Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Suit Targets Every Touch-based Apple Product

Posted by Soulskill on from the trollin'-trollin'-trollin' dept.

suraj.sun writes with news that a new patent suit has been filed against Apple over all of the company's touch-based products. From the article: "According to the complaint (PDF), Professor Slavoljub Milekic conceived a system that used a touchscreen that allowed children to move virtual objects around the screen, which he used to build interactive displays for the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, KY, in 1997, and filed for a patent on his design that same year. The patent in the suit, U.S. Patent #6,920,619 named 'User interface for removing an object from a display,' was issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in 2005. According to the lawsuit, Milekic formed FlatWorld Interactives in 2007 to 'promote and commercialize' his invention. Curiously, FlatWorld was incorporated on January 2007, just weeks after Apple announced the original iPhone at Macworld Expo. In July 2007, just after Apple shipped the original iPhone, FlatWorld filed a reissue request for the patent, which appears to have been done in order to modify some of the patent's dependent claims."

25 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Even More Curiously by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Curiously, FlatWorld was incorporated on January 2007, just weeks after Apple announced the original iPhone at Macworld Expo.

    Why is that curious? What's curious to me is that this patent was issued in 2005 and Apple began releasing infringing devices with massive publicity and advertising in 2007. Now five years later he finally gets around to filing suit? Just after Apple experiences the most profitable quarter in history of any tech company and the news outlets proclaim that Apple has too much money?

    Either this lawsuit was timed perfectly or Slavoljub Milekic has been living without human contact for five or more years until recently arbitrarily realizing that Apple has been infringing on his "intellectual property."

    Patents wouldn't be so bad if everyone who had them cleared their throat from the beginning and got all this out of the way and agreed upon ... right now the patent ecosystem is this mentality of having a huge patent war chest because if you're producing a lot of anything, you're infringing on someone's rights and the odds are you'll pay for it at the time you're making the most money. This is unfair that Apple priced out these devices and sold millions of them with the possibility that they may be paying a hindsight licensing fee for each device.

    On the other hand, it's nice to see Apple getting a taste of its own medicine.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Even More Curiously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, Apple had its most profitable quarter, a good indicator that a lot more people have been recently exposed to infringing apple products. Maybe one of them was Slavoljub?

    2. Re:Even More Curiously by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or it takes 5 years to assemble the paperwork, funding, and lawyers.

      I'm sure attorneys are just lining up to deal with the overwhelming defense Apple will surely have on hand, the sleepless nights before their work is torn apart in court, and the media circus if the case actually develops. There must also be rich folks out there just itching to donate money to a case against Apple, where a chunk of their other money is likely invested. Of course, everyone documents their ideas fully, with timestamps and complete lists of influences, too...

      All legal matters take time. Big legal matters take more time.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Even More Curiously by million_monkeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patents wouldn't be so bad if everyone who had them cleared their throat from the beginning and got all this out of the way and agreed upon ... right now the patent ecosystem is this mentality of having a huge patent war chest because if you're producing a lot of anything, you're infringing on someone's rights and the odds are you'll pay for it at the time you're making the most money. This is unfair that Apple priced out these devices and sold millions of them with the possibility that they may be paying a hindsight licensing fee for each device.

      Maybe there ought to be a type of statute of limitations on retroactive claims? Something like you've got a year(?) to make a claim between when you know of or should know of the infringement. If you don't, then you're assumed to have granted a royalty free license. If at a later point you do want to assert your patent, you can't make claims for any past infringement and are required to provide a royalty free grace period for usage of the patent.

    4. Re:Even More Curiously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's 'curious' to me is the following:

      In July 2007, just after Apple shipped the original iPhone, FlatWorld filed a reissue request for the patent, which appears to have been done in order to modify some of the patent's dependent claims.

      The phrasing there makes it sound a *lot* like the old classic submarine-patent tactic of applying for/getting a vague patent, and continuing to modify it to track the current state of the art in order to catch as many 'infringers' as possible.

    5. Re:Even More Curiously by HaeMaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or they have been negotiating with Apple for 5 years to take out a license. Most of those negotiations are in secret since most end with an NDA.

    6. Re:Even More Curiously by halfEvilTech · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except for those that read TFA - The patent is actually narrowly defined.

      "However, the patent quite narrowly claims a system used to "throw" objects off a screen when the "velocity of the touch exceeds a predetermined threshold," It also describes some specific gestures to move objects on the screen, none of which appear similar to gestures used in either iOS or Mac OS X.

      It's not clear from a cursory reading of the patent, nor from FlatWorld's infringement claims, exactly how Apple's products infringe. However, we discovered that some of Apple's own patents relating to the iPhone cite Milekic's original patent—it seems likely that the company was aware of the patent and did not believe its particular implementation of a touch-based interface infringed on its narrow claims"

    7. Re:Even More Curiously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, Apple had its most profitable quarter, a good indicator that a lot more people have been recently exposed to infringing apple products. Maybe one of them was Slavoljub?

      From the complaint:

      Slavoljub ("Slavko") Milekic, Ph.D. ("Professor Milekic"), is Professor of Cognitive Science & Digital Design at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

      Are we meant to believe that somebody who is a professor at a school right in the middle of the fifth-largest city in the United States has never once heard of the iPhone or an iPad or an iPod Touch, or seen them in action, until this last quarter? Someone who has a patent on touch devices and would therefore be interested in such things?

      Bullshit.

    8. Re:Even More Curiously by AeroMed45N · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is referred to as laches - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) - when a party waits well beyond the point when they knew they were being infringed, in order to allow the defendant to get in much deeper before asserting your claim. If this claim is valid (and it sounds like that is a big if) it would seem that the timing of their changes means it is highly likely they were thinking about infringement from that initial point. To allow Apple to create several generations of iPhones and then the iPad before asserting the claim sounds like a laches defense might be appropriate. (Though if I read it right, the laches defense comes after the infringement suit has been won, and in the process of arguing damages).

      That said, I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I just have spent way too many hours with patent attorneys in my career.

    9. Re:Even More Curiously by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are we meant to believe that somebody who is a professor at a school right in the middle of the fifth-largest city in the United States has never once heard of the iPhone or an iPad or an iPod Touch, or seen them in action, until this last quarter?

      Is there a legal requirement that suit be brought immediately after infringement is noticed? I have no idea, but I guess it's one possibility.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Even More Curiously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not at all, nor is it needed since this is not a trademark case this is a patent case. It is completely legal to wait until the infringer is making the most money to sue. It is also strategically intelligent.

    11. Re:Even More Curiously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there isn't. We also don't know if he has been trying to get them to buy a license and being blown off for several years.

  2. Apple and Professor Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This worked out so well for Apple the last time a Professor claimed patent infringement:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/david-gelernter-discusses-patent-claim-against-apple.html

  3. Even though it's against Apple . . . by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it's lawsuits like these which make me want to get out of programming as a profession.

    1. Re:Even though it's against Apple . . . by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know what you mean... I'm close to releasing an app; it's for a niche market and probably small enough to fly under the radar, but I hate the thought of some random asshat coming along to levy a tax on my work, or for some corporation with a competing product to crush me in court. Just because the patent office saw fit to grant a patent for being somewhere first (rather than for hard work leading to a genuine invention), and because I have a 1-click buy button with rounded corners in my app. And yes, as a programmer in someone's employ, this can hurt you too, if the trolls decide to go after the cool startup or struggling innovator you work for.

      Way to foster innovation (which was one of the purposes of modern patents).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. Seems to me... by Sparks23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that this would affect a lot more than just Apple if upheld. I understand Google's got a small interest in touch-based devices, too, and I seem to recall that Microsoft's considering maybe supporting some of this 'touch' stuff in Windows 8. (Sarcasm tag heavily implied there, which was hopefully clear.)

    Seriously, I feel that patents have become sort of like nuclear weaponry; you either try to amass enough weapons in your patent portfolio that the other side won't launch, as with mutually assured destruction between the big companies, or else you get held hostage by patent-troll terrorists who get ahold of a weapon and threaten to take out everything they can unless you pay them. Maybe we need the patent law equivalent of Jack Bauer to deal with patent trolling. :P

    --
    --Rachel
    1. Re:Seems to me... by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...that this would affect a lot more than just Apple if upheld.

      Yep, it would affect an industrial PC I used circa 1996 with a touch-screen to emulate a mouse. Yep, some things could be dragged around in a standard windows app with that setup. Hmmm I guess touch screens have been infringing this for a while now.

    2. Re:Seems to me... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. Every single Tablet made cince 1992 Starting with the Dauphin DTR-1 and all products made by Fujitsu in their stylistic line.

      There is more prior art on this than anything else. This guy is about to get pounded hard in the taint by Apple and the Courts.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Seems to me... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But he shouldn't just be pounded hard. His lawyer should be disbarred. I'm thinking if you started tossing lawyers, you'd see a lot of less of this, from the big guys as well as the small.

      "Sure I'd love to defend your claim to have patented the lead or graphite filled stylus, but you see, I'll be disbarred for fraud and lose my livelihood, so take your pencil and shove it up your ass."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Seems to me... by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh, really? I don't recall any matching the patent's claims:

      When... the system detects that the velocity with which the image is being dragged exceeds a threshold velocity, the system responds by removing the image from the display without leaving any representative thereof in the display.

      In other words, swiping your finger across the display to go to the next page of apps. Note that it is not covering "any touch-sensitive device", or "any device with a dragging mechanism", or any such nonsense. The patent's pretty specific.

      The claims are the important part of the patent, not the Slashdot summary.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. 1997? Bah! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Divinyls claim prior art from 1991.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. Re:What will it take.... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the larger companies realize that they have far more to lose from patents than they have to gain.

    I hope this guy takes them for $20 billion.

  7. Prior art: 1990 by jabberw0k · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was a programmer for the "Earth Over Time" interactive videodisc in 1990. Produced by Digital Techniques Inc., of Burlington Massachusetts for the Interactive Video Science Consortium, the system was designed primarily for school-age children, and installed in dozens of museums worldwide including the National Geographic in Washington DC. Earth Over Time featured a touchscreen display of Continents which the user could "click and drag" to re-assemble Pangaea, the prehistoric proto-continent. This multimedia application (called an "interactive videodisc" in the days before "multimedia" was a common word) won several awards including an ITVA Golden Reel and the Best Overall Achievement Nebraska Interactive Videodisc award in 1990. I also have implementation notes from the project in my files.

  8. Re:pretty lame UI patent by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    windows did all of that in WFW3.11 for pen computing.

    ": is there video or discussion of someone using a touchscreen for manipulating objects on a screen prior to 1997? It seems the answer must be yes, but I can't find a smoking gun"

    Look up any of the early tablets. There are several that pre date 1997.

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

    1991-1995 That pretty much is a giant smoking gun of "prior art"

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Prior art to"throw away" items on touchscreen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (Std. disclaimer: I am a registered patent attorney, but I'm not your attorney. If you need legal advice, find an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.)

    The independent claims of this patent appear to focus on touching an item on the screen and "throwing it away" by moving it fast. Despite the hyperbole in other comments here, it doesn't claim all touchscreen systems.

    Can anyone think of a system that allowed deleting items from a touchscreen by "throwing them away" before June 12, 1997?