Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Apple Multi-Touch Patent Is Too Broad

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the they-usually-are dept.

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."

17 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. They all do this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They all do this. by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:They all do this. by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  2. Unfortunately by imamac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Unfortunately by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  3. Don't hate the player ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Don't hate the player ... by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  4. Mod me down, but... by Phleg · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    No comment.
    1. Re:Mod me down, but... by OKK77 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
    2. Re:Mod me down, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Mod me down, but... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    4. Re:Mod me down, but... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Mod me down, but... by organgtool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  5. Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 2006 by MarcoPon · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --

    SeqBox
  6. No I think I can by hellfire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  7. Have to agree by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  8. Re:Prior art: Jeff Han multi touch demo at TED, 20 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.