What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
67 Comments
- wefarrell, on 01/27/2009, -8/+40I love Apple's products but their business tactics really piss me off sometimes. A concept as broad as multi touch simply should not be able to be patented.
- inactive, on 01/27/2009, -12/+28I don't know. It looks like Apple owns the rights to me.
Patents filed by Apple before Jeff Han did any multi-touch demos of his own
20060097991 Multipoint Touchscreen
20060026521 Gestures for touch sensitive input devices
20060022955 Visual Expander
20060085757 Activating virtual keys of a touch-screen virtual keyboard
20060033724 Virtual input device placement on a touch screen user interface
20060161870 Proximity detector in handheld device
20135048890 Electronic Device Design Patent
Acquired through Apple's acquisition of Fingerworks
20070139395 Ellipse Fitting for Multi-Touch Surfaces
20070081726 MULTI-TOUCH CONTACT TRACKING ALGORITHM
20070078919 MULTI-TOUCH HAND POSITION OFFSET COMPUTATION
20070070052 MULTI-TOUCH CONTACT MOTION EXTRACTION
20070070051 MULTI-TOUCH CONTACT MOTION EXTRACTION
20070070050 MULTI-TOUCH CONTACT MOTION EXTRACTION
20060238522 IDENTIFYING CONTACTS ON A TOUCH SURFACE
20060238521 IDENTIFYING CONTACTS ON A TOUCH SURFACE
20060238520 USER INTERFACE GESTURES
20060238519 USER INTERFACE GESTURES
20060238518 TOUCH SURFACE
20060232567 CAPACITIVE SENSING ARRANGEMENT
20060032680 Method of increasing the spatial resolution of touch sensitive devices - Benno, on 01/27/2009, -2/+18Another grain of sand on the mountain of evidence that patents (for software) no longer serve there intended purpose. A 20 year monopoly may make sense for a lot of things, but for most software patents 2-5 years would be more fair. The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation, not stifle the market. Imagine if Amazon's one click patent, every stupid "random common task...but with a COMPUTER", or obvious GUI patent were enforced to the fullest extent. Licensing fees for everyone!
- commyostrich, on 01/27/2009, -2/+14Ok now I'm not terribly knowledgeable on patents and infringements and what not but if Apple owns all of those patents, wouldn't it make ANY use of touching screens or pads with more than one finger illegal because of patent infringement.
Like Synaptics with it's laptop pads, or G1 (or any new touchscreen phone) all do that stuff? I just don't exactly understand what is legal for everyone to do and what is protected by Apple.
With that said, I think it's terribly lame for Apple to really cripple the competition like this. I feel like it's a monopoly of sorts. I feel like it's saying "Hey I work at HP and I invented the mouse so NO ONE ELSE can use a mouse for their computers!" It's a way to interact with a computer (or phone).
That's just my .02 - Andrewbot, on 01/27/2009, -3/+13http://www.fingerworks.com/
These are the guys who "invented" multi-touch and Apple bought them out, so yes, Apple owns Multi-Touch.
The pads are really slick though, expensive, but worth it. A few pop-up on ebay every once in a while. - sinurgy, on 01/27/2009, -10/+20If Microsoft did this there would be outrage but since it's Apple there is only mild disapproval...wtf?
- Chris1280, on 01/27/2009, -11/+20Woo monolopy on the market, now there just as low as microsoft.
- mrBitch, on 01/27/2009, -1/+9WTF ? Has anyone read how weak the claims from these idiot bloggers actually are?
Apple has NOT filed ANY lawsuit against Palm!
For example, FTA :
" While the lawsuit hasn't been filed yet, Apple COO Tim Cook made statements during his discussion of the company's financial earnings report that made legal action sound all but imminent. "
In other words, there is NO lawsuit, and Apple has NOT filed anything against anyone.
Also this stupid BS, again FTA :
" While he [Apple's Tim Cook] didn't name Palm as the specific aggressor, industry reporters connected the dots."
In other words :
" industry reporters just made ***** up".
How THE ***** is this a story ? - inactive, on 01/27/2009, -8/+15They are worse the MS. If MS is like America, Then Apple is Nazi Germany.
- qwertydvorak, on 01/27/2009, -0/+6"He's rich and all he did was file a patent for a piece of wood that you stick in the ground."
don't forget the guy who improved upon the patent and patented "method for driving wooden tent stake into vampire heart..." - inactive, on 01/27/2009, -7/+12***** Apple and it's stupid patents.
I am sure Apple wasn't the first company to figure out humans have more than one finger.
They might have been the first Americans. - Abomonog, on 01/27/2009, -1/+6Actually, no. It all comes down to the following paragraph.
"Thanks to a recent federal circuit court case discrediting the patentability of financial products, all "business method" patents have been rendered largely indefensible. Such patents consist of any non-hardware-based intellectual property; that rubric includes formulas, language, and yes, software."
And since someone has already gotten "multitouch" working on a G1 with a standard screen and the "multitouch" screens are also standard stock screens the whole issue goes down to the software. The above ruling does not allow the supporting software to be patented so therefor Apple has very little legal basis to sue.
Apparently Apple was granted a patent despite this ruling but if it is challenged I would suspect that Apple would have a hard time defending it. - kalidav, on 01/27/2009, -1/+6The patent means squat lest we all learn to touch things with at most one finger.
- suppaibeg, on 01/27/2009, -0/+5Newz Blogz needz some hitz mang!!!
You people howling at how much Apple sucks for suing Palm realize Apple hasn't actually done that yet right? They haven't actually sued anyone. You're being played like bitches so l33t blogz can get extra hits and revenue from your stupidity. Suckers. - Pliep, on 01/27/2009, -2/+7Yes, Apple does now: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf50 ...
- omjeremy, on 01/27/2009, -4/+8A lawsuit from Apple won't hold up in any court, not because the patent doesn't exist, but because the patent isn't valid. The USPTO has been giving out patents like mad to what seems like just about anyone that applies in the tech field. I don't mind Apple getting a design patent for their devices, but this is really just ridiculous. One of these days, all of these stupid patents will catch up with the USPTO. There seriously needs to be some reform with the way they're handling patents.
The only purpose of a SUPPOSED lawsuit from Apple to Palm would be to create bad news for Palm. The amount of negative PR Apple would get from this lawsuit would far outweigh the news.
Apple's blowing smoke. Nothing more.
Someone might as well patent the double click, or the scroll wheel when used to zoom into pictures on google earth. - austang, on 01/27/2009, -1/+5So no more multi-touching oranges, bananas, or any other fruit.
- autobulb, on 01/27/2009, -1/+5I don't know too much about patenting, but how can you patent a method for interacting with computers? Is the computer mouse patented by someone? Keyboard? All these devices are just different methods of input.
- Dacvak, on 01/27/2009, -0/+4***** balls... No multitouch for the Nintendo DS2.
- Tanze, on 01/27/2009, -1/+5they can patent multitouch, it just means the rest of the companies are stuck with the "triple tap" and the "make a circle" for zooming. hell thats what they did with the storm
- garths, on 01/27/2009, -1/+5Researchers have been working on multitouch interaction since the 80s. That doesn't mean there isn't anything patentable. Especially important are new hardware technologies (such as Han's FTIR) that make multitouch more practical. There are also interaction techniques that should be patentable, but not ones like pinch to zoom that are obvious to anyone working in the field.
For a good overview of multitouch refer to Bill Buxton's page:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html - Kazbaeden, on 01/27/2009, -0/+3Right, with patents you can protect a method, not every method. If someone comes up with a cure for cancer, you can patent that. But if someone else cures cancer in some other method, you can't say he's infringing on your IP. Similarly there are many ways to implement multitouch (FTIR, capacitance, optics, infrared, LED, etc.). Furthermore, there are different algorithms behind each piece of hardware to interpret input.
Apple may have a patent on a specific implementation of multitouch, but they won't be able to (pardon the pun) touch anyone else if their implementation is sufficiently different, even though the results are the same. - flangepiece, on 01/27/2009, -1/+4If these all refer to multitouch specifically with fingers, then I'm going to patent ***** and Balls multitouch functionality.
Like Mel Gibson once said: "You can take my finger-based multitouch functionality, but you can't take my ***** and balls!" - alibanana, on 01/27/2009, -1/+4If Apple does sue Palm and drives them into the ground before the Pre comes out, I for one will be extremely sad
- paulsmith288, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2thats 'progress' for you
- wonkavsn, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2I thought Tom Cruise did.
- garths, on 01/27/2009, -2/+4Did Apple file those patents before all the other researchers in the field? The researchers who have been working on multitouch since the 80s?
- rgersmrk, on 01/27/2009, -1/+3They own the rights to multi touch about as much as they thought they owned the rights to a GUI interface in the 90's. If this goes to the courts they will lose again.
- itcoll, on 01/27/2009, -3/+5yes .
- qwertydvorak, on 01/27/2009, -4/+5why did it take the xerox star to make apple finally get off its collective lazy ass and copy...err create something decent ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star
i am sure that palm has many patents in the handheld world. apple is probably "technically" violating at least one. it will end up being settled out of court if that is the case. probably with some cross licensing deal. - QubitTarutaru, on 01/27/2009, -2/+3Apple can go to hell if they try to inhibit progress in the computer field.
- Urkel, on 01/27/2009, -1/+2Neither should the scroll wheel or dozens of other Apple "inventions". (Did Apple really think up the idea of having a camera behind a screen when every sci-fi movie since the 1920's had video chat where people weren't looking above the monitor when they talked, they looked straight in at the camera)
I seriously don't understand how ANY company manages to patent so many things that already existed before they claimed it as their own. If something is absolutely unique and brilliant then that's what patents are for. But if something is as obvious as moving your hand then it absolutely cripples the industry to say that is an idea that only belongs to one company. - gbhall, on 01/27/2009, -3/+4Don't they create innovation seeing as the competitors need to create new, unique ways in order to achieve the same result?
- synapz, on 01/27/2009, -1/+2goffy59 is correct. I recommend "Against Intellectual Monopoly" for anyone who buried him.
- garths, on 01/27/2009, -0/+1The mouse was invented in the 60s, so any patent would have expired by now. But to answer your question: yes, a mouse should be patentable. It is an invention, like a new corkscrew, or a new kind of apple picking machine.
- cheapotheclown, on 01/27/2009, -3/+4If you invent it, it can be patented -- but a patent only lasts for a certain number of years.
Wikipedia on the inventor/patent holder of the computer mouse: "He never received any royalties for it, as his patent ran out before it became widely used in personal computers." - icanrule, on 01/27/2009, -2/+3Can someone remind me how patents work again. I always thought you couldn't patent the next logical step. Multi-touch screens seems like the next logical step.
- FredFredrickson, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1What a load of *****. Apple can own the methods by which they utilize and capture multi-touch, but they can't patent the very idea of touching a device.
- melat0nin, on 01/27/2009, -2/+3"If you invent it, it can be patented"
There is a little more to it than that. At least in countries where promoting innovation is considered more important than protecting profit. - devophl, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1The bottom line is Apple could use this to put a stranglehold on use of this technology. Your only options would be to pay exorbitant licensing fees or fight the patent in court. I suspect the iPhone and other Apple multitouch devices will slaughter the competition without the patent lawsuits but if anybody develops something that takes market share away from Apple, I doubt Apple would hesitate to throw down the gauntlet to impair or eliminate the competition.
I think Apple is safe from the Pre for now. Its too little too late for the Pre to make any end roads into the smartphone market. Apple probably only needs to threaten a lawsuit. This would likely delay the release of the Pre and likely kill it off before it even gets out the door. But if Microsoft buys out Palm and takes the Pre to be the next great Windows Mobile device, this could all change. - iChopPryde, on 01/29/2009, -0/+1No they don't ?
- digitalpencil, on 01/27/2009, -3/+4Firstly, Apple haven't actually done anything.. Cook said, he didn't want to talk about any specific companies, that Apple embrace competition but that like any company, should someone infringe upon their IP, they will defend their legal position.. They haven't filed a lawsuit against Palm, and they haven't discussed doing so.
Microsoft has filed many patents in its surface technology, if someone were to infringe upon their IP, you can bet your ass they'll respond in the exact same proposed manner, the same as any company. It is the responsibility of any company to its shareholders and employees to actively protect their IP by all legal means possible..
You say that if Microsoft did this then there would be outrage, but if MS' IP were being infringed they would react in the exact same proposed manner, like history shows us they always have and that is not a bad thing! That is how any responsible company reacts.
Competition inspires innovation but business is not inherently friendly, people do not freely share their ideas and you're being naive if you think that the publics' reaction to this would be any different if this was MS we were discussing right now. - ryanarchy, on 01/27/2009, -3/+4I'm glad to see this lawsuit go through, I just hope Palm's legal team is on the ball. There's plenty of prior art regarding multitouch, apple just managed to cram it into a small footprint first. If Palm wins, it'll open the door for everyone else which is great news.
- Kazbaeden, on 01/27/2009, -2/+3Microsoft has had its hand publically in multitouch research since the 90s, although I think it's a moot point by now; If Apple is going to have to defend it's patents from prior art, there is enough out there without with Surface.
Also, the Surface was just a little bit more impressive than what all those garage-built surfaces were coming up with. It had dozens of applications built from an almost complete SDK (which is now released). If you haven't seen the power of the SDK, it allows you to implement multitouch, gestures, and physics in any WPF application with a few commands. Not to mention the device supports up to 52 inputs (with a theoretical infinite limit) flawlessly, while other implementations have trouble tracking more than 10.
They also secured a manufacturer to produce the units, a process which takes longer than a weekend. Within a few months they were touring multiple surface devices across the country for demonstration. They also had to train the marketers, design promotional material, and secure multiple partners (Harrah's, T-mobile, Sheraton).
Is that the kind of work that you can do out of your garage? - strangewill, on 01/27/2009, -1/+2Bell Labs did actually.
- Midnitte, on 01/27/2009, -0/+1Its like patenting the concept of a word processor or operating system. >.>
- Macintoshreader, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1You're just making assumptions. There's nothing wrong with patenting IMPLEMENTATIONS of technology.
- Macintoshreader, on 01/28/2009, -2/+3They didn't patent multi-touch. They patented an IMPLEMENTATION of multi-touch. It's in their legal right to sue whoever uses the same implementation as them. Your statement is as stupid as saying that Apple patented user input on MP3 players when all that Apple did in fact was patent the Click Wheel.
Inform yourself before you go spewing misinformation. - frieddonuts, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1I have a WinMo pda and I personally prefer double-tapping to zoom in on text, compared to Safari's "Pinch." The only thing that I really miss multi-touch gestures on is when viewing pictures.
- orbital318, on 01/28/2009, -0/+1Oh yeah they have a monopoly on touch what ever.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is