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

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 115
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,331member
    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.
  • Reply 62 of 115
    westechwestech Posts: 17member
    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.
  • Reply 63 of 115
    joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    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?



    The patent experts have already weighed in. It seems really quite a narrow patent to them.
  • Reply 64 of 115
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    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.
  • Reply 65 of 115
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    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!
  • Reply 66 of 115
    sipadansipadan Posts: 107member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post






    "These lawsuits are making me thirsty..."



    Awesome
  • Reply 67 of 115
    macslutmacslut Posts: 514member
    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.
  • Reply 68 of 115
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,756member
    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!
  • Reply 69 of 115
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member
    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.
  • Reply 70 of 115
    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!
  • Reply 71 of 115
    hittrj01hittrj01 Posts: 753member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post






    "These lawsuits are making me thirsty..."



    Why does Johnny Ive have to be the girl?
  • Reply 72 of 115
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    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!
  • Reply 73 of 115
    neiltc13neiltc13 Posts: 182member
    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.
  • Reply 74 of 115
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    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.
  • Reply 75 of 115
    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.
  • Reply 76 of 115
    joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    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!





    Nilay Patel, intellectual property lawyer and former Engadget editor (now at This is my Next), told Ars that the patent's claims are "unfairly narrow." Patel notes that they require single-finger scrolling along with reprinted scrolling within a frame on a website (think an embedded Google Map, like our example above). "Also, it only applies to Web browsers on mobile devices, not multitouch in general," Patel said. "[B]asically no one's read the claims carefully enough." (Patel has written more analysis on the patent at This is my Next.)



    A blog called Litigating Apple is also on Patel's side, writing: "You don't have to be a patent attorney or a paranoid Apple competitor to understand that this patent doesn't afford Apple broad patent coverage over all capacitive multi-touch interfaces."



    What's clear is that Apple's recent moves to aggressively defend its intellectual property has left everyone on edge?so much so that even the narrowest of patents are now receiving extra scrutiny from experts and non-experts alike.



    http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...rks-debate.ars
  • Reply 77 of 115
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    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/
  • Reply 78 of 115
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    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...
  • Reply 79 of 115
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    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!
  • Reply 80 of 115
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.