If they did not, why would they go after Apple, they should go after the one selling the sensor or screen.
First of all, there are several different "touch sensing" technologies out there.
The one many people think of first would be the pressure-sensitive touchscreen found in most PDAs. Clearly this is not being used on the iPhone, because the iPhone only responds to contact with flesh-like materials -- a stylus or similar implement gets no response at all no matter how hard you push. (Okay, well,if you push too hard you'll obviously get a reaction, but it probably wouldn't be the kind you're looking for...)
Alternatively, there's an implementation in which you must use a special stylus with an embedded light sensor, which recognizes subliminal patterns on the screen to identify the cursor's position. That's obviously not being used.
What Quantum Research claims a patent on is capacitive proximity detection. My understanding is that this involves detecting changes in the electric field brought about by particular dielectric materials (such as human flesh) coming into contact with capacitive transducers. Sensors are designed to detect the resulting changes in the capacitance to identify the touch and localize it.
Apparently Apple has previously used an all-in-one chip provided by a third-party to implement the scroll-wheels in 4/5G iPods and iPod Minis, and that third-party either used a different implementation, or else it was independently licensed by QR.
But the iPod Nanos apparently use a Cypress PSoC (Programmable System-on-a-Chip) to interface with the capacitive sensors directly. The PSoC just a generic array of GPIO, DAC, and ADC inputs/outputs mapped to arbitrary pins on a chip with an embedded programmable 16-bit microcontroller to glue it all together. It's intended to allow system designers to take mixed-signal analog- and digital circuits which previously would have required lots of PCB space and several discrete components, and integrate them in a single-chip hybrid programmable platform.
QR alleges that the PSoC is running firmware which apparently implements QR's patented process without license. Apple may want to defend itself by showing prior art in the field of capacitive proximity detection, or claiming that QR's patent is invalid because it is an obvious evolution of technology for anybody reasonably versed in the field.
Cypress cannot be held responsible for the firmware that other people install on their remarkably generic chip. That would be like holding Intel responsible for running software that infringes on the European patent on progress bars.
Damn, Apple sure does steal a lot of stuff from others and then claim it as their own.
We have to see if that's true.
The Supreme Court is about to look at the patent system. The biggest problem is the question of "obviousness". There is a tremendous problem with that question. As a result, there are numerous patents that overlap. That has to be sorted out.
This could be the case here.
I haven't read all of the relevant applications, so I can't make a statement about it, but this isn't that uncommon these days.
Life was much simpler when patents were mostly for simpler devices that could be made to work with small physical models. Todays patents, and inventions, are far too complex, and esoteric.
I've seen a number of patents in one of my fields (audio), that simply don't work, either theoretically, or practically. They don't get overturned because only that company ever attempts to use them in products, and the products (and companies) vanish after a while.
First of all, there are several different "touch sensing" technologies out there.
The one many people think of first would be the pressure-sensitive touchscreen found in most PDAs. Clearly this is not being used on the iPhone, because the iPhone only responds to contact with flesh-like materials -- a stylus or similar implement gets no response at all no matter how hard you push. (Okay, well,if you push too hard you'll obviously get a reaction, but it probably wouldn't be the kind you're looking for...)
Alternatively, there's an implementation in which you must use a special stylus with an embedded light sensor, which recognizes subliminal patterns on the screen to identify the cursor's position. That's obviously not being used.
What Quantum Research claims a patent on is capacitive proximity detection. My understanding is that this involves detecting changes in the electric field brought about by particular dielectric materials (such as human flesh) coming into contact with capacitive transducers. Sensors are designed to detect the resulting changes in the capacitance to identify the touch and localize it.
Apparently Apple has previously used an all-in-one chip provided by a third-party to implement the scroll-wheels in 4/5G iPods and iPod Minis, and that third-party either used a different implementation, or else it was independently licensed by QR.
But the iPod Nanos apparently use a Cypress PSoC (Programmable System-on-a-Chip) to interface with the capacitive sensors directly. The PSoC just a generic array of GPIO, DAC, and ADC inputs/outputs mapped to arbitrary pins on a chip with an embedded programmable 16-bit microcontroller to glue it all together. It's intended to allow system designers to take mixed-signal analog- and digital circuits which previously would have required lots of PCB space and several discrete components, and integrate them in a single-chip hybrid programmable platform.
QR alleges that the PSoC is running firmware which apparently implements QR's patented process without license. Apple may want to defend itself by showing prior art in the field of capacitive proximity detection, or claiming that QR's patent is invalid because it is an obvious evolution of technology for anybody reasonably versed in the field.
Cypress cannot be held responsible for the firmware that other people install on their remarkably generic chip. That would be like holding Intel responsible for running software that infringes on the European patent on progress bars.
Basic capacitive proximity dectection has been around for several decades. Elevator call buttons use it. If there is a non mechanical button that responds to a finger press, but not to one from a glove, then it uses CPD.
But, this isn't simple, standard CPD, of which there are several different versions. It uses charge transfer capacitive sensing which as the article linked to below will state, was invented by QR founder and CEO Hal Philipp.
There is no such thing as an obvious evolution of technology rule in patent law. The rule of "obviousness" is far more complex, and is in the process of being overviewed.
This gives a good, quick overview of what this case, and the different systems in use are:
Apple bought the company Fingerworks and its intellectual property Multi-Touch. This technology was developed as a thesis by a grad student John Elias and Wayne Westerman assistant professor at the University of Delaware.
From information provided by these guys Multi-Touch does not work based on pressure at all. The screen can sense where your fingers are when they touch the surface and reacts to their movement.
The system is a multi-touch, zero force technology, Elias said, meaning the gestures and movements use all the fingers in a light and subtle manner.
Elias explained the touch pad acts like a video camera, recording the objects touching its surface. An embedded microprocessor then applies an algorithmic process to convert those touches into commands understood by the computer.
"To observers watching somebody use multi-touch, it looks a little like magic," Elias said, illustrating his point on a computer in Evans Hall. "People see lots of things happening on the computer screen but very little hand motion is observed."
He said the system has been designed so the gestures used make sense for the operation being performed. For instance, you cut text with a pinch and paste it with a flick.
Apple bought the company Fingerworks and its intellectual property Multi-Touch. This technology was developed as a thesis by a grad student John Elias and Wayne Westerman assistant professor at the University of Delaware.
From information provided by these guys Multi-Touch does not work based on pressure at all. The screen can sense where your fingers are when they touch the surface and reacts to their movement.
The system is a multi-touch, zero force technology, Elias said, meaning the gestures and movements use all the fingers in a light and subtle manner.
Elias explained the touch pad acts like a video camera, recording the objects touching its surface. An embedded microprocessor then applies an algorithmic process to convert those touches into commands understood by the computer.
"To observers watching somebody use multi-touch, it looks a little like magic," Elias said, illustrating his point on a computer in Evans Hall. "People see lots of things happening on the computer screen but very little hand motion is observed."
He said the system has been designed so the gestures used make sense for the operation being performed. For instance, you cut text with a pinch and paste it with a flick.
That's an explanation of how the computer interprets the signals the sensor is sending, not how the sensor itself is working. No capacitive sensors "require" pressure as such. Resistive sensing sensors do.
That's an explanation of how the computer interprets the signals the sensor is sending, not how the sensor itself is working. No capacitive sensors "require" pressure as such. Resistive sensing sensors do.
Of course they didn't give all the technical details of how its works. I'm sure Apple wouldn't be too pleased if they did. I was just answering a question.
Basic capacitive proximity dectection has been around for several decades. Elevator call buttons use it. If there is a non mechanical button that responds to a finger press, but not to one from a glove, then it uses CPD.
That much I understand. I guess 5 years of EE studies have finally paid off!
Quote:
But, this isn't simple, standard CPD, of which there are several different versions. It uses charge transfer capacitive sensing which as the article linked to below will state, was invented by QR founder and CEO Hal Philipp.
I understood that there must have been something novel about Hal Philipp's invention. But I wasn't sure exactly what it was.
Quote:
There is no such thing as an obvious evolution of technology rule in patent law. The rule of "obviousness" is far more complex, and is in the process of being overviewed.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really understand the legal side of the issue. I probably should have left that side of the argument out.
Quote:
This gives a good, quick overview of what this case, and the different systems in use are:
Of course they didn't give all the technical details of how its works. I'm sure Apple wouldn't be too pleased if they did. I was just answering a question.
They may very well have a valid patent on the ability to intelligently manipulate UI elements based on multiple gestures made in parallel.
But the allegation is that, regardless of what post-processing those high-level gestures undergo, they're using technology that depends on other patent(s) to convert those gestures from physical phenomena into digital data in the first place.
But the allegation is that, regardless of what post-processing those high-level gestures undergo, they're using technology that depends on other patent(s) to convert those gestures from physical phenomena into digital data in the first place.
It was not my intention to present information that proves this allegation is not true. I was only explaining where Apple got its touch screen technology.
Sounds as if all of this may fall into a grey area. It appears QR feels there is no way to develop a charge transfer technology that does not violate its patent.
It was not my intention to present information that proves this allegation is not true. I was only explaining where Apple got its touch screen technology.
Sounds as if all of this may fall into a grey area. It appears QR feels there is no way to develop a charge transfer technology that does not violate its patent.
Since they invented it, and as a result, no one who uses it uses it without licensing it from them, they are probably right.
But, Apple's technology might not actually be the same.
Just reading the Sydney Morning Herald about the phone they mentioned the name Jefferson Han as related to the project. This is merely conjecture, but if they are using his touch screen technology, this was developed at the courant mathematics institute at New York university.
It uses an LED at one end beaming light through a piece of persex which has total internal reflection. When a finger touches it, it breaks the total internal reflection and scatters light onto a sensor at the bottom when a can detect a) whether it was a finger that did the pointing, due to the nature of the light scattered and b) can detect as many touches as you want. You can use 10 fingers at a time if you like.
If this is the technology used, I dont believe this has anything to do with Quantum Researches approach to multi touch, and I have cetainly heard the name apple and Jefferson Han mentioned in the same sentence a few times.
That looks spectacular. So much creativity potential, and the first device produced with the idea isn't really for creative tasks.
Did Apple buy the exclusive rights to that? It would be pretty nice to see that in more products. I don't care what platform it's for, I'd like a shot at a similar device + SDK.
That looks spectacular. So much creativity potential, and the first device produced with the idea isn't really for creative tasks.
Did Apple buy the exclusive rights to that? It would be pretty nice to see that in more products. I don't care what platform it's for, I'd like a shot at a similar device + SDK.
HAH!!, I'm sure Steve tried, but the scope for this technology is enormous, and its reasonably cheap and reliable. I dont think even Steve Jobs would get exclusive rights to it.
Check this out for a variation on the theme to give you some ideas of what this is going to be used for.
That looks spectacular. So much creativity potential, and the first device produced with the idea isn't really for creative tasks.
Did Apple buy the exclusive rights to that? It would be pretty nice to see that in more products. I don't care what platform it's for, I'd like a shot at a similar device + SDK.
As far as I can tell, that's very different in the way it works, though the intention in so far as the ernd users experience goes is similar.
What Han demo'd, though, is more than the apparent two finger approch Apple is currently using. This video has been around for a while, I remember posting it on AI some months ago.
As far as I can tell, that's very different in the way it works, though the intention in so far as the ernd users experience goes is similar.
What Han demo'd, though, is more than the apparent two finger approch Apple is currently using. This video has been around for a while, I remember posting it on AI some months ago.
The video is apparently a few months old, I thought it was recorded near the end of 2006, the date is in the video. Either I didn't see your post or I didn't have time to watch it then.
Comments
Since when done verbs starting to been misconjugated?
Since when become backwards English did?
Did Apple create the touch screen or the sensor?
If they did not, why would they go after Apple, they should go after the one selling the sensor or screen.
They're getting sued for how it is being used, not for it's physical presence.
Did Apple create the touch screen or the sensor?
If they did not, why would they go after Apple, they should go after the one selling the sensor or screen.
First of all, there are several different "touch sensing" technologies out there.
The one many people think of first would be the pressure-sensitive touchscreen found in most PDAs. Clearly this is not being used on the iPhone, because the iPhone only responds to contact with flesh-like materials -- a stylus or similar implement gets no response at all no matter how hard you push. (Okay, well,if you push too hard you'll obviously get a reaction, but it probably wouldn't be the kind you're looking for...)
Alternatively, there's an implementation in which you must use a special stylus with an embedded light sensor, which recognizes subliminal patterns on the screen to identify the cursor's position. That's obviously not being used.
What Quantum Research claims a patent on is capacitive proximity detection. My understanding is that this involves detecting changes in the electric field brought about by particular dielectric materials (such as human flesh) coming into contact with capacitive transducers. Sensors are designed to detect the resulting changes in the capacitance to identify the touch and localize it.
Apparently Apple has previously used an all-in-one chip provided by a third-party to implement the scroll-wheels in 4/5G iPods and iPod Minis, and that third-party either used a different implementation, or else it was independently licensed by QR.
But the iPod Nanos apparently use a Cypress PSoC (Programmable System-on-a-Chip) to interface with the capacitive sensors directly. The PSoC just a generic array of GPIO, DAC, and ADC inputs/outputs mapped to arbitrary pins on a chip with an embedded programmable 16-bit microcontroller to glue it all together. It's intended to allow system designers to take mixed-signal analog- and digital circuits which previously would have required lots of PCB space and several discrete components, and integrate them in a single-chip hybrid programmable platform.
QR alleges that the PSoC is running firmware which apparently implements QR's patented process without license. Apple may want to defend itself by showing prior art in the field of capacitive proximity detection, or claiming that QR's patent is invalid because it is an obvious evolution of technology for anybody reasonably versed in the field.
Cypress cannot be held responsible for the firmware that other people install on their remarkably generic chip. That would be like holding Intel responsible for running software that infringes on the European patent on progress bars.
Damn, Apple sure does steal a lot of stuff from others and then claim it as their own.
We have to see if that's true.
The Supreme Court is about to look at the patent system. The biggest problem is the question of "obviousness". There is a tremendous problem with that question. As a result, there are numerous patents that overlap. That has to be sorted out.
This could be the case here.
I haven't read all of the relevant applications, so I can't make a statement about it, but this isn't that uncommon these days.
Life was much simpler when patents were mostly for simpler devices that could be made to work with small physical models. Todays patents, and inventions, are far too complex, and esoteric.
I've seen a number of patents in one of my fields (audio), that simply don't work, either theoretically, or practically. They don't get overturned because only that company ever attempts to use them in products, and the products (and companies) vanish after a while.
First of all, there are several different "touch sensing" technologies out there.
The one many people think of first would be the pressure-sensitive touchscreen found in most PDAs. Clearly this is not being used on the iPhone, because the iPhone only responds to contact with flesh-like materials -- a stylus or similar implement gets no response at all no matter how hard you push. (Okay, well,if you push too hard you'll obviously get a reaction, but it probably wouldn't be the kind you're looking for...)
Alternatively, there's an implementation in which you must use a special stylus with an embedded light sensor, which recognizes subliminal patterns on the screen to identify the cursor's position. That's obviously not being used.
What Quantum Research claims a patent on is capacitive proximity detection. My understanding is that this involves detecting changes in the electric field brought about by particular dielectric materials (such as human flesh) coming into contact with capacitive transducers. Sensors are designed to detect the resulting changes in the capacitance to identify the touch and localize it.
Apparently Apple has previously used an all-in-one chip provided by a third-party to implement the scroll-wheels in 4/5G iPods and iPod Minis, and that third-party either used a different implementation, or else it was independently licensed by QR.
But the iPod Nanos apparently use a Cypress PSoC (Programmable System-on-a-Chip) to interface with the capacitive sensors directly. The PSoC just a generic array of GPIO, DAC, and ADC inputs/outputs mapped to arbitrary pins on a chip with an embedded programmable 16-bit microcontroller to glue it all together. It's intended to allow system designers to take mixed-signal analog- and digital circuits which previously would have required lots of PCB space and several discrete components, and integrate them in a single-chip hybrid programmable platform.
QR alleges that the PSoC is running firmware which apparently implements QR's patented process without license. Apple may want to defend itself by showing prior art in the field of capacitive proximity detection, or claiming that QR's patent is invalid because it is an obvious evolution of technology for anybody reasonably versed in the field.
Cypress cannot be held responsible for the firmware that other people install on their remarkably generic chip. That would be like holding Intel responsible for running software that infringes on the European patent on progress bars.
Basic capacitive proximity dectection has been around for several decades. Elevator call buttons use it. If there is a non mechanical button that responds to a finger press, but not to one from a glove, then it uses CPD.
But, this isn't simple, standard CPD, of which there are several different versions. It uses charge transfer capacitive sensing which as the article linked to below will state, was invented by QR founder and CEO Hal Philipp.
There is no such thing as an obvious evolution of technology rule in patent law. The rule of "obviousness" is far more complex, and is in the process of being overviewed.
This gives a good, quick overview of what this case, and the different systems in use are:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Art...r+iPhone++.htm
Did Apple create the touch screen or the sensor?
Apple bought the company Fingerworks and its intellectual property Multi-Touch. This technology was developed as a thesis by a grad student John Elias and Wayne Westerman assistant professor at the University of Delaware.
From information provided by these guys Multi-Touch does not work based on pressure at all. The screen can sense where your fingers are when they touch the surface and reacts to their movement.
The system is a multi-touch, zero force technology, Elias said, meaning the gestures and movements use all the fingers in a light and subtle manner.
Elias explained the touch pad acts like a video camera, recording the objects touching its surface. An embedded microprocessor then applies an algorithmic process to convert those touches into commands understood by the computer.
"To observers watching somebody use multi-touch, it looks a little like magic," Elias said, illustrating his point on a computer in Evans Hall. "People see lots of things happening on the computer screen but very little hand motion is observed."
He said the system has been designed so the gestures used make sense for the operation being performed. For instance, you cut text with a pinch and paste it with a flick.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p...0357/-1/NEWS01
Apple bought the company Fingerworks and its intellectual property Multi-Touch. This technology was developed as a thesis by a grad student John Elias and Wayne Westerman assistant professor at the University of Delaware.
From information provided by these guys Multi-Touch does not work based on pressure at all. The screen can sense where your fingers are when they touch the surface and reacts to their movement.
The system is a multi-touch, zero force technology, Elias said, meaning the gestures and movements use all the fingers in a light and subtle manner.
Elias explained the touch pad acts like a video camera, recording the objects touching its surface. An embedded microprocessor then applies an algorithmic process to convert those touches into commands understood by the computer.
"To observers watching somebody use multi-touch, it looks a little like magic," Elias said, illustrating his point on a computer in Evans Hall. "People see lots of things happening on the computer screen but very little hand motion is observed."
He said the system has been designed so the gestures used make sense for the operation being performed. For instance, you cut text with a pinch and paste it with a flick.
That's an explanation of how the computer interprets the signals the sensor is sending, not how the sensor itself is working. No capacitive sensors "require" pressure as such. Resistive sensing sensors do.
That's an explanation of how the computer interprets the signals the sensor is sending, not how the sensor itself is working. No capacitive sensors "require" pressure as such. Resistive sensing sensors do.
Of course they didn't give all the technical details of how its works. I'm sure Apple wouldn't be too pleased if they did. I was just answering a question.
Basic capacitive proximity dectection has been around for several decades. Elevator call buttons use it. If there is a non mechanical button that responds to a finger press, but not to one from a glove, then it uses CPD.
That much I understand. I guess 5 years of EE studies have finally paid off!
But, this isn't simple, standard CPD, of which there are several different versions. It uses charge transfer capacitive sensing which as the article linked to below will state, was invented by QR founder and CEO Hal Philipp.
I understood that there must have been something novel about Hal Philipp's invention. But I wasn't sure exactly what it was.
There is no such thing as an obvious evolution of technology rule in patent law. The rule of "obviousness" is far more complex, and is in the process of being overviewed.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really understand the legal side of the issue. I probably should have left that side of the argument out.
This gives a good, quick overview of what this case, and the different systems in use are:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Art...r+iPhone++.htm
Thanks!
Of course they didn't give all the technical details of how its works. I'm sure Apple wouldn't be too pleased if they did. I was just answering a question.
They may very well have a valid patent on the ability to intelligently manipulate UI elements based on multiple gestures made in parallel.
But the allegation is that, regardless of what post-processing those high-level gestures undergo, they're using technology that depends on other patent(s) to convert those gestures from physical phenomena into digital data in the first place.
But the allegation is that, regardless of what post-processing those high-level gestures undergo, they're using technology that depends on other patent(s) to convert those gestures from physical phenomena into digital data in the first place.
It was not my intention to present information that proves this allegation is not true. I was only explaining where Apple got its touch screen technology.
Sounds as if all of this may fall into a grey area. It appears QR feels there is no way to develop a charge transfer technology that does not violate its patent.
It was not my intention to present information that proves this allegation is not true. I was only explaining where Apple got its touch screen technology.
Sounds as if all of this may fall into a grey area. It appears QR feels there is no way to develop a charge transfer technology that does not violate its patent.
Since they invented it, and as a result, no one who uses it uses it without licensing it from them, they are probably right.
But, Apple's technology might not actually be the same.
It uses an LED at one end beaming light through a piece of persex which has total internal reflection. When a finger touches it, it breaks the total internal reflection and scatters light onto a sensor at the bottom when a can detect a) whether it was a finger that did the pointing, due to the nature of the light scattered and b) can detect as many touches as you want. You can use 10 fingers at a time if you like.
If this is the technology used, I dont believe this has anything to do with Quantum Researches approach to multi touch, and I have cetainly heard the name apple and Jefferson Han mentioned in the same sentence a few times.
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLhMVNdplJc
Thats Jeff demonstrating the multi-touch.
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLhMVNdplJc
Thats Jeff demonstrating the multi-touch.
That looks spectacular. So much creativity potential, and the first device produced with the idea isn't really for creative tasks.
Did Apple buy the exclusive rights to that? It would be pretty nice to see that in more products. I don't care what platform it's for, I'd like a shot at a similar device + SDK.
That looks spectacular. So much creativity potential, and the first device produced with the idea isn't really for creative tasks.
Did Apple buy the exclusive rights to that? It would be pretty nice to see that in more products. I don't care what platform it's for, I'd like a shot at a similar device + SDK.
HAH!!, I'm sure Steve tried, but the scope for this technology is enormous, and its reasonably cheap and reliable. I dont think even Steve Jobs would get exclusive rights to it.
Check this out for a variation on the theme to give you some ideas of what this is going to be used for.
http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2006/11/reactable.html
That looks spectacular. So much creativity potential, and the first device produced with the idea isn't really for creative tasks.
Did Apple buy the exclusive rights to that? It would be pretty nice to see that in more products. I don't care what platform it's for, I'd like a shot at a similar device + SDK.
As far as I can tell, that's very different in the way it works, though the intention in so far as the ernd users experience goes is similar.
What Han demo'd, though, is more than the apparent two finger approch Apple is currently using. This video has been around for a while, I remember posting it on AI some months ago.
As far as I can tell, that's very different in the way it works, though the intention in so far as the ernd users experience goes is similar.
What Han demo'd, though, is more than the apparent two finger approch Apple is currently using. This video has been around for a while, I remember posting it on AI some months ago.
The video is apparently a few months old, I thought it was recorded near the end of 2006, the date is in the video. Either I didn't see your post or I didn't have time to watch it then.