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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Comments
This is NOT a huge blow to Apple's competitors.
Patent lawsuits can take 10 or 20 years to settle, at which point this technology will be outdated anyways.
Touchscreens aren't ever going away.
Plus, the settlements are just cash payouts anyways, so the infringing companies still get to steal and use the technology anyways.
Unless, you know, they're told that they can't.
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.
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.
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
.
.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
.
.
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.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.
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.
...
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?
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.
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."
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
.
.