Broad multitouch patent granted to Apple seen as 'huge blow' to rivals - Page 2

I read te PC article, the Patently Apple article, parts of the actual latent, and now, the reader comments to the PC article.

I'm willing to dismiss the comments, as most don't seem to be knowledgable at all, and the rest are just speculating. From the latent itself, I can see broad applications for a number of aspects of the patent, and as I said earlier, while it doesn't cover everything, and parts of it are specific, overall, it covers some very basic aspects of multitouch.

You don't have to cover everything in order to cover enough to make it difficult for everyone else.

If someone had the copyright to "a" and "e", and suddenly decided to require a license from every entity using those letters, it would be difficult, though not impossible to work around it, and it would take time to do so. Apple could have a similar stranglehold over some areas of multitouch that are basic to that.

I would also expect opponents to downplay the importance of the patent, as that would only benefit them.

I read it earlier, and I disagree with you.

.

Back when at the iPhone Intro

" I T . W O R K S . L I K E . M A G I C "

" A N D . B O Y . D I D . W E . P A T E N T . I T "


(His emphasis, not mine)

.

If ANYONE knows the History and Value of getting that Patent in First and Officially

Is Steve - who keeps gaining Wisdom as he faces his own Mortality

(Smart Guy)

.

So ...

To all Wannabes out there who hope to ride Apple's Bandwagon

Crack open your wallets and dig deep

This is not your Daddy's Apple -vs- Microsoft

.



.

It wouldn't have taken the writer much time at all to look up the patent and read the claims. Instead we have another knee jerk posting that simply repeats the opinion expressed on another site. If one blog did this no big deal but it seems like every site I've visited in the last half hour has posted the same thing.

So yeah I'm not to happy with AI right now. If I can shake things up a bit and get people to think a little bit then the big text has accomplished something.

You know, I'm not sure I like that you completely ruin formatting, and I'm not sure that I like how brucep completely ruins formatting.

But you certainly have a way with words.

However I'm seeing all sorts of reactions on the net including claims that Apple can stop the sales of competing tablets using touch screens. I do not see the patent as being that broad, at best Apple can force other systems to remove offending behaviors, it does not apply to the overall use of a touch interface.

Like I said it is good for Apple but isn't a huge show stopper for people willing to innovate.

You only need to do FRAND (not FOSS) licenses if it is part of an industry standard contribution. This is not the case here so it's not an "essential patent" and no one can compel Apple to offer FRAND licensing...other than challenging the patent and getting it nuked.

It also doesn't appear that broad to me...no broader than 1-click anyway. Meaning that yes, it would impact many existing platforms but that there are also many possible UI work arounds that limit the broad impact on the industry. Like 1-click it doesn't preclude you from making a online store...you just might have to make 2 clicks instead of 1 to buy something. Unlike some of Nokia's essential patents that would preclude you from making 3G GSM phones or something.

The look and feel would change and that's what Apple wants. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be an almost as good or perhaps even better interaction paradigms to accomplish the same thing.

The Dolphin browser on Android has one finger zooming. Tap twice on the screen, on the second tap hold your finger down and a swipe to the right zooms in, left zooms out. Works rather well.

Everyone has already ripped off Apple.

.


.

The 'formatting' ?

Take that up with e.e.cummings

.

But the 'way with words' ?

Thank my Ol' English Professor from University

.



.

It's definitely going to be interesting. The technology was not widely at the time of filing but it is now widely used when the patent is granted. Apple might fight having to license it but they might have no choice.

This.

I think the reason people are disagreeing with you is that they don't understand this part. Many...maybe even most, don't even know this exists. I'm embarrassed to say how long I went without knowing this was possible.

To be clear on what this granted patent does and does not cover:

It does not cover:

• Single finger scrolling.
• Capacitive touch screens.
• Touching of icons to launch them.
• Flipping between pages/photos with the entire screen changing

It does cover:

• Scrolling a frame within a web page by using two fingers, leaving the rest of the page stationary.
• It doesn't have to be a web page, it can be any embedded frame where 2 finger scrolling keeps the rest of the display stationary.

Yes, this is a very narrowly defined patent. I don't expect much to come out of this other than competitors using alternative methods for frame scrolling such as the example you gave.

No, it isn't a show-stopper for those willing to innovate. But it could be, for consumers who have got used to non-Apple multitouch products. They have to re-learn basic gestures, and that could be a problem.

You have a weird way of making it seem like your argument is devastatingly conclusive (and even rational), when in fact, it's neither, and you are usually arguing for things that simply aren't true at all. Perhaps you were in the debating team at high school.

Here for example, you deconstruct the oft-quoted, completely common knowledge fact that "Apple doesn't do licences." Everyone who knows Apple knows that they don't in fact "do licensing" (much), but you grab this fact here and that fact there and make it seem like they do.

What people mean when they say "Apple doesn't do licences," is that unlike almost every other tech company out there, they don't care about getting revenue from licensing. They patent their technology for the purposes of stopping other people from using it for the most part. They want exclusive rights to everything they do and everything they use, and if they are forced to licence someone *else's* technology they typically want a world-wide exclusive licence til the end of time.

This has always been true. Everyone knows this and despite your devastating evidence, I think this is likely what the OP was referring to.

Sure, technically, they have licensed their tech before, will do it again, and also licence tech from others. None of that changes the fact that Apple "doesn't do licensing" in the sense that they are happier denying the use of their technology than they are selling the rights to use it, and that they really don't give a rat's ass about whatever funds they can derive from licensing.

deleted

wrong, I think.

"... 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 ..."

I could be wrong on this, but I think you could be also.

So, what I really think (irrespective of single finger scrolling), is that Wizard69 and everyone else should stop saying they definitively know what the patent covers, when they really don't.

It seems really quite a broad patent to me. You can shout me down like all the rest, but the truth is that you don't really know either do you? How about we wait for the patent experts to weigh in on it instead of saying a lot of stuff that we aren't really sure of?

That is the most ironic grammar policing I've ever seen.

Not so much FYI (unless I've been trolled. )

.

"All your touch are belong to us."



.

GQB ...

Let's assume you Get It™

And just being snarky




But for those who don't ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_you...e_belong_to_us

.




.

It's referring to an Internet meme.

We don't not carez for grammr on teh Interwebz.

My reading is that the patent is not very broad but covers a portion of what Apple actually does, and that most if not all competitors currently do the same things, so if the patent is valid they are infringing.

They can stop infringing if they find other ways to do it that are not covered by Apple patents.

Until they do, Apple has a right to be compensated.

If it seems rational and devastating it's because it is, logic and facts have that general appearance.


Indeed I pulled a bunch of instances when they do, in order to demonstrate that they do sometimes. Shocking stuff I grant you. Debate teams aside I worry that your highschool failed to educate you on the use of facts to support arguments. Did you perhaps have a theological education? Are we supposed to argue from faith alone?


Apple are bidding on the Nortel patents. We know this because they have requested and been granted leave to do so. The most valuable of the Nortel patents are included in 4G standards and will thus have to be licensed. So Apple is bidding on a bunch of patents that it fully expects to license. Yet another inconvenient fact that you can ignore if you like.

If one said that Apple do not license their core IP then that would be true. If one said that Apple do not patent troll that would be true. However saying 'Apple don't do licensing' in the context of a patent that they will be highly likely to end up licensing - is ludicrous.

Why will Apple license this patent? Invalidation. Put simply if they don't then there is literally no end to the legal fight because single finger scrolling is so fundamental. The other risk is that they could be deemed to be attempting to establish a monopoly. If that happened they would be required to license the patent, potentially under less favourable terms than they could have achieved through a settlement.
EDIT: On rereading I'm convinced that this patent only covers 2+ finger scrolling within a window, so I guess this isn't so fundamental.

The final reason that they will license the patent is because it's better to start charging Android sooner than later. Steep licensing fees on its competitors will serve to limit their growth and leave Apple more able to grow it's share without giving up margins. A scorched earth policy would only encourage handset makers to drag the fight out as long as possible.


The 'everybody knows this argument' is known as the Argumentum ad Populum. If you are willing to believe what 'everybody knows' in the face of evidence then you would have been wrong about an awful lot of things over the course of human history.

Go and find me a case of Apple winning a lawsuit regarding a broad software or hardware patent and refusing flat out to license it. Not a design patent, a functional patent. I've looked and I can't. Either the guy meant that Apple never license stuff in which case he was wrong, or he meant that there's no way they'll license this patent - in which case he's still wrong.



Sure technically I slept with the pizza guy, will do it again, and also entertained the cable guy. None of that changes the fact that I don't do casual sex, in the sense that I'm happier saving myself for true love.

Sorry - but your argument boils down to this : 'Apple doesn't do licensing' means that they don't license the big picture stuff like iOS or OS-X and they jealously guard their trademarks.

Oh wait -

It's almost like you didn't actually read the post.

Partial Quote:


I'm enjoying the debate you guys (?) are having ... but please tell me you are in fact a female!

Awesome

You cut out the important parts of the section that make this specific to scrolling the page with one finger while scrolling the frame with two fingers. It's the ability to do both that makes this specific, and narrow.


I would suggest taking all of the comments ever posted here as opinion. I've yet to see anyone here post, "I'm posting on behalf of the US Supreme Court, and here is our ruling on the matter". Until then, or this gets as far as it gets in terms of the legal course, then it's all opinion of how things will be interpreted and whether the patent could/will be challenged.

I'm obviously not a lawyer, and didn't imply that I was, however, I do understand the technology, and was trying to clear up a misconception that I've seen here based on not understanding the difference between single finger scrolling and the patent claim of being able to do that while two finger scrolling within a frame.

So, "everyone" is reporting the story differently than you see it, therefore "everyone" must be wrong. It seems like there is another possibility there...

The responsibility of making sure that the Internet reports what you expect to see must be frustrating at times...

Did you notice that no one in the previous 50 or so comments on AI was actually making those claims? Some said it was a "big deal" or that Apple's competitors were in trouble, but you seem to be responding here to posters on other sites...
Nice...

This is a reasonable statement... Seems out of place!

The technology and the practical use of touch as interface input is still early. Pushing buttons will be part of the past and gestures will increase on more electronic and mechanical devices to come.

Firstly: Can we see these so called claims please, in writing from credible sources?

Secondly: Read the patent a bit more closely - if you bothered to ACTUALLY read and understand it rather than taking a look at the size of the claim list, you will see that it basically says one thing - using your finger, or fingers, to transform content on screen, and the content applies to Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Presentations, Email, Basic Scrolling through content and the World Wide Web! The patent, in a nut shell, is a patent for how to use a touch screen enabled computing device.

Thats rather broad, in fact its very broad!

Why does Johnny Ive have to be the girl?

I believe it doesn't - look at claim 1 in more detail. If we only had the bold section we would indeed have a patent for single finger scrolling. But that's not how patents work, the entire claim has to be considered. So this claim covers the combination of one and two finger scrolling. The other claims are similar, in that there is no claim that talks just about single finger scrolling. This may be because that is covered by another patent or it may be because there was prior art and Apple knew that they couldn't get it - I'll bet the former.


Edit: Just spotted this quote on a tech-website 'Apple granted patent on webpage scrolling behaviors, media granted patent on crazy'. Well it made me laugh!

Do you honestly think it would be "incredibly good" for a single company to own a patent for something like a gesture? Is it really fair on other companies that they must pay money to someone else just because they registered the idea first?

I doubt many users care who did what first - and I think even those who are in favour of this will have forgotten in a few years as well.

Because he can't be Newman. That's Samsung's CEO's job.




Yes. It forces differentiation. Android looks exactly like iOS. It's pointless.

Windows Phone 7 is GORGEOUS and doesn't look a thing like it. THAT'S what we need more of. Microsoft actually did the right thing.

And if Apple's really lucky, the royalties might even cover the attorney fees necessary to defend the patents.

A patent is only as good as the legal team behind it.

I am very glad that Apple got this patent. I don't find gestures with two or more fingers particularly convenient or intuitive, and the last thing I would like is everyone starting to copy them. It's bad enough that the likes of Samsung get a very flexible and customizable OS for free, then waste the opportunity to make something good of it, and instead ape Apple's square grid of static icons...

microsoft was selling surface whichg did more multitouch than this patent covers...there were many other touch screen devices in vertical markets before the iphone as well...Glad we are a first to invent country and not a first to file...prior art baby!

Breaking: Giant text somewhat easier to read than smaller text.



Wow, that emoticon was really effective. There's 1) not driving the point home enough, 2) driving the point home too much, and 3) doing it tastefully.

And I think that's a number three.

Microsoft announced Surface in May 07, shipped it in Apr 08. iPhone announced in Jan 07, Shipped in Jun 07. So it's highly unlikely that MS has any prior art on multi-touch.

The relevant prior art claim for multitouch would probably be something like this :

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.html

It's kinda hypnotic.

With one of those down the side things like on desktop PCs and pre 2008 phones.