it to power a spaceship, will be. Because it is obvious.

Same as with Apple: they're not patenting the non-obvious multitouch technology, that they didn't invent, but they're patenting an obvious use for it, that was already considered by others and portrayed in movies, well before this was patented.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Phleg]

Look. This was the state-of-the-art of smartphones in 2007. This was the state-of-the-art in 2008. They're not even in the same state, much less the same ballpark.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Phleg]

They didn't patent touch screens. They patented a multi-touch interface.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Phleg]

FTFA: "The way to read a patent claim is that it's only infringed if the accused technology is implemented in its entirety—all of the characteristics must be matched."

Re:Mod me down, but...

[pscottdv]

So when someone gets around to inventing warp drive, their patent should be denied because Star Trek, along with every other sci-fi show, did it first?

Apple didn't patent the implementation of translating the gestures, they patented the gestures themselves! This is like patenting the idea of faster than light travel rather then the method of doing it.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[Missing.Matter]

Ah okay, I see, so Apple has a patent on 1 and 2 fingers, so obviously I should file a patent for 3 and 4 fingers.... or even better where 3 N 12 (you know to cover people with 6 fingers). I'm sorry, but it seems to me this patent covers a device with processors and memory that displays lists, web pages, maps, and documents, and when you touch these things, completely expected things happen. This is so generic, it's hard NOT to infringe.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[ScrewMaster]

They didn't patent touch screens. They patented a multi-touch interface.

Yes, but the screen itself had to support it.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[ScrewMaster]

Another example.... it would be like Microsoft trying to say they own the words "Windows" or "Word"....... oh... ummm.... nvm.

Yeah, and when they found out they were in danger of losing those trademarks they backed off in a hurry.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[ScrewMaster]

Sorry, but allowing Apple the ability to stifle competition by suing anyone who makes a rival product, which would end the potential for anything BETTER being created, is not only stupid but backwards thinking of the worst kind.

I respectfully disagree, because as anyone knows, only Apple Computer Inc., helmed by the redoubtable Steven Jobs, is capable of such innovation, so in reality there would be no such competition to stifle. Besides, Apple is just too nice an organization and would never, ever, stoop to using a patent in such an offensive manner.

That was my impression of an Apple fanboy. How did I do?

Re:Mod me down, but...

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah, but that doesn't really hold up in a patent lawsuit, as it's not an actual implementation of the idea. It's just a rendering. You'd have to show a device actually using it.

You just described most software patents: "not an actual implementation of an idea". We're patenting ideas, and frankly, if we're going to do that then Minority Report would do fine as prior art. If we're patenting actual products, that might be different. Then again, it might not.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[yeshuawatso]

Prior art no, but going from one finger to two is not the work of an inventor, but the work of a mechanic. If the Prada's capacitive touch screen could actually recognize more than one input when it was created, then a person in the art could easily demonstrate that they purposely ignored the second input, making the second finger a work of a mechanic. Apple's patent for multi-touch based on the angle is a lot stronger than this patent.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[konohitowa]

They didn't patent touch screens. They patented a multi-touch interface.

Yes, but the screen itself had to support it.

In the same way that the mouse supported one-click shopping. ;)

A less sarcastic example would be in the same way that the CPU supported the Boyer-Moore string search algorithm.

Re:Mod me down, but...

[CaptainOblivion]

Ah, but I disagree- clearly patents are granted based on the results of popularity contests, we're posting in the discussion for an article about exactly that happening.

Dear Apple

[geekoid]

http://tinyurl.com/dhh3nu

Patent that, bitch.

Re:Dear Apple

[hedwards]

lol and I was expecting goatse man.

Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 2006

[MarcoPon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ

pure speculation stated as fact

[sribe]

The patent is so broad that not only will Apple's legal team target iPhone competitors but will also look to go after iPad and iPod rivals.

They could. They might. They might not.

Just because they got the patent tells us nothing about whether they will use it offensively (double-meaning intended) or defensively.

Re:pure speculation stated as fact

[crmarvin42]

Actually, they don't. A perusal of the Apple Litigation page on wikipedia gives the impression that they are the recipient of as many lawsuits as they file. Now I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list, but remember Apple is not a Patent Troll. They actually release products based on the patents they get into lawsuits over. Competitors can license their patents or come up with a novel way to achieve the same end. Remember, patents are not for "what you do", but "How you do it". I doubt that Apple has just recieved a patent for the ONLY way to make multitouch work on a phone or tablet. Quite possibly it is the easiest, but probably not even the best.

Re:pure speculation stated as fact

[s73v3r]

No more than anyone else in the space. Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, they all have fairly offensive litigation heavy records.

Re:Wait just a second...

[TigerTime]

I'm pretty sure I was born with 10 fingers, so 'life' and 'reality' invented a multitouch universe

Re:Wait just a second...

[PIBM]

Multi touch interfaces have been around for quite a while. Hell, I made a 4 inputs custom driver for windows XP in 2003 (that`s all I could manage from the free samples I had ordered, but it could have scaled upward if I had wanted to) and implanted some generic gesture recognition.

So, a device which detect a gesture to change a page on a portable device is a limited implementation of what I was able to do with my implementation. But then, I built that from previous research which had gone much further already. Anyway, the US patent system just seem so broken.

Prior Art?

[goingToSay]

Here is Jeff Hans ted talk for his touchscreen tech. Wouldn't this be prior art? http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

Re:Prior Art?

[erroneus]

I would have been much more impressed had he been wearing a turtleneck... just sayin'

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[taiwanjohn]

My thoughts exactly! In fact, I had assumed that Apple licensed the multi-touch interface from Han, since his TED talk preceded the iPhone's release by half a year or more. How the HELL could the patent office have missed that?

Re:Hate Apple

[rwven]

They're not defensive. They go after people with their patents. Good luck trying to prove they actually invented this crap in court though.

No I think I can

[hellfire]

I personally hate gun makers for lobbing in a broken system to keep guns legal and to keep regulations at a minimum so they can sell as much as they can, but if I get shot in the leg by some person on the street, depending on the situation I think I'm well within my moral rights to hate the person holding the gun, no matter who gave it to them.

Re:No I think I can

[s73v3r]

That would be the difference between offensive and defensive patent use.

Re:No I think I can

[edmicman]

So efficiency is a crime now? You're tired argument is irrelevant.

Re:No I think I can

[RazorSharp]

1. Nuclear missiles don't kill people, people with nuclear missiles kill people

2. I'm sure you and your guns can't do anything about a military coup implementing a dictatorship. Your rifle vs. a predator drone? Good luck. Furthermore, why is bearing arms a right? And if it is a right, I want my right to bear a nuclear missile, which is an armament.

3. People can get guns in places where they are illegal but it is much more difficult to do so and those places have very few gun related deaths. Furthermore, you're not taking into account people who have guns and use them in an act of heated rage. If Bob gets fired and wants to shoot his boss in a country where guns are legal, he can go across the street to the local pawn shop and buy one (or maybe just pull out the handy firearm he always keeps on him just in case a mad dictator wants to take over the country). If Bob had to go through a lengthy, underground process to find a gun, it would give him time to cool down and put things in perspective. Or, if he still decided to pursue the gun, there's a good likelihood he'll be arrested for doing so.

Perhaps you should try harder than whipping out the standard NRA bullet points.

Not to mention that guns could be illegal for civilian use and the second amendment will still hold as long as the states have militias.

Re:No I think I can

[mick129]

if I get shot in the leg by some person on the street, depending on the situation I think I'm well within my moral rights to hate the person holding the gun, no matter who gave it to them.

Did Apple shoot you in the leg with this patent?

Re:No I think I can

[RazorSharp]

I have a gun, does that make me more apt at killing someone than if I didn't have a gun?

Yes. Accidents happen. How many people are the victim of shovel accidents a year? According to Wiki, "There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." I don't know why their information is so dated, but somehow I doubt gun accidents stopped occurring since 2000.

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

It doesn't really matter how tough your gun laws are with New Hampshire and Pennsylvania so close by. Even if federal gun control was passed, it would take years and years for guns to become difficult to obtain considering how many of them are out there. But year after year they would become more difficult to obtain, and I would be willing to bet year after year there would be less victims of gun violence.

I'm not against guns, I'm all for hunting. I'm against handguns and here's a handy-dandy chart to show you why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

Notice where "blunt objects" ranks on that chart -- your rocks, shovels, sticks, ect. Not to mention that a rocks and sticks naturally form in nature, shovels are tools. Handguns are tools as well, but they have one function: to kill people.

Re:No I think I can

[teh kurisu]

People holding rocks are so much more effective at killing people than people without rocks. Or shovels, or an ax, or sticks, or cars, or pretty much any hard object. Should we outlaw all these and line the streets and walls with padding?

Sticks and stones are natural parts of the landscape. Shovels, axes and cars are tools whose primary purpose is something other than killing.

Guns have one purpose and that is for killing. The only other thing they are good for is target practice (i.e. practicing killing).

I live in MA with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Crime here is not lower than neighboring states, actually it's higher. And crime didn't drop when the law was put in place 15 years ago. And criminals are still easily able to obtain guns.

Of course criminals are still easily able to obtain guns. All they have to do is cross the unprotected border into a neighbouring state with lax gun laws. If gun control is to be effective it has to apply to the whole country.

There are plenty of countries out there with tighter gun laws than the US and lower crime rates to match.

Re:No I think I can

[NoOneInParticular]

1. Guns don't kill people, people do.

1`. Guns don't kill people, gun owners do.

Have to agree

[Space cowboy]

From the "expert" commentary in TFA:

'Apple's patent essentially gives it ownership of the capacitive multitouch interface the company pioneered with its iPhone'.

Well, ok then. Isn't that what patents are all about ? This is the system *working* as designed. You can argue that the system itself is broken, but this seems to be exactly how it ought to be, within our current frame of reference. Apple designed a totally new and radical way of interacting with phones, and patented it. Sounds ... reasonable.

Simon

Re:Have to agree

[ThinkWeak]

I'm all for hating Apple for their methods of controlling the consumer experience, controlling the device the consumer purchases, and controlling the content the consumer is allowed to put on their device. However, as much as it pains me to say it, Apple actually deserves this patent. They did spark a whole industry and we're all better because of it.

I just don't want them to stomp on the rest of the industry with this patent, which they will do.

Re:Have to agree

[perrin]

No, the system was originally designed to encourage innovation. Today, the competitive pressure in the IT sector is what is driving innovation, and patents are used to lock down parts of the industry to reduce the competitive pressure, which will slow down innovation. The system is therefore working exactly opposite of how it was intended.

Giving a company in the IT sector a 20 year state enforced monopoly on any technology is totally absurd, and not in the public interest.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[UnknowingFool]

A few things to note that in the broadest reading of the patent, it applies to portable devices. Second is while Han had probably been working on multi-touch for years and first demonstrated it in 2006, Apple acquired FingerWorks in 2005 specifically for multi-touch products and technology.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[MarcoPon]

I'm skeptical. In this interview from October 2010, he doesn't seem to be in any special relation with Apple. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20020465-56.html

Re:Wait just a second...

[gnasher719]

Multi touch interfaces have been around for quite a while. Hell, I made a 4 inputs custom driver for windows XP in 2003 (that`s all I could manage from the free samples I had ordered, but it could have scaled upward if I had wanted to) and implanted some generic gesture recognition.

Great. Did you publish it? If you published it, is it actual prior art?

Huh.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

"using certain finger gestures on smart phones"
So, can I be sued for giving apple devices the finger now?

Re:Huh.

[knappe duivel]

"using certain finger gestures on smart phones" So, can I be sued for giving apple devices the finger now?

Don't worry, they know you are JustAnotherIdiot

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[bennomatic]

Well, I'm right so often, statistically speaking, I've got to be wrong some time. Might as well be now. Your actual citation definitely beats out my imagined one.

Re:Everyday the same old story

[UnknowingFool]

Um this is for multi-touch which is relatively new compared to touch. While practical touch screens have been around for decades, inventors have only been able to get multi-touch working reliably in a handheld device in the last few years.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[bennomatic]

Not that I'm supporting this patent, but it could be possible that Apple has documented evidence of working on this patent well prior to any of Han's evidence. I'm not a patent lawyer, but it's my understanding that the patent award isn't solely based on the filing date, but rather the "date of the invention". So if you invented something in 2001 and filed in 2007, someone who talks about it in 2006 isn't creating prior art.

My understanding is that the filing date can be many years after the invention date, although as soon as a product using that invention is released in the wild (by the inventor or someone else) the clock begins ticking, and they have a year to file.

Fingers Crossed

[SpryGuy]

"...or for that matter, the courts completely scrapping the patent in public's interest."

This. Let's hope for this.

Re:Fingers Crossed

[the eric conspiracy]

This is a complete fantasy. There is no provision in patent law for scrapping a patent 'in the public interest'.

Re:Fingers Crossed

[ScrewMaster]

Courts don't do things in the public interest, that's not what they're there for. Courts dispense justice

Not even that much. Courts are there to maintain social control and not much else. Any justice that results is almost artifactual sometimes.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[dogmatixpsych]

Apple didn't hire Jeff Han. Apple acquired FingerWorks, which was working on projects similar to what Han was doing. Source: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=272326

Re:Everyday the same old story

[macs4all]

I read this patent and did I discover a really new thing ? No. We can imagine all sorts of patents of this kind. Furthermore touch screens exist for a long time, so the methods to use a touch screen should not be patented. I agree than some very new types of touch screens may be patented, but only the touch screens themselves and the technologies used to build them, but no more, and limiting the patents only to a very narrow field.

Software patents should not be issued.

Keep in mind that when Apple filed for this patent, they were still smarting from Creative Labs suing them for having the audacity (no pun) to organize the iPod's data into Artists, Albums and Songs (which was, IMHO the absolute embodiment of an "obvious invention), and there was someone else that sued them for the "click wheel".

I remember when Jobs did the Keynote introducing the iPhone. He went through the various gestures, said "We worked long and hard on this interface, and boy have we patented the heck out of it!"

Well, this is that patent. And Apple deserves every single year of their protection.

Slashdot Hates Patents, News at 11

[njfuzzy]

Seriously, how is this news? The article title is clearly an opinion. Just because your Kool-Ade is opensource doesn't make groupthink healthy.

Multitouch is essentially patenting mistakes

[erroneus]

Since the beginning of touch sensitive technologies, people have been putting more than one finger on the surface for a very long time. And while it didn't work, users were WISHING it worked because those clumbsy mistakes can be annoying. Wishing for multi-touch does not make for "prior art" but I think it qualifies as "obvious."

Re:Multitouch is essentially patenting mistakes

[erroneus]

I read it. It's multi-touch "on a mobile device" which is just as bad as "on the internet" patents.

Re:Wait just a second...

[PIBM]

Actually, it was on the university website, along with all other project for that course. And I found most of the information from which I built it from the web too.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[taiwanjohn]

That may be so, but it begs the question... if you invent something in 2001, why would you wait until 2007 to file your patent application?

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[crmarvin42]

Because talking about something in public first, does not mean that you were the first to work on it.

Apple probably has prior art that preceedes the TED talk that just wasn't public (they are infamous for their secrecy after all). I haven't looked at the patent in question, but if Apple had evidence that they were working on this prior to the TED talk in 2006, and Han didn't already have his own patent application in to the patent office, then the patent office missed nothing.

From what I've read earlier, Apple's original patent application is dated December of 2007, and incorporates some provisional applications that date back to January of 2007. That suggests that they had R&D documentation from at least 2006. Plus they purchased Fingerworks and all of it's IP back in 2005 and it would be surprising if the patent in question was not based, at least in part, on that IP, which most definitely predates a 2006 presentation at TED. Now, Han's company may have even older R&D documentation, but that would be an issue for the patent court to sort out.

It is far from clear who worked in this technology first. All that is clear is that Apple was the first to get their ducks in a row and file a patent.

Re:Hate Apple

[dingen]

Good luck trying to prove they actually invented this crap in court though.

Are there devices released prior to the iPhone which use things like pinch to zoom?

Re:Hate Apple

[s73v3r]

Unlike any other company on the planet? They're doing what everyone else is doing, yet you single out Apple for hate.

Re:Fringe benefit

[erroneus]

All the smug for a low-low price! You realize this is something you bought, not created. Buying a thing does not make you a better person in any particular way. If you believe it does, you now have some idea why the "anti-apple-fanboi" group are so annoyed with you.

Re:Hate Apple

[Skarecrow77]

certainly.

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

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[s73v3r]

You wouldn't; that'd be stupid. However, there generally is some delay between when you actually invent the thing, when you file the patent, and when the patent is grant. Lawyers need time to write the application, patent clerks need time to review it. 6 years probably wouldn't happen, but one or two might.

On the other hand, some of your researchers might have created something in 2001, but the company didn't think it was worth the time and money to patent it. Then a few years later, the winds of tech start blowing in that direction. So you dust off the logbooks and such, and patent it.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[darien.train]

I'm pretty sure that Perceptive Pixels/Jeff's patents are for their hardware treatment...you know..something actually appropriate to patent. I work with their machines quite a lot and the magic is mostly in the hardware as I understand it. They do play their cards close to their chest though so one can never be sure.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[s73v3r]

Was that before or after the stuff FingerWorks was doing before they were bought by Apple in 2005?

Re:Hate Apple

[rwven]

Pinch to zoom and most other multitouch gestures and actions were developed LONG before Apple ever got ahold of it.

Re:Hate Apple

[rwven]

I didn't single out apple for hate. I corrected the erroneous comment that apple uses their patent portfolio defensively.

A patent to touch things

[Shompol]

Inventor: I would like to patent the ability to touch things.

Agency: That's too obvious. We cannot grant a patent on that... unless you know the magic word...

Inventor: ....on computer!

Agency: Ok, then.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[Missing.Matter]

2006? There are multi touch technologies and implementations that date back to 1976. Obscure yes, but you don't deserve a patent on something just because you popularized it.

Blown way out of proportion

[the eric conspiracy]

These are the first two claims which actually describe the covered material.

1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display; displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page; detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.

2. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display: displaying a portion of page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the page; detecting an N-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the N-finger translation gesture, translating the page content to display a new portion of page content in the stationary application window, on the touch screen display, wherein translating the page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page; detecting an M-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display, where M is a different number than N; and in response to detecting the M-finger translation gesture, translating the frame content in the stationary application window, to display a new portion of frame content on the touch screen display without translating the other content of the page.

So is this really all there is to a multi-touch interface? Just transitioning between pages?

It certainly doesn't seem to be that broad a patent and it only covers page transitions. I think a clever UI designer could easily get around these claims.

Fact first, opinion later

[101010_or_0x2A]

The title should be fact, the submitters totally worthless opinion should come later. "Apple's patent is too broad" implies that the patent was *not* granted because it was too broad. The title should have been "Apple granted multitouch patent" or some such, the opinions are pointless in the title. FYI /. editors.

so much for non-obviousness and combination

[mschaffer]

Apparently different divisions of the USPTO have completely different thresholds for obviousness. I have a very hard time beliving that it wouldn't be obvious to people having ordianry skill in the art to come up with the same ideas. Especially in light of other existing patents.
Very poor work by the USPTO!!!

Re:so much for non-obviousness and combination

[Grishnakh]

What are you talking about? The USPTO is doing a fine job: they just grant patents to anyone who applies, unless there's a previous patent that covers that very thing. Prior art is irrelevant; if you have prior art, you should have filed a patent.

Why would the USPTO want to deny any patents if they don't have to? If they deny a patent, they don't get as much in fees. They get much more for every patent that is passed. On top of that, if there's a problem (prior art, too obvious, etc.), the patent holder and the complainers can go to court to solve their problem. This makes a lot of money for patent and other attorneys.

Why would they want to make things easier for people who didn't file patents, or make things so that their lawyer buddies make less money?

Obvious.

[MaWeiTao]

Touch screens were around well before the iPhone/iPad came along. I was dragging files around on a Sony tablet well before people had even dreamt of an iPhone. Multi-touch wasn't implemented only because touchscreen technology of the time wasn't capable of it. Hell, Minority Report depicted multitouch 5 years before the first iPhone. I'm sure others have had the idea well before then.

In light of this, how can Apple's patent be deemed anything but obvious?

Aren't even touchscreen gestures patented? How is that permissible? Why not allow them to only be copyrightable? Although I think even that is ridiculous.

I can appreciate some level of protection for intellectual property. But it's gotten far, far, far too granular where every little random idea is patented or copyrighted. It's gotten to a point where the vast majority of patents should be invalidated. I mean, if Apple is the innovator everyone claims they are, then the fact that everyone is using multi-touch and copying their gestures should be irrelevant? That functionality alone shouldn't define Apple's success. If they are incapable of staying ahead of the competition without all this protection then they don't deserve that success.

A proper free market means sometimes even the big guys get their asses handed to them. Patent protect encourages resting on your laurels because nobody can take your idea and improve on it.

Re:Obvious.

[MCSEBear]

A company named Fingerworks, which got it's start in 1998, already had patents for these things in 2005, when Apple bought them.

Re:Hate Apple

[the eric conspiracy]

This patent doesn't cover pinch to zoom or most other multi-touch gestures. Read the claims.

Despite the statements in the lousy summary it is actually a relatively narrow patent.

Re:Hate Apple

[dingen]

I never understand this about the US patent system. If evidence such as this exists, how is it possible the patents are still granted, despite the obvious prior art?

Re:Hate Apple

[Skarecrow77]

Not that I truly understand it either, but from what I do understand, it seems that there are so many patents submitted that the patent office doesn't bother to research if there is prior art, only if the patent violates/duplicates one they already have on the books. Whoever shows up first gets it. They figure it's up to the courts to invalidate these things. You know, the "It'll all work itself out in the end. with the help of a whole lot of lawyers and a metric shit-ton of money." attitude.

This shit is confusing. There is a reason that patent lawyers make good money. According to the AIPLA, their members average salary was over $180,000 and senior members in law firms made over $300,000 / yr.
Source -> http://www.patentbarstudy.com/career/patentattorneysalary.html

I call bs

[drb226]

patent experts

Patent law is basically "whatever bs you can get away with"; how can there be "experts" in that?

Re:Hate Apple

[rezalas]

Because Bill at the patent office works 12 hour shifts and rubber stamps pretty much anything that comes across his desk at a nice leisurely pace so as not to get fired and yet never truly accomplish anything. Meanwhile his boss Ted regularly decides that 'scotch:30' is the best time to start his lunch break and stroll over to humiliate Bill for a few minutes. Satire? Perhaps, but considering the "crank them out" attitude held by the administration I doubt this is hits far from the mark.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[crmarvin42]

What kind of multitouch existed back in 1976?

What are the chances that the implementations back in 1976 are the same as the one Apple received the patent for in 2011?

Patents are granted for novel METHODS, and can be fairly specific. If you and I both come up with novel ways of achieving the same task, then we can BOTH receive patents that to a layman appear to be for the same thing. It's not what your patent does, but how it does it that determines whether or not the patent is novel.

That's one of the original reasons patents exist, so that methods are not lost when the tradesman that developed them dies. In exchange for a detailed explanation of how your technology works, you get a temporary monopoly on your technology, and the ability to sue the pants off of anyone that tries to copy you without paying a licensing fee.

More specifically to the Apple patent... There is nothing stoping other phone and tablet makers from developing non-infringing technology that achieves the same task, other than their own inertia/incompetence. I'd like to see more approaches to the multitouch interface than I've seen. I find it hard to believe that Apple came up with the absolute best possible implementation, and impossible to believe that they've come up with the only reasonably usable one.

Multitouch non-obvious

[SuperKendall]

The iPhone was not the first touch slab phone

Although I actually cannot remember any other touch phones before the iPhone (they all used styluses as far as I can remember) multi-touch on a display was not obvious, at least as far as practical use and getting it to work. If it had been everyone would have done it. Even after the iPhone it took some time for competition to add multi-touch (as opposed to just touch) support.

Re:Hate Apple

[rwven]

I never once stated a problem with protecting their property/inventions. Again: I simply corrected an erroneous statement. Apple doesn't typically use its portfolio defensively. End of story....right?

False Choice

[Kamiza Ikioi]

We can freely hate both.

Don't sue me, bro!

[Kamiza Ikioi]

I built a device totally controlled by the middle finger. The next version will include multi-touch Shocker gestures.

Solution

[Nom du Keyboard]

Seems to me that the solution is for a phone, instead of coming with pre-programmed gestures, simply has the user enter their own desired gestures for all common operations. And if a user likes pinch-to-shrink, well I don't believe Apple can patent that.

Then explain Minority Report and TNG?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

If it wasn't obvious, how did a movie use multi-touch gesturing 5 years before they release the @#$%ing phone?

And forget that, what about Star Trek TNG?

This was neither new, nor obvious, nor a technology (from what I'm hearing). If an idea missing any actual mechanism for how to achieve the idea is all you need for a patent, then the original Star Trek deserves a patent on cellphones more than Apple on this.

The prior art on this leads me to believe that them being able to defend this in court is near 0.001%. And only that high assuming that at least 1 in 100,000 judges are bat-shit insane.

Re:Then explain Minority Report and TNG?

[ScrewMaster]

And only that high assuming that at least 1 in 100,000 judges are bat-shit insane.

Looking at the general ignorance of the technical world evinced by courts around the country in the RIAA copyright cases, I'm not sanguine about this one.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[UnknowingFool]

The original filing date on this patent is in 2007; however, FingerWorks was acquired by Apple in 2005. FingerWorks had working products prior to that. Wayne Westerman and John Elias were founders of FingerWorks whose names appear on this patent and other multi-touch/touch patents filed by FingerWorks as early as Aug 2005. The majority of the patents were filed in July 2006, Nov 2006, and Feb 2007 under the FingerWorks name. While this is not conclusive, I can reasonably argue that FingerWorks had been in the developing this tech as long as Mr. Han.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[Missing.Matter]

There is nothing stoping other phone and tablet makers from developing non-infringing technology that achieves the same task

The Apple patent in question amounts to "click and drag, but with a finger." Why should one company have exclusive access to this most obvious manipulation? Is clicking and dragging with a mouse patented?

Here's a video from 1988 depicting "detecting an M-finger translation gesture on or near the touch screen display, where M is a different number than N; and in response to detecting the M-finger translation gesture, translating the frame content in the stationary application window, to display a new portion of frame content on the touch screen display without translating the other content of the page." aka pinch to zoom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo

Please tell me, how Apple has a claim to this man's work from 1988.

Fraudulent

[t2t10]

Able is parenting things they clearly didn't invent. That is fraud. And other companies are not doing it to the same degree.

For legalistic reasons, that kind of fraud is hard to prosecute these days. That is something that needs to change. Apple needs to be held responsible for their actions, and companies like apple need to be punished if we want to have a computer industry in this country at all.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[crmarvin42]

If the manipulation was so obvious, as all good inventions are in hindsight, then why wasn't it in use prior (not prior to the iPhone release, but prior to Apple's R&D) and why wasn't it patented by someone else? An alternative to the "Finger drags the screen" could be the "Finger drags the icons" as can be seen in this demo for the new Nokia N9's application launcher.

Is clicking and dragging with a mouse patented?

Not to my knowledge, but 1-click is patented, and I believe that the iOS's multitouch features are far more unique than Amazon's 1-click patent. You can argue that 1-click is simply a worse offender, but it has withstood Several USPTO reviews and even been used successfully against Barnes & Noble (settlement with undisclosed details).

As freakin' cool and impressive as Myron Krueger's technology was, it was a different method for achieving a similar task. He was quite obviously using different technology to capture the input, what he was doing with it was very different, and ultimately they are only superficially similar.

Similar end results can be achieved by very different methods resulting in 2 uniquely patentable ideas. To take the infamous car example out, the traditional piston powered engine is very different from the rotary engine. Both combust fuel to produce a driving force for a car, but the method is sufficiently different as to be distinctly unique from each other. Hell, I'd be surprised if the 1 stroke and 2 stroke engines are sufficiently different from each other to be separately patentable.

Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20

[Missing.Matter]

How many times do I have to say this: Apple's patent completely agnostic to the input technology. It 100% has to do with the physical gestures of 1) tap and drag 2) pinch and zoom. That is to say, if I built a device entirely based on Krueger's 1988 technology, I would be in violation of Apple's patent. This is absurd.

To take your car analogy, it is like patenting pressing the gas pedal to make the car go forward. It doesn't matter if you have a piston engine or a rotary engine; if you're pressing a pedal to make the car go forward, you're violating the patent. To suggest that competitors should have different gestures to pan and zoom is as ludicrous as suggesting different car manufacturers should have different throttle interfaces.

Finally, the video you linked violates the patent: "a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page."

Translated: touch the screen with a finger, move the finger, things move under finger. Known to us mere humans as moving things with our hands. We do it every day. Babies do it before they even know how to talk or read. It's so obvious and intuitive and it's been implemented time and time again.

Re:Hate Apple

[ScrewMaster]

No, because he's trying to be cool by joining the "I hate Apple" crowd. Apple is changing the IT world balance and change makes people uncomfortable, usually people who don't understand it. Apple is no saint, but my experience is they are usually hated by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't have any firsthand experience with their products. I was one of them 7 years ago and my experience with Apple over the last 7 years has changed my opinion.

My first experience with Apple was about 32 years ago, and they were a completely different company. Spent the next several years cranking out applications for the Apple ][ //e series. That was then. Nowadays, I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole ... not that the products are bad (they really don't suit my mentality ... I'm not big on products that are basically designed for people too stupid to use a computer) but what they do, they do well. No, it's because I don't like the company, don't like its policies, and don't like the sociopath that runs it. Not that he'll be around much longer: Jobs is looking like hell lately. Might be a good time to dump your Apple stock: once he croaks that stock is going to tank.

Re:Everyday the same old story

[ScrewMaster]

Well, this is that patent. And Apple deserves every single year of their protection.

Why? The fact that you, or anyone else, likes the iPhone is not justification for a bad, overbroad patent. That actually hurts you, in terms of the slowed pace of progress, if you had the wit to see that.

Re:Go Apple!

[ScrewMaster]

I hope this sends every other phone manufacturer back to the proverbial drawing board.

{sigh} I realize that you're a hopeless fanboy, but recognize that bad patents hurt everyone including your favorite company, Apple Computer. Your fundamental assumption seems to be that nobody else will ever innovate or patent anything significant in this market space. You're wrong, and if defective patents are allowed to stand Apple has just as much chance of being damaged by this as any current Apple competitor.

Re:Everyday the same old story

[macs4all]

Well, this is that patent. And Apple deserves every single year of their protection.

Why? The fact that you, or anyone else, likes the iPhone is not justification for a bad, overbroad patent. That actually hurts you, in terms of the slowed pace of progress, if you had the wit to see that.

Doesn't seem to be slowing Apple down... ;-)

Grocery Market Sued

[Tyr07]

Brand name infringement, store claims to sell Apple's. Apple claims their trademarks aren't usable just by adding 'Granny Smith' prior to the product name.

not consistent = poor job

[mschaffer]

I most wholeheartedly disagree. The USPTO is not doing a fine job. As someone who has acquired several patents from other Examining Groups in the USPTO I see a tremendous disparity among the Examining Groups as to how non-obvious and combination are used to disqualify patents.

Also, prior art is not irrelevant. Prior art includes other patents and combination of ideas from other patents (taking a part of an idea in one patent and combining it with another idea from another patent). The Examining Group reviewing Technology Center 2100 (patent applications including Computer Architecture Software and Information Security) apparently doesn't look at this at all while other Examining Groups (such as those for Technology Center 1700) the examiners scrutinize this quite thoroughly.

Re:not consistent = poor job

[Grishnakh]

So is it your contention that some parts of USPTO actually use stricter standards and disqualify more patent applications than others? That's definitely not a fine job, because as you note, it's not consistent.

There must be some managers in there who have too much of a conscience. I'm sure when Obama finds out, he'll have them fired and replaced with managers who make sure everything possible is granted, in order to generate higher revenues for the USPTO, greater profits for lawyers, and greater profits for his buddies at large corporations who can use bad patents to bludgeon their smaller competitors.

not on Obama's radar

[mschaffer]

With all that Obama has on his plate, serving special interests like this is low priority. Besides, he's not really a champion of big business.

Re:not on Obama's radar

[Grishnakh]

Are you kidding? What do you think the healthcare "reform" was? It was a giveaway to big insurance companies.

Or what about all these wars he's got us in, and that he's actually escalated since Bush left? Those are a boon to the defense contractors.

The Democrats are champions of big business just like the Republicans. They just aren't as obvious about it.

Re:not on Obama's radar

[Grishnakh]

Don't forget the auto industry bailout and "cash for clunkers". It didn't help little Tesla at all, but was a giant help to GM and Chrysler.

Don't forget Pelosi

[mschaffer]

The US Congress (i.e. Pelosi and friends) was responsible for the bailing out Government Motors and Chrysler.

Re:Don't forget Pelosi

[Grishnakh]

Obama signed off on it too. Obama and Pelosi were butt-buddies while she was in power.

Why are you trying to protect Obama so much? Obviously, he didn't do all these things single-handedly, but he was completely complicit.

I am not trying to protect Obama

[mschaffer]

I am not trying to protect Obama. I think he should be impeached.
Of course Obama literally signed-off on it. He just wasn't calling the shots during his first year in office. Pelosi and her Democratic Party cronies were running things. When she said "jump", Obama would say "how high".
Obama is the teleprompter president. Early on, he wasn't in control of what was on the teleprompter. Even now, I am not certain that he is.

-----
Welcome to the USA. Former jurisdiction of the US Constitution.

Re:I am not trying to protect Obama

[Grishnakh]

I am not trying to protect Obama. I think he should be impeached.

On this, we're agreed.

Of course Obama literally signed-off on it. He just wasn't calling the shots during his first year in office. Pelosi and her Democratic Party cronies were running things. When she said "jump", Obama would say "how high". Obama is the teleprompter president. Early on, he wasn't in control of what was on the teleprompter. Even now, I am not certain that he is.

Still, he's the President. He has a ridiculous amount of power (far more than a Prime Minister in other republic-type countries), should he choose to wield it. If he's too spineless to do so, and simply does what others tell him to, that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility for his actions or inactions. He has the power to not sign bills from Congress; he has the power to push bills through Congress. He even has the power to wage war, to more vigorously enforce certain laws or to not enforce them at all, etc. Heck, he can even make up his own laws to an extent and enforce them without Congress: Bush did this all the time, and they were called "signing statements". "Pelosi made me do it!" isn't an excuse. Pelosi's crap would never have gotten passed into law if he had vetoed it, because there (IIRC) wasn't enough of a Dem majority to override his veto easily.

As far as I can tell, Obama just does whatever he thinks is going to get him re-elected, and does his best to play both sides in pursuit of that goal. He doesn't seem to have any moral fiber whatsoever, and is a total psychopath. Bush, for all his faults and being a total sell-out to certain corporations, seemed to at least believe in his delusional mind that he was doing the right thing; I don't think Obama cares at all about doing "the right thing". Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise since he's a lawyer, a part of an entire profession of people who care nothing at all about what's right or wrong or even true, just making themselves richer.

Exactly!

[mschaffer]

As far as I can tell, Obama just does whatever he thinks is going to get him re-elected, and does his best to play both sides in pursuit of that goal. He doesn't seem to have any moral fiber whatsoever, and is a total psychopath. Bush, for all his faults and being a total sell-out to certain corporations, seemed to at least believe in his delusional mind that he was doing the right thing; I don't think Obama cares at all about doing "the right thing". Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise since he's a lawyer, a part of an entire profession of people who care nothing at all about what's right or wrong or even true, just making themselves richer.

You hit the nail on the head!

Re:Everyday the same old story

[ScrewMaster]

Well, this is that patent. And Apple deserves every single year of their protection.

Why? The fact that you, or anyone else, likes the iPhone is not justification for a bad, overbroad patent. That actually hurts you, in terms of the slowed pace of progress, if you had the wit to see that.

Doesn't seem to be slowing Apple down... ;-)

You don't know that. Actually, you do ... Apple lost to Nokia in their long-running patent battle and is paying through the nose, so much money in fact that it's going to improve Nokia's bottom line. Patent wars go both ways. Who gets hurt in that? The consumer: in this case, the iPhone aficionado because he's going to be making up the difference.

Re:Everyday the same old story

[macs4all]

You don't know that. Actually, you do ...

Sure I do. The evidence is there for all to see.

Apple lost to Nokia in their long-running patent battle and is paying through the nose, so much money in fact that it's going to improve Nokia's bottom line.

More than anything else, isn't that more of a statement of how weak Nokia's finances are?

in this case, the iPhone aficionado because he's going to be making up the difference.

You don't know that, actually, do you?

Re:Everyday the same old story

[ScrewMaster]

More than anything else, isn't that more of a statement of how weak Nokia's finances are?

Possibly. Not that it's relevant. It's more a statement that Apple's patent portfolio is full of hot air. If nothing else, the money spent on the lawyers (on both sides) would have been better invested in R&D to produce better products than in an ultimately fruitless (for Apple) dick-waving contest.

You don't know that, actually, do you?

Well, if you believe that Apple will simply absorb those costs without some consequences to their customers, I think you're being naive (at best.)

You can defend a bunch of litigious pricks if you like, that's your privilege. But all the hand-waiving in the world won't change the fact that bad patents are good only for the patent-holders, and not even for them in the long run. Face facts: our patent system wasn't intended by the Founders for the purpose which Apple and others have been using it, and that is the suppression of disruptive technological development. It's quite clear that the exact opposite result was desired (the Constitution says so, right there in cold print.) Granted, it's Congress that put us in this position, because a certain corrupt subset of Congress made critical (and, in my opinion, treasonous) changes to patent law. Nevertheless, I don't give Apple a pass on their behavior just because they make some nice products. A bad patent is a bad patent and should never have been granted in the first place.