or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Broad multitouch patent granted to Apple seen as 'huge blow' to rivals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #41 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Excellent post.

The far-less-inflamatory MacRumors site has posted this update, still absent from Apple Insider:


http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/22/...ser-interface/

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.
post #42 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I really don't care what PC Magazine says nor do I really care about their experts. The only thing that count is the claims in the patent which you can see below.


The claims, the important part of a patent, are very narrow if you read the above. To call the claims board is just inflammatory.

in a nut shell the patent covers using more than one finger in a content window, contained within another, to scroll that content without impacting the larger containing window. It is an extremely specific patent and does not materially effect the competition as there are many methods available to address scrolling within a sub window. A common approach will likely be tapping a content window to select it then scrolling with one finger.

If you don't like my cut and past job you can go here: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/7,966,578 (I hope I got the entire link there)

In any event I can see how this patent can be called broad at all. It covers specific use of two finger scrolling. Something that is unique and innovative from Apple. Because of the tight focus of the patent it does not materially effect the ability of other to compete.

Frankly this patent is only a problem if alternative systems have been copying Apple directly. To bad for them if they have been to lazy to come up with their own solutions.

I read it earlier, and I disagree with you.
post #43 of 111
.

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

.



.
post #44 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Y'know, I can answer in even bigger type whenever I want.

But if I have something worth saying, it's the saying and saying it well that matters. The size of your point is not the point. And doesn't make a point.

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.
post #45 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC Kelly View Post

post content

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.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #46 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I read it earlier, and I disagree with you.

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.
post #47 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So what we have here is a patent that may be considered to be "essential". Essential in the way of patents that they and Apple were posturing around until recently. If so, then Apple could be forced to license it According to FOSS, the way Nokia is required to for their essential patents.

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.
post #48 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

The patent, AFAIK, only covers one-finger web page scrolling. With two-finger scrolling on items within that web page. Not terribly broad, but it cuts right to the heart of the "internet experience" on a mobile device. How else could you conceivably scroll a web page? With 3 fingers? Four fingers?

Also, this judgement is likely just the tip of the Apple multi-touch patent iceberg. Apple filed a 290-page patent called "the iPhone patent" and I'm sure every little detail of the iPhone GUI (and that of other existing and future Apple devices) is covered in that document.

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.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #49 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

There are only two outcomes because of this.

Incredibly good or incredibly bad.

Incredibly good: This patent is upheld and everyone on the planet pays royalties to Apple for the tens of millions of devices shipped already. If they want to stop, they start making devices that aren't directly copied from Apple.

Incredibly bad: This patent is seen as "too broad" and overturned, along with Apple's others, making it possible for all Android devices to look identical to the iPhone in both hardware and software, even allowing for identical icons.

I don't see a middle ground happening.

Everyone has already ripped off Apple.
post #50 of 111
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You know, I'm not sure I like that you completely ruin formatting ...

But you certainly have a way with words.

.

The 'formatting' ?

Take that up with e.e.cummings

.

But the 'way with words' ?

Thank my Ol' English Professor from University

.



.
post #51 of 111
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.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

in a nut shell the patent covers using more than one finger in a content window, contained within another, to scroll that content without impacting the larger containing window. It is an extremely specific patent and does not materially effect the competition as there are many methods available to address scrolling within a sub window. A common approach will likely be tapping a content window to select it then scrolling with one finger.

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.
post #53 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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

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.
post #54 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Sure they do, it's just not their primary income stream, but they do license their tech in lots of instances. In some casees it's an opensource license such as webkit. In some cases they're under FRAND terms such as Apple's AAC patents which were included in the MP4 standard. In some instances as part of cross licensing agreements such as with MS.

In the case of multitouch patents Apple will probably end up licensing, albeit at a steep price - a refusal to do so would mean that every other handset maker would fight tooth and nail to have them invalidated.

So while Apple don't license entire OSes the way that Google or MS do, they certainly do license patents.

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.
post #55 of 111
deleted
post #56 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

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

It does not cover:[LIST][*]Single finger scrolling....

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?
post #57 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

No, you got it wrong. The proper response is "All your touch are belong to us."

That is the most ironic grammar policing I've ever seen.
post #58 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

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

Not so much FYI (unless I've been trolled. )
post #59 of 111
.

"All your touch are belong to us."


Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

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

.

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

.




.
post #60 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

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

It's referring to an Internet meme.

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #61 of 111
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.
post #62 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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.

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

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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.

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

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.


Quote:
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.

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 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer

So while Apple don't license entire OSes the way that Google or MS do, they certainly do license patents.

It's almost like you didn't actually read the post.
post #63 of 111
Partial Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

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.

I'm enjoying the debate you guys (?) are having ... but please tell me you are in fact a female!
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #64 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



"These lawsuits are making me thirsty..."

Awesome
post #65 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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 ..."

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.

Quote:
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?

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.
post #66 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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

The responsibility of making sure that the Internet reports what you expect to see must be frustrating at times...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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.

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

This is a reasonable statement... Seems out of place!
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #67 of 111
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.
post #68 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

The patent experts have already weighed in. It seems really quite a narrow patent to them.

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!

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #69 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



"These lawsuits are making me thirsty..."

Why does Johnny Ive have to be the girl?
post #70 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

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!

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.

Quote:
1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display; displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; 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; detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.

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!
post #71 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

There are only two outcomes because of this.

Incredibly good or incredibly bad.

Incredibly good: This patent is upheld and everyone on the planet pays royalties to Apple for the tens of millions of devices shipped already. If they want to stop, they start making devices that aren't directly copied from Apple.

Incredibly bad: This patent is seen as "too broad" and overturned, along with Apple's others, making it possible for all Android devices to look identical to the iPhone in both hardware and software, even allowing for identical icons.

I don't see a middle ground happening.

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.
post #72 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

Why does Johnny Ive have to be the girl?

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



Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

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?

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.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #73 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Forbes View Post

It will be interesting to see where this leads. Apple getting a royalty on every other smartphone sold? Tidy little income stream indeed.

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.
post #74 of 111
NILAY PATEL, ENGADGET's FAMOUS LAWYER, SAID APPLE'S PATENT ISNT AS BROAD AS PEOPLE THINK.


http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/22/a...s-media-crazy/

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #75 of 111
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...
post #76 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Forbes View Post

It will be interesting to see where this leads. Apple getting a royalty on every other smartphone sold? Tidy little income stream indeed.

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!
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #77 of 111
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.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #78 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

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!

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
post #79 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And I think that's a number three.

It's kinda hypnotic.
post #80 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

The patent, AFAIK, only covers one-finger web page scrolling. With two-finger scrolling on items within that web page. Not terribly broad, but it cuts right to the heart of the "internet experience" on a mobile device. How else could you conceivably scroll a web page? With 3 fingers? Four fingers?

Also, this judgement is likely just the tip of the Apple multi-touch patent iceberg. Apple filed a 290-page patent called "the iPhone patent" and I'm sure every little detail of the iPhone GUI (and that of other existing and future Apple devices) is covered in that document.

With one of those down the side things like on desktop PCs and pre 2008 phones.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Broad multitouch patent granted to Apple seen as 'huge blow' to rivals