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

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 115
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    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
  • Reply 82 of 115
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    And I think that's a number three.



    It's kinda hypnotic.
  • Reply 83 of 115
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    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.
  • Reply 84 of 115
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Why do you think so many people who have used Apple products in the past would abandon them for non-Apple products?



    I have absolutely no idea what your question means (or asks).
  • Reply 85 of 115
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gigawire View Post


    Thank you internet forums lawyer for you interpretation.



    Reminds me of those beer commercials. Mr. Internet Forums Lawyer.
  • Reply 86 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


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



    Actually.....its, "Can't touch this"
  • Reply 87 of 115
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member
    I think this covers it pretty nicely....





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxGpo...layer_embedded
  • Reply 88 of 115
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post


    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.



    Plus, the settlements are just cash payouts anyways, so the infringing companies still get to steal and use the technology anyways.



    If Apple sues and wins and wants to get a permanent injunction they will easily get one because Apple is selling in the market. Permanent injunctions use to be automatic and are still the norm. The compulsory license is a recent invention and is only relevant in cases where the patentee is not a market participant (e.g., the so-called alleged "troll").



    In fact, if Apple were to get really aggressive, they might be able to get a "preliminary injunction". These are awarded at the very beginning of litigation. The key to getting a preliminary injunction is to show "irreparable harm", which Apple should be able to show. The infringement also has to be likely, but not yet proven.
  • Reply 89 of 115
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macslut View Post




    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.



    Let me help you out here. You are correct, the claims require two gestures using a different number of fingers. None of the claims cover just single finger scrolling of a frame. And yes, I'm a patent attorney. This question is so simple there is no way the Supreme Court would grant cert.



    Whether the claim is broad or narrow is in the eye of the beholder. If the consumer wants a user interface that provides different scrolling functionalities using a different number of fingers, then it's broad. If you define the market as something else, it's probably narrow.
  • Reply 90 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post


    Nobody plays the patent game better than Steve!



    Buh Bye, Android!



    True. Apple learned from the past with MicroSoft copying. It appears that everyone is copying Apple now-a-days and Apple has to defend their investment dollars.



    Android is old news. 2011 will be huge for Apple.
  • Reply 91 of 115
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macslut View Post


    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.



    Your comment makes it sound like the Supreme Court's decisions aren't an "opinion". You do realize that the Court's written decision is called the "Opinion."



    Secondly, I seriously doubt you'll see the Supreme Court doing "claim interpretation". The Supreme Court usually only decides questions of legal doctrine.



    Thirdly, when it comes to patent law, the Supreme Court is barely competent at establishing legal doctrine. It is hardly the court to defer to for claim interpretation. The appellate court you are looking for is the Federal Circuit, which was established to hear patent cases (precisely because the other courts lack sufficient expertise).
  • Reply 92 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post


    Let me help you out here. You are correct, the claims require two gestures using a different number of fingers. None of the claims cover just single finger scrolling of a frame. And yes, I'm a patent attorney. This question is so simple there is no way the Supreme Court would grant cert.



    Whether the claim is broad or narrow is in the eye of the beholder. If the consumer wants a user interface that provides different scrolling functionalities using a different number of fingers, then it's broad. If you define the market as something else, it's probably narrow.



    You have confirmed that you're a lawyer. I have no clue from your post whether you said yes, no, or maybe.



    Nice. A real skill.
  • Reply 93 of 115
    I'm not sure if this is a good idea.



    The reason is simple: the Federal government has gone after companies that abuse patent laws to protect market share--especially a number of famous cases against the United Shoe Machinery Company in the first half of the 20th Century.



    Apple--being increasingly dominant in the cellphone market and effectively the biggest company in the tablet computer market--is coming really close to being closely monitored so their activities don't deliberately destroy another company like Microsoft did during the 1990's.
  • Reply 94 of 115
    mustmust Posts: 6member
    It won't come as a surprise if we see Nokia and the likes dropping their lawsuites and cross licensing their IP.
  • Reply 95 of 115
    brainlessbrainless Posts: 272member
    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.



    Agree completely, it is quite narrow scope of patent and such scenarios can be easily avoided. Still I don't understand why such thing was awarded to Apple : there is nothing really innovative about it, it is just obvious solution that everyone would suggest if wanted to to position frame within a scrollable pane.
  • Reply 96 of 115
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brainless View Post


    Agree completely, it is quite narrow scope of patent and such scenarios can be easily avoided. Still I don't understand why such thing was awarded to Apple : there is nothing really innovative about it, it is just obvious solution that everyone would suggest if wanted to to position frame within a scrollable pane.



    More obvious than 1-click? The patent office seems to have a problem with software patents in recognising what is obvious from what isn't. Actually they have a problem with hardware patents too, the laser patent which was worth millions was awarded to a grad student who realized that Charles Townes hadn't fully patented the idea yet.
  • Reply 97 of 115
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,067member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Android looks exactly like iOS. It's pointless.



    Yes, nobody can distinguish iOS from Android
  • Reply 98 of 115
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrmj2u View Post


    After reading the first few lines in the patent, it looks like it applies to switching pages on a multi-touch device. It is narrow in that it specifically states that the idea being patented is the switch from one screen to another using either a vertical or horizontal swipe. It is unique in that during that swipe, you can see elements of both screen in real time as they are changed, depending on the speed at which the swipe is delivered.



    Swipe slow and you will be able to see content from both screens, swipe fast and you will watch the contents of each screen wiz by...



    All Android smartphones seem to do this on the home screen and on the applications screen... WebOS uses this kind of UI for multitasking and so does the PlayBook... So it will be very interesting to see how this turns out.



    So Apple could potentially cripple the mobile industry?
  • Reply 99 of 115
    joseph ljoseph l Posts: 197member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NinjaBladeMastery View Post


    So Apple could potentially cripple the mobile industry?



    We can only hope that the courts play ball like we would like them to. Texas, here we come!
  • Reply 100 of 115
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    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...



    We could have this conversation all over again.



Sign In or Register to comment.