or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple files countersuit against Nokia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple files countersuit against Nokia - Page 3

post #81 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Teckstud simply wants attention, hence his high post count. It's an unfortunately common behavior:

Troll
(Internet) A person who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose.

Attention whore
(Internet) Someone who craves attention and is not above soliciting it via deliberately meaningless or provocative tactics.



Since he makes it extremely difficult to ignore his posts, our only recourse is to report him to AppleInsider. It is in their interests to keep these forums informative, pleasant, and useful, and teckstud's behavior works against that.

To report his posts simply click the red exclamation mark under his name and then enter 'Trolling' as the reason. Do that as often as required. He's dragging everyone else down with his selfish antics.

Reported as both harrassment and name calling. This doesn't just work one way - I have been assured.
post #82 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSux View Post

So true.. So true..

This will end in a stalemate, or at best, Apple getting spanked with a huge fine.

Nokia has nothing to worry about.

If you read the article. or have followed similar cases that dragged on for years and years (including, curiously enough, Nokia vs Qualcomm and RIM vs NTP), that's exactly what usually happens - STALEMATE.

The parties then settle out-of-court away from our prying eyes.

However, in this situation, I suspect that what Nokia is looking for is not money, but to get an injunction in Europe or even USA (like NTP did to RIM in 2006/7) halting the sales of all iPhone products until they disabuse themselves of the infringement.

This, they hope, will slow Apple's breakneck advance into the smartphone industry and outright leadership enough for Nokia's R&D to have a chance of playing catch-up.

Fat chance, now that the counterstrike has been launched. Back to stalemate.
post #83 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It seems to me many of these infringements apply to every iPhone wannabe out there from Pre to Blackberry.

If that's the case and it's true, then Apple is being selective, interested more in creating an example than anything else.
post #84 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Can you pinch/zoom on an ATM screen, anywhere on the screen?

I admit, I haven't tried that yet.

I've been tempted to take a sledge hammer to one now and then LOL
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #85 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...1&postcount=48


Quote:
Through the present suit, Nokia has asserted unfounded claims of infringement and breached licensing commitments it made to license on F/RAND [Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms all patents that it claimed were necessary for a party to practice standards. Nokia has also violated those licensing commitments by demanding unjustifiable royalties and reciprocal licenses to Apple's patents covering Apple's pioneering technology -- patents unrelated to any industry standard. This attempt by Nokia to leverage patents previously pledged to industry standards is an effort to free ride on the commercial success of Apple's innovative iPhone while avoiding liability for copying the iPhone and infringing Apple's patents.

Apple denies that any of Nokia's patents cited in its own lawsuit are "essential" to standards, but even if a court should rule any of the contested claims valid, Apple should be granted F/RAND licensing terms, which Nokia has refused to offer.

In support of its claims that Nokia has already copied iPhone intellectual property, Apple points to comments made by a Nokia executive soon after the launch of the original iPhone highlighting Nokia's interest in copying Apple's inventions.


The above is the most crucial bit about this report. Basically, if a company invents and patents technology which is essential to establishing a standard (such as GSM), then that company is obliged to offer it on F/RAND [Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms.

Apple is saying that Nokia is going beyond the commitment it gave and wants to charge Apple more than it charges others who make use of the same technology. In addition, Nokia is also asking for "unjustifiable royalties and reciprocal licenses to Apple's patents covering Apple's pioneering technology".

So Apple is quite right to not only defend itself but also go on a counter-attack because Nokia has violated Apple's IP.

That's the way to back up a claim and give a posting to another Apple Rumor site.

Serious Question. When you Google or Bing do you have your Mac set to only give you Mac rumor site results?

Nobody knows the inner dealings of what is happening as in all the patent postings on the web. Apple & Nokia at this point are the only ones that know the entire picture in this story. Anything else is purely speculation. Something that you are very familiar with.
post #86 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I've been tempted to take a sledge hammer to one now and then LOL

A brand new take on the Stylus!
post #87 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusYoung View Post

That's the way to back up a claim and give a posting to another Apple Rumor site.

Serious Question. When you Google or Bing do you have your Mac set to only give you Mac rumor site results?

Nobody knows the inner dealings of what is happening as in all the patent postings on the web. Apple & Nokia at this point are the only ones that know the entire picture in this story. Anything else is purely speculation. Something that you are very familiar with.

I cited a poster from another Mac site because the poster made sense, and drew a fair conclusion from the material they quoted, related to this discussion. It at least advances this discussion in a more meaningful way than your trolling.
post #88 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusYoung View Post

Disturbing... Hate much?

Agreed.
post #89 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

it was already used to provide security for the last superbowl

so you use a glorified sports event that is hosted ONCE A YEAR, to show how practical it is? That's the one example you are going to go with?

that just proves my point, and i doubt that most security companies would find this practical, and on top of that, you pick an event that costs what a couple of million to advertise for 30 secs. If that is not a case of bloated expensive useless garbage being used for bloated overpaid useless events I do not what is. So at least the NFL and Microsoft is consistent.

If Apple produced a 10,000 multitouch computer, there would be Microsoft fanboys foaming at the mouth to rip apple a new one. Yes I know you can be a dream Mac Pro for almost 20K but its entirely more useful and not a gimmicky wannabe.
post #90 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngusYoung View Post

Explain the article on CNN on the beginnings of multi touch and the final product used by CNN everday?

Why has Apple not sued Microsoft for Surface which pre-dates the Magic Wall Concept by a decade?

In October 2001, a virtual team was formed with Bathiche and Wilson as key members, to bring the idea to the next stage of development."

There are different implementations of what comes under the general grouping of multi-touch, people.

Apple's particular implementation of multi-touch with gestures, which it has patented, comes to them by virtue of a company they acquired called FingerWorks.
post #91 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

And then haven't (yet) supplied a source or citation.

EDIT: (Jerseymac's post slipped in while I was composing that)



I haven't reviewed the video itself, but did Jobs explicitly state that Apple 'invented multitouch'? As I recall, he showed off the overall capabilities of the device, and then quipped, "And boy, have we patented it." That statement could refer to any number of underlying technologies, not necessarily 'multi-touch' itself (however it might be defined).

SJ is very good at describing an ordinary feature and making it seem like it's going to change computing forever. i remember the time virtual desktops came to OS X and SJ was describing it like it was some huge innovation when in reality ^nix and Windows have had it for years and no one used it much.
post #92 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetoric.assassin View Post

because apple has never given YOU anything for me, means the same as Apple never gives anything for free...more hyperbolic rhetoric.

You're completely wrong on this point.

One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.

Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.
post #93 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetoric.assassin View Post

so you use a glorified sports event that is hosted ONCE A YEAR, to show how practical it is? That's the one example you are going to go with?

that just proves my point, and i doubt that most security companies would find this practical, and on top of that, you pick an event that costs what a couple of million to advertise for 30 secs. If that is not a case of bloated expensive useless garbage being used for bloated overpaid useless events I do not what is. So at least the NFL and Microsoft is consistent.

If Apple produced a 10,000 multitouch computer, there would be Microsoft fanboys foaming at the mouth to rip apple a new one. Yes I know you can be a dream Mac Pro for almost 20K but its entirely more useful and not a gimmicky wannabe.

HP has a touch screen PC where you touch the screen like on the iphone. it's actually kind of funny since my 2 year old loves my iphone and it's very hard to teach him the concept of a mouse on my PC's and Mac. he keeps touching the monitor to try to make something happen
post #94 of 278
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/11...it-copy-phone/

In countersuit, Apple says Nokia missed paradigm shift and therefore chose to copy the iPhone

"In Apples countersuit today, it accuses Nokia of attempting a 'patent hold-up.' The patents in question are part of industry standards, and as such Nokia must license them under fair and reasonable terms, argues Apple. But instead, Nokia tried to put the squeeze on Apple," Erick Schonfeld reports for TechCrunch. "Apple states in its countersuit:"

In dealing with Apple, Nokia has sought to gain an unjust competitive advantage over Apple by charging unwarranted fees to use patents that allegedly cover industry compatability standards.

Schonfeld reports, "Whether or not Apples arguments hold water is for a court to decide. But Apple takes the opportunity of this legal battle to make a swipe at Nokia as a flailing competitor. If you read between the lines of the suit, the reason Nokia is not willing to license its patents under 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms' to Apple is because while Apple was creating a 'revolutionary change in the mobile phone category' with the iPhone, Nokia was sitting on its haunches:"

In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focussed on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. . . . In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone.

Schonfeld reports, "In other words, Nokia is losing in the marketplace so it is falling back on the only thing it has leftits patents."
post #95 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You're completely wrong on this point.

One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.

Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.

I think you two are actually in agreement, if I'm reading Rhetoric's comment correctly.
post #96 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You're completely wrong on this point.

One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.

Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.

Please note that the quote you referenced was pointing out the same thing, in response to teckstud's provocation. The order (and grammar) were confusing.
post #97 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Stay with me here:

Apple sells music and video material at their iTunes store. Apple gets a cut of the sale, and the label/artist gets a cut. Apple provides the software, tech support, advertising, storage, electricity, and network bandwidth required to fulfill the purchase. Those components all cost money.

If Apple then offers material for people to download for free, they are assuming all the associated costs necessary to do so. Apple is GIVING YOU ALL OF THAT, FOR FREE.

You continue to waste everyone's time with your willful stupidity. Either that or you are simply a forum troll, and seek some perverse pleasure with your incessant mosquito bites attempting to point out some pedantic technicality or a trivial weakness of Apple and their products. You are the noise to everyone else's signal. You now have a post count exceeding 6400, of which the vast majority are childish one-liners seeking a response just for the sake of provocation. There are many people who have expressed exasperation or outright disgust with your antics. It's not just me.

Don't you think it's time for a little introspection?

Thanks for that well-articulated post. What a disaster this guy is (was?).
post #98 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I cited a poster from another Mac site because the poster made sense, and drew a fair conclusion from the material they quoted, related to this discussion. It at least advances this discussion in a more meaningful way than your trolling.

A similar comparison would be me quoting Colbert that quoted John Stewart. A show that can't be taken serious and two sites that can't be taken serious.

The difference is everyone in both forums appears to be patent attorneys because they appear to have all the answers. Always favorable to Apple.
post #99 of 278
Apple Says Nokia Wanted Cross-License for Apple iPhone Patents

Engadgets Nilay Patel is reading Apples filing, and I think hes found the heart of the disagreement:

Apple says Nokias patents arent actually essential to GSM / UMTS, denies infringing them, and says theyre invalid and / or unenforceable anyway. Apple also says Nokia wanted unreasonable license terms for the patents, including a cross-license for Apples various iPhone device patents as part of any deal, which Apple clearly wasnt willing to do.

The big question about this dispute all along has been why Apple didnt just license Nokias GSM/UMTS patents. Supposedly every other GSM phone maker (or at least all the other major ones) does, and theyre relatively cheap. The answer is that Nokia didnt just want licensing fees from Apple: they wanted cross-license rights to Apples own iPhone patents.


Daring Fireball 09-12-11 12:47 PM John Gruber http://daringfireball.net/

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/11/a...ng-13-patents/
post #100 of 278
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...tersues-nokia/

In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more….The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.

In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.

In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface….

As Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s executive Vice President and General Manager of Multimedia, stated at Nokia’s GoPlay event in 2007 when asked about the similarities of Nokia’s new offerings to the already released iPhone: “if there is something good in the world, we copy with pride.” True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple’s iPhone ideas as well as Apple’s basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia’s purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior.
post #101 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Is nothing sinking in?

You have learned well, Grasshopper.
post #102 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

If that's the case and it's true, then Apple is being selective, interested more in creating an example than anything else.

why worry about Android, a fracturing OS on multiple platforms? Why go after RIM? Let the business nerds keep their crummy scrolling ball and worse hardware keyboards.

You show that the Number one worldwide cellphone maker is in your sights and has nothing to combat their shrinking sales...
post #103 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You're completely wrong on this point.

One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.

Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.

I was being sarcastic to Teckstud's reply..
post #104 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You're completely wrong on this point.

One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.

Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I think you two are actually in agreement, if I'm reading Rhetoric's comment correctly.

yes we are...sometimes snark is lost with my bad proofreading

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Please note that the quote you referenced was pointing out the same thing, in response to teckstud's provocation. The order (and grammar) were confusing.

yea what I meant to say was..

yea because since apple has not given anything to you for free means the same as they never give out anything for free...
post #105 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

SJ is very good at describing an ordinary feature and making it seem like it's going to change computing forever. i remember the time virtual desktops came to OS X and SJ was describing it like it was some huge innovation when in reality ^nix and Windows have had it for years and no one used it much.

Apple never made a big deal of "spaces", no commercial about it either.

Besides, for all we know he had it first on NeXT, which was Unix, way before people like Gnome or KDE had it.

Btw, who had desktop compositing first?
post #106 of 278
The patents Apple says Nokia infringes:

No. 5,634,074 : Serial I/O device identifies itself to a computer through a serial interface during power on reset then it is being configured by the computer
No. 6,343,263 B1 : Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
No. 5,915,131 : Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services
No. 5,555,369: Method of creating packages for a pointer-based computer system
No. 6,239,795 B1: Pattern and color abstraction in a graphical user interface
No. 5,315,703: Object-oriented notification framework system
No. 6,189,034 B1: Method and apparatus for dynamic launching of a teleconferencing application upon receipt of a call
No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
No. RE 39, 486 E: Extensible, replaceable network component system
No. 5,455,854: Object-oriented telephony system
No. 7,383,453 B2: Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor
No. 5,848,105: GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality
No. 5, 379,431: Boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load


Seriously?

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...tersues-nokia/
post #107 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Dude, multi -touch has been around since the 90's- have you ever used a Citibank ATM? Apple would like you to think they invent everything. Even the new mouse is nothing revoutionary. It's just the way Apple presents it that's different.

Dude, atoms have been around since the beginning of time, and everything is made up of them. (actually I am getting a patent for this. :-) ) Everything uses atoms , just in different forms. LOL

REally, its the different uses that are what is really patentable. The US gov. is being a joke by accepting patents that have had common use for years and years before someone trys to patent them. Maybe one day we will learn.

Just a thought,
en
post #108 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Apple never made a big deal of "spaces", no commercial about it either.

Besides, for all we know he had it first on NeXT, which was Unix, way before people like Gnome or KDE had it.

Btw, who had desktop compositing first?


Microsoft had it as a download for Windows 95 or 98, can't remember which. i tried it and hated it after 5 minutes. it's a stupid "feature" that is solved by multiple application windows. but it was funny to watch SJ talk about it
if NeXT had it first it would have been on OS X when it shipped, not in a later version.
post #109 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Apple never made a big deal of "spaces", no commercial about it either.

Besides, for all we know he had it first on NeXT, which was Unix, way before people like Gnome or KDE had it.

Actually, NeXTSTEP never had anything like Spaces available.

It offered an abstracted window server that offered some of the remote windowing capabilities of X Windows, but not virtual desktops like Spaces. (Nor, alas, fast user switching.)
post #110 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I was point blank called "an idiot" and I should be banned? Not cool and bad logic.

Where? I stepped back a couple pages and didn't find it.
post #111 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

Microsoft had it as a download for Windows 95 or 98, can't remember which. i tried it and hated it after 5 minutes. it's a stupid "feature" that is solved by multiple application windows. but it was funny to watch SJ talk about it
if NeXT had it first it would have been on OS X when it shipped, not in a later version.

Speaking for myself, I love Spaces. My workflow is built around it. Apple's implementaion of it is really the best I've seen. I've got it set to a hot corner. I couldn't do without it.
post #112 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetoric.assassin View Post

why worry about Android, a fracturing OS on multiple platforms? Why go after RIM? Let the business nerds keep their crummy scrolling ball and worse hardware keyboards.

You show that the Number one worldwide cellphone maker is in your sights and has nothing to combat their shrinking sales...

Sorry to ruin the dream, but Apple are countersuing. They didn't initiate the proceedings.
post #113 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

Sorry to ruin the dream, but Apple are countersuing. They didn't initiate the proceedings.

I think what he means is Apple is showing "the Number one worldwide cellphone maker is in your sights and has nothing to combat their shrinking sales..." in their countersuit. It isn't related to who initiated the proceedings.
post #114 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Please note that the quote you referenced was pointing out the same thing, in response to teckstud's provocation. The order (and grammar) were confusing.

My bad then.

I would say that teckstud is totally wrong on this point, but we all know he's wrong about almost everything.
post #115 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Actually, NeXTSTEP never had anything like Spaces available.

It offered an abstracted window server that offered some of the remote windowing capabilities of X Windows, but not virtual desktops like Spaces. (Nor, alas, fast user switching.)

While I cannot confirm it was in NeXT, the clone of NeXT, Window Maker, has "Workspaces", and that means multiple desktops.

XP had an add on for multiple desktops. It wasn't a very good one but it did work. As to why to this very day they won't implement it is beyond me.
post #116 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Speaking for myself, I love Spaces. My workflow is built around it. Apple's implementaion of it is really the best I've seen. I've got it set to a hot corner. I couldn't do without it.

Pretty sure virtual desktops are much older than Microsoft's XP implementation. HP had an add on for Windows 3.1 that used it back when 3.1 was fighting OS-2 for relevance. Solaris had it ages and ages ago. It's a useful tool that's been around for a long long time in many OS's and many incarnations.

I like OS-X's version of it a lot, but it doesn't actually work for most apps. I've heard this is the fault of the apps, and if everyone got on board the "being aware of virtual desktops" train it couldn't hurt.

The biggest offenders in terms of not working with the OS-X implementation are indeed the crappiest, lowest quality apps like the Adobe CS suite etc., so it's probably up to the app vendors to work out the kinks.
post #117 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

And then haven't (yet) supplied a source or citation.

I haven't reviewed the video itself, but did Jobs explicitly state that Apple 'invented multitouch'? As I recall, he showed off the overall capabilities of the device, and then quipped, "And boy, have we patented it." That statement could refer to any number of underlying technologies, not necessarily 'multi-touch' itself (however it might be defined).

I'm watching the keynote now. Here is the exact line:

We're going to touch this with our fingers. And we have invented a new technology called Multi Touch. Which is phenomenal. It works like magic. You don't need a stylus. Ahem. It's far more accurate than any touch display that's ever been shipped. It ignores unintended touches, it's super smart. You can do multi fingered gestures on it. And boy have we patented it.

This keynote is in iTunes under Macworld 2007 Keynote and this quote is about thirty minutes into the speech.
post #118 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetoric.assassin View Post

why worry about Android, a fracturing OS on multiple platforms? Why go after RIM? Let the business nerds keep their crummy scrolling ball and worse hardware keyboards.

Android and Google repeats Windows (Unix, Linux, etc) way - the same OS on different hardware sets. And iPhone is pure Apple ideology - single OS on VERY limited hardware configurations.
Let check the market share of Windows/Unix/Linux and MacOS - I think you will something interesting
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #119 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

We're going to touch this with our fingers. And we have invented a new technology called Multi Touch... And boy have we patented it.

Thanks for the citation.

Now it's a matter of semantics whether 'Multi-touch' (in any of it's capitalization or hyphenation variants) refers to a specific patentable technology or the overall gesture-based UI. I personally can't imagine Jobs making that claim in an extremely visible keynote three years ago and no one has contested it until this very forum, but IANAL, nor have I followed the legal cases that closely.
post #120 of 278
Aaahhh....... (deep breath).

It is nice to revel in actual intelligent content compared to the fractured mess in Pages 1 and 2 of this thread......

(Sorry to be off-topic, but I had to say it).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple files countersuit against Nokia