Apple Asked Google Not to Use Multi-Touch in Android? [Archive]

View Full Version : Apple Asked Google Not to Use Multi-Touch in Android?

MacRumors

Feb 10, 2009, 04:37 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/10/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android/)

VentureBeat claims (http://venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android-and-google-complied/) that Apple specifically asked Google not to use Multi-Touch in their Android platform and Google agreed. The report comes an unidentified member of the Android team: Apple, which of course makes the signature multi-touch mobile device, the iPhone, apparently asked Google not to implement it, and Google agreed, an Android team member tells us.According to the report, Google wanted to avoid risking its relationship with Apple. The same source claims that Apple's relationships with Palm have significantly soured surrounding the recent public statements (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/22/tim-cook-apple-will-aggressively-protect-iphone-intellectual-property/) that Apple would aggressively protect the iPhone's intellectual property. Palm's new Pre Phone (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/09/palm-pre-smartphone-announced-webos-wireless-charging-app-store/) is the first mobile phone to offer multi-touch gestures similar to Apple's iPhone.

Article Link: Apple Asked Google Not to Use Multi-Touch in Android? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/10/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android/)

matthewlesh

Feb 10, 2009, 04:41 AM

Wow.. just wow. I'd be amazed to think that Google would bow down to Apple.

That said i guess the relationship means more then the product?

talkingfuture

Feb 10, 2009, 04:51 AM

That is very interesting. Google and Apple must be much closer than I thought.

anti-microsoft

Feb 10, 2009, 04:52 AM

Well Steve did say when they first introduced it: "And boy have we patented it!"

Ams.

Dagless

Feb 10, 2009, 05:02 AM

There must be so much more to this.

Super big company 1: hey don't do that, please.
Super big company 2: lol k

kastenbrust

Feb 10, 2009, 05:06 AM

Well considering the CEO of Google is on Apples Board of Directors this isn't suprising

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/bod.html
(Dr. Eric Schmidt)

It still takes less than 3 minuets to hack the android phone and give it multitouch anyway.

lastochka

Feb 10, 2009, 05:07 AM

I cannot see how people (us customers) could benefit from such an agreement.

Inter-corporate politics at it's finest. You laugh until you cry, then you watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/ .

MattyK

Feb 10, 2009, 05:10 AM

Super big company 1: hey don't do that, please.
Super big company 2: lol k

Is actually a pretty simple way of putting it, You could just imagine steve jobs on the phone with google CEO saying 'Sup man, wanna drop the multi touchz0rs pl0x?' - Google CEO 'Sure thing steve, i'll get my cat- i mean guys onto it ASAP.' ...'and there's just one last thing.'

bob_the_gorilla

Feb 10, 2009, 05:13 AM

I cannot see how people (us customers) could benefit from such an agreement.

Yeah, that's why companies do stuff. To help consumers! It's not at all to make money, right?

I do find it rather hard to believe that Apple would simply "ask" Google not to use multitouch; even harder that Google would simply say okay. Apple would have to have something over Google, or offer them something. That or, just maybe, this report from an anonymous source is complete BS.

rjflyn

Feb 10, 2009, 05:14 AM

Or the old cost vs payout, risk vs reward games. They could have used multi-touch but it would have cost them maybe a patent lawsuit. The also may already be getting $$ from Apple for the iPhone which we have seen is selling like no tomorrow. So that could be another potential financial loss. With the economy and Google's $$ coming mostly from ads, any money in is something one might not want to give up. Still sucks though.

Cybbe

Feb 10, 2009, 05:21 AM

This shows how Apple and the ridiculous intellectual property rights system is stiffling competition and hurting consumers.

alexbates

Feb 10, 2009, 05:25 AM

I am surprised this would happen. I would think that they would forget their relationship And focus on their products and competition.

rhpenguin

Feb 10, 2009, 05:30 AM

This is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. If this is the case, Apple is going to stifle innovation on this front for years.

Apple is the new Microsoft. But a whole lot worse.

Shasterball

Feb 10, 2009, 05:34 AM

There must be more than meets the eye here. Otherwise, wouldn't this raise some serious anti-trust issues? (not that I really know).

MattyK

Feb 10, 2009, 05:35 AM

Apple is the new Microsoft. But a whole lot worse.

As much as I hate it, I'm going to have to agree with you. Apple used to be about the people, but now its about ze muneez.

alexbates

Feb 10, 2009, 05:45 AM

As much as I hate it, I'm going to have to agree with you. Apple used to be about the people, but now its about ze muneez.

No, I think that Apple is still about the people and making the best products that they possibly can. Otherwise, their support would be aweful.

svndmvn

Feb 10, 2009, 05:47 AM

while Asus/HP VooDoo already have multitouch.

Tampa Tom

Feb 10, 2009, 05:54 AM

If a company has intellectual property (in this case a granted patent on the iPhone) they must protect it. A company just can't say, "Aww shucks I guess you maybe can copy us." If they do, they LOSE their rights to protect it in court. They can licence the technology, but can't knowingly allow a company to copy it.

Apple has spent millions on the development of a new and novel device and interface. It is their obligation to the shareholders of the company :apple:(me and lots of others) to protect the investment.

Apple, sue the pants off of any company that infringes on the patents and claims !

matthewlesh

Feb 10, 2009, 05:59 AM

We do have to consider one possibility.. This source is full of **** and google is just to lazy or still working on it or something.

The Phazer

Feb 10, 2009, 06:07 AM

It strikes me that "asking" may have been along the lines of a slightly more friendly version of "we've patented this, so don't try it or we'll sue the pants off you."

Which would also make sense as to why Google listened.

Phazer

coolfactor

Feb 10, 2009, 06:19 AM

There must be more than meets the eye here. Otherwise, wouldn't this raise some serious anti-trust issues? (not that I really know).

No. If Google willingly agreed, then there's no problem. Anti-trust comes in when one company forces the competition into a corner.

I agree there must be more to this, but Google loves the iPhone and how much revenue it's generating for them, I'm sure. Why compete with that?

And there's yet another possibility. Google didn't implement multi-touch natively in Android, but hardware manufacturers using the OS would be free to try to implement it, no? That keeps Google on the good side of Apple, and then Apple would have other fish to fry.

eric_n_dfw

Feb 10, 2009, 06:20 AM

Now that Apple's patents are approved for this, I bet we see a bunch of people sued or striking licensing deals.

As for the pc's and laptop/netbooks already using it, if they fall under Apple's patents, they probably will be able to license it as I don't see it being a big competitive advantage. I'd bet that other handheld devices will be out of luck since multitouch is such a BIG differentiator of the iPhone.

There are plenty of other ways to compete with the iPhone; Google knew this and decided to compete on openness, a real keyboard and higher performance with the G1, BlackBerry decided to try the "click screen" thing, my wife opted against a iPhone because of it's size, etc... Apple does not "own" this market by any stretch.

I bet Palm either didn't do the due diligence or thinks they can defend themselves in court against Apple's patents. Maybe they'll try to prove prior art existed like Hann's demo at TED2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY (Although I'm pretty sure Apple's implementation is totally different) Who knows.

nick9191

Feb 10, 2009, 06:20 AM

This is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. If this is the case, Apple is going to stifle innovation on this front for years.

Apple is the new Microsoft. But a whole lot worse.

Worse than Microsoft? That would be buying out companies so they don't need to innovate, that would be not releasing a new OS or web browser for 6 years so the entire industry gets dragged behind. That would be putting proprietary non standard features into their products so that stuff does not work on other platforms. Not only that but Apple does not hold a monopoly in the phone market as Microsoft do in the PC market.

Apple does do a good job protecting the consumer. iTunes Music store for one example.

Protecting your Intellectual Property is not halting innovation. It means companies have to create something better. Look at all the other multi touch phones out there, they are a half assed rip off of the iPhones multi touch.

coolfactor

Feb 10, 2009, 06:24 AM

No, I think that Apple is still about the people and making the best products that they possibly can. Otherwise, their support would be aweful.

Agreed. While Apple has made a major push to build revenue on numerous fronts, that has only allowed them to do what they do best... create a great user experience. Steve, himself, stands up there on stage and communicates that for us all to hear. They don't have some hidden, sly agenda. It takes money to do what they do. While it's easy to focus on just the money-making goal alone, one must take it in context. Apple has not wavered from a commitment to quality. If anything, their insane revenues enable them to pursue it even more.

Jayomat

Feb 10, 2009, 06:33 AM

agreed, but don't go too far with these pink glasses...

JG271

Feb 10, 2009, 06:35 AM

Thats crazy. Why would google need to listen to Apple? They're huge! What would they lose by not listening to Apple?

Doesn't make a great deal of sense to me...

peter2

Feb 10, 2009, 06:39 AM

SeaFox

Feb 10, 2009, 06:39 AM

Apple and Palm have a relationship? I must have missed that one.

numbersyx

Feb 10, 2009, 06:47 AM

I have some difficulty believing this. Google does not need Apple (more the other way round if you ask me) and certainly wouldn't hobble one of its own much trumpeted devices at the competition request.

Is it something Google's saying to explain a "deficiency" in its products?

hzc71

Feb 10, 2009, 06:49 AM

If true, this is ridiculous. I have seen multi-touch technology (as an idea) in action before the iPhone. So what could Apple possibly have patented?

- The idea - which is not theirs?
- The implementation?

All this patents stuff is just to laugh at. Patents are there to protect vast investments into research that cannot be done otherwise, not to protect an idea that almost anyone would have thought of if they really wanted.

If Apple values intellectual property so much, please pay John Von Neumann's family for the invention of computer architecture (which all, including Apple use up until now.) Apple (and others) use great inventions and results of (mathematics, physics, computer science) research for free. Now they want others to pay them because they managed to bustle some toy (as compared to the real research stuff)...

I believe it's the specific implementation of multi-touch that Apple is protecting and they have quite ambiguously named their multi-touch "Multi-Touch" ... or something like that, which makes for so much of the confusion.

However, I do believe that patents are only for a certain period of time, after which everyone can start copying. So it is definitely in Apple's best interest to protect it while they can.

I don't see any anti-trust here. They are playing by the rules.

nick9191

Feb 10, 2009, 06:50 AM

Thats crazy. Why would google need to listen to Apple? They're huge! What would they lose by not listening to Apple?

Doesn't make a great deal of sense to me...

Technically Google have more cash but they have no influence over the industry like Apple.

They only make money because of low overheads and ridiculously high prices on advertising. Youtube, barely break even, ad supported. GMail, ad supported. Web apps, ad supported. Phones, they've sold a few.

Apple on the other hand, have the music industry under their thumb, shortly to have the film industry under their thumb, cornered the world on MP3 players, will corner the world on phones, cornered America on laptops.

Stridder44

Feb 10, 2009, 06:53 AM

There must be more than meets the eye here. Otherwise, wouldn't this raise some serious anti-trust issues? (not that I really know).

x2. There's more to this story than meets the eye (assuming it's even true).

bking1000

Feb 10, 2009, 06:55 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/10/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android/)

VentureBeat claims (http://venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android-and-google-complied/) that Apple specifically asked Google not to use Multi-Touch in their Android platform and Google agreed. The report comes an unidentified member of the Android team:According to the report, Google wanted to avoid risking its relationship with Apple. The same source claims that Apple's relationships with Palm have significantly soured surrounding the recent public statements (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/22/tim-cook-apple-will-aggressively-protect-iphone-intellectual-property/) that Apple would aggressively protect the iPhone's intellectual property. Palm's new Pre Phone (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/09/palm-pre-smartphone-announced-webos-wireless-charging-app-store/) is the first mobile phone to offer multi-touch gestures similar to Apple's iPhone.

Article Link: Apple Asked Google Not to Use Multi-Touch in Android? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/10/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android/)

This story makes no sense. Google would just meet an Apple request? Hardly -- they'd be in breach of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. If true (which I doubt), then there is more to the story.

As for "Apple and Palm's" relationship, I ask -- what relationship??? Please... What have they ever done together? What relationship did they have before? It's probably as sour as Apple and Nokia's relationship. They are in competition with each other, and with no basis for partnering.

This whole "story" sounds way off.

BornAgainMac

Feb 10, 2009, 07:01 AM

When the first Apple stores came out, Palm was selling their PDAs at the Apple Stores. And I think I remember Palm software shipping with the Macs in those days. It seems like a century ago though.

locust76

Feb 10, 2009, 07:04 AM

It's funny that Apple thinks they own the rights to techniques and technologies researched by other people years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY

dasein

Feb 10, 2009, 07:10 AM

We do have to consider one possibility.. This source is full of **** and google is just to lazy or still working on it or something.

Could very well be true. All hearsay so far, from an anonymous person claiming to be on the dev team. Even so, if you just spent gads of cash on a product that you knew was patentable, you'd be a fool not to defend it. Generate your own ***** swipes.

cobalts

Feb 10, 2009, 07:12 AM

Obviously there's "more to this" than a two sentence description of what someone said happened.

I'm kind of tired of all this hoopla over "multitouch." Touching a screen and moving one finger is hardly multitouch. And these devices are too small to require the use of more than two fingers for anything. Just because two is bigger than one shouldn't mean that Apple should be awarded a patent for using "heuristics" to interpret "one or more" touches on a screen.

But whatever one would want to say about how the patent system is kind of ridiculous, the technology itself is hardly the Second Coming or anything.

I'm not suggesting that Apple shouldn't be protecting its product space (which does not include a large touchscreen PC, something Apple has demonstrated no interest in and that makes very little sense for a standard PC design). Nor am I suggesting that Google shouldn't cave on the matter for the time being. But Google could gut the iPhone's functionality by refusing to re-license Google maps. That would be a bigger deal than whether something has multitouch. I'm sure the interaction was more partner-like than antagonistic.

Le Big Mac

Feb 10, 2009, 07:18 AM

There must be so much more to this.

Super big company 1: hey don't do that, please.
Super big company 2: you're kidding, right?
Super big company 1: no, you want patent lawsuits holding it up for 4 years?
Super big company 2: lol k

more like that.

Stratus Fear

Feb 10, 2009, 07:26 AM

This shows how Apple and the ridiculous intellectual property rights system is stiffling competition and hurting consumers.

Actually I think it shows the opposite. If there were no patents, phones like the iPhone, G1, and Storm would all be relatively the same with no strikingly unique features separating them. How would that be helping consumers? It's because of the patent system that consumers have the choice they do now between some phones with a few strikingly unique features -- the G1 with an open platform, the iPhone with unique single and multiple finger gestures, and the Storm with a clickable touch screen. That's also the essence of competition. Companies are forced to innovate instead of copy, and if they can't innovate, then they deservedly fall behind.

koobcamuk

Feb 10, 2009, 07:29 AM

It doesn't surprise me that this happened, at all. I see google and Apple wanting to kcik microsoft in the face as efficiently as possible.

lamadude

Feb 10, 2009, 07:30 AM

Like people said before here, apple didn't invent multi-touch and this article shows that they rely on external innovations like these and then go threatening anyone that wants to use the same. They really are just as bad as microsoft, if not worse but it's just on a smaller scale.

manowarwi

Feb 10, 2009, 07:36 AM

This is smart on Apple and Google's standpoint. Apple asks Google not to use Multi-touch. Google agrees and now Apple focuses its legal efforts on other smaller companies that are attempting to use multi-touch on their handhelds.

If Google used it, the smaller companies could use that to their defense. Once the lawsuits settle down and hopefully for Apple the patent is confirmed, Apple can (and probably will) license Multi-touch to Google so the only two places you get get it are from Apple - and Apple makes money selling an iPhone, or Google - and Apple makes money selling a license. Now you have only two places to go for Multi-touch instead of multiple cut throat companies.

AidenShaw

Feb 10, 2009, 07:37 AM

Worse than Microsoft? That would be buying out companies so they don't need to innovate,

Perhaps you should look at Apple's list of acquisitions before making a statement like that....

Bruce Oksol

Feb 10, 2009, 07:41 AM

There are plenty of other ways to compete with the iPhone; Google knew this and decided to compete on openness, a real keyboard and higher performance with the G1, BlackBerry decided to try the "click screen" thing, my wife opted against a iPhone because of it's size, etc... Apple does not "own" this market by any stretch.

If you want to see innovation go away, get rid of patents.

Apple may not own this market, but a) it has the best product without question; b) it has the best marketing; and c) it outsells all the rest combined.

rhpenguin

Feb 10, 2009, 07:49 AM

Worse than Microsoft? That would be buying out companies so they don't need to innovate

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but you should read this. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=270343)

Protecting your Intellectual Property is not halting innovation. It means companies have to create something better. Look at all the other multi touch phones out there, they are a half assed rip off of the iPhones multi touch.

Fine, I get it.. They bought the tech, they need to protect it to keep their patents valid. But at the end of the day, we all suffer because of this. For the next twenty years, we the people are going to no doubt have to learn several different "gestures" for several different devices just because Apple is going to go to great lengths to protect their "Imaginary Property". That or other manufacturers are going to have to pay Apple to use their "Imaginary Property" which means passing that cost onto us, the people who buy devices.

This is all bad.

gtg660w

Feb 10, 2009, 07:49 AM

Didn't Jobs say that they patented. I don't think they had to ask. That sounds like a bunch of bs

RichardI

Feb 10, 2009, 07:50 AM

Intelectual property my ass. I love all my Apple stuff, but patenting a gesture? Pure bull no matter how you look at it. Who do they think they are - IBM?
Quick quiz. I've got a gesture in mind for this idea - can you guess what it is?:rolleyes:

Rich :cool:

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 07:58 AM

Now that Apple's patents are approved for this, I bet we see a bunch of people sued or striking licensing deals.

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A PATENT ON MULTI-TOUCH.

Good grief. How long will this stupid myth continue?

kastenbrust

Feb 10, 2009, 07:59 AM

1) Apple owns most of the various multitouch patents, end of story
http://i.gizmodo.com/5142445/dissecting-apples-multitouch-patent-can-it-stop-palm

2) 1/5 of humans genes have been patented
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html

3) Thats capitalism, if you dont like it, go and live in a communist country.
I heard North Korea's looking to recruit.

wonderbread57

Feb 10, 2009, 08:06 AM

America is based on being able to have a good idea and capitalize on it. Intellectual rights are really about protecting the little guy that has a good idea and has it stolen by a big corporation who capitalizes on it and prevents the little guy from becoming competition. Patents are great. The next phone innovation can now come.. perhaps recognizing 3d hand or facial gestures with the camera.

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 08:09 AM

1) Apple owns most of the various multitouch patents, end of story
http://i.gizmodo.com/5142445/dissecting-apples-multitouch-patent-can-it-stop-palm

You didn't even bother to read it before reposting that, did you? Or if you did, you certainly didn't understand it.

One more time for the non-engineers: Apple has no general patent on multi-touch. It has one for a very specific way of deciding if you want to do vertical scrolling, which stops no one.

Redline13

Feb 10, 2009, 08:17 AM

This is very disappointing if it's true. The lack of competition will only hurt the consumer.

the vj

Feb 10, 2009, 08:20 AM

Well, what I do not like is Apple *asking* to protect their technology.

People, Apple has changed, is becoming a totally different company. It is a phone company now. No Mac Pros updates still.... for a computer company?

wonderbread57

Feb 10, 2009, 08:25 AM

Well, what I do not like is Apple *asking* to protect their technology.
Agreed. What looks worse: Apple asking Google to not infringe on their patent or Apple suing Android for patent infringement. A lawsuit is a relationship killer and neither Apple nor Google want to be come Apple v Palm.

Mackan

Feb 10, 2009, 08:36 AM

Not only do companies seek patents for basically everything, they also get awarded patents on things that shouldn't really be patentable. And a lot of things fall into a gray category.

To get patent on multi touch driven controls, like the "pinch" gesture is for me a typical thing that I hardly would see as patentable. It's a too natural way for doing something like zooming. To restrict, prevent or by other means make it harder to use natural ways or techniques to accomplish things is never good.

Guys, I just patented yawning. Everyone that from now on yawns, must pay and license the right to do so from me, otherwise I will sue you. Sounds ridiculous? It is.

cnorth3

Feb 10, 2009, 08:37 AM

This shows how Apple and the ridiculous intellectual property rights system is stiffling competition and hurting consumers.

The fact that you don't understand the reasoning behind legal protection of intellectual property rights simply demonstrates that you have never created anything of value yourself.

TMay

Feb 10, 2009, 08:37 AM

You didn't even bother to read it before reposting that, did you? Or if you did, you certainly didn't understand it.

One more time for the non-engineers: Apple has no general patent on multi-touch. It has one for a very specific way of deciding if you want to do vertical scrolling, which stops no one.

Yes indeed. Apple has patents for specific implementations of multitouch (does Apple have Copyright for Multitouch?). Apple will protect its implementation, just as it will protect its hardware lock on OSX. Every other manufacturer has to role their own, including Google, or Android makers.

This anecdotal story is BS.

Nothing to see here, move along.

wonderbread57

Feb 10, 2009, 08:42 AM

Guys, I just patented yawning. Everyone that from now on yawns, must pay and license the right to do so from me, otherwise I will sue you. Sounds ridiculous? It is.
How many phones or any other devices used pinching to zoom before Apple? Zero. You only realized it was natural after Apple invented it.

Plutonius

Feb 10, 2009, 08:43 AM

TMay

Feb 10, 2009, 08:43 AM

Plutonius

Feb 10, 2009, 08:47 AM

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A PATENT ON MULTI-TOUCH.

Good grief. How long will this stupid myth continue?

But they have a specific patent on how it's implemented. Apple can sue the companies but if the companies implementation does not infringe on the Apple patent, Apple will lose.

mstream2008

Feb 10, 2009, 08:51 AM

The whole story sounds ridiculous.

If there is a patent, why does Apple need to ask Google not to use multitouch.
There is a patent, that's enough. No special requests are needed, imho.

Mackan

Feb 10, 2009, 08:51 AM

How many phones or any other devices used pinching to zoom before Apple? Zero. You only realized it was natural after Apple invented it.

Might so be, but my point remains; it shouldn't be patentable.

boer

Feb 10, 2009, 08:58 AM

This is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. If this is the case, Apple is going to stifle innovation on this front for years.

Apple is the new Microsoft. But a whole lot worse.

Yes. Thank you anonymous Android developer for blowing this clearly factual information out. I mean it sucks to be you with the lousy platform you developed lacking any innovative features, so it is nice of you to roll this lack of features on Apple, anonymous guy.

See where I am going with this?

boer

Feb 10, 2009, 09:02 AM

The whole story sounds ridiculous.

Exactly. I would gladly give some commenters here the finger but I am not in the mood for those trolls that would later claim I violated Apple's IP doing so. :D

godaz

Feb 10, 2009, 09:04 AM

I cant see google just backing down like that.

billandy

Feb 10, 2009, 09:10 AM

This shows how Apple and the ridiculous intellectual property rights system is stiffling competition and hurting consumers.

technically, apple can always license the patent to other companies at a cost. just that apple at the moment is cash abundant and it's not interested in acquiring microsoft...

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 09:16 AM

How many phones or any other devices used pinching to zoom before Apple? Zero. You only realized it was natural after Apple invented it.

One more time for those who are late to the patent discussions:

Pinch is old. It's even demonstrated in the 1992 Starfire project video by Sun (http://www.asktog.com/starfire/).

Yes, the iPhone was first to use it in a civilian handheld device, but that does not constitute an invention, only marketing.

SpinThis!

Feb 10, 2009, 09:20 AM

Even if this is true, it might even be a fabrication of what was actually said. Blogs and hurt feelings can misinterpret information pretty quickly. The exchange could have gone like this:

Google: Hey Steve & Eric, take a look at our G1...
Steve: Your implementation sucks. I would take it out.
Eric: At least for awhile until we can get multitouch cleaned up and working in most APIs...
Google: Well we were under tight deadlines to get something out... but the geeks want something now for the ship deadline!
Eric: comment it out for now... somebody will find it and enable it anyway.

... Engineer goes off to sulk in the corner. Then goes to complain about it to a blog.

koobcamuk

Feb 10, 2009, 09:25 AM

... Engineer goes off to sulk in the corner. Then goes to complain about it to a blog.

I wonder how accurate something like this might be :)

skellener

Feb 10, 2009, 09:33 AM

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A PATENT ON MULTI-TOUCH.Agreed. How could they? It's been used all over. I think I first saw it on a TED video a long time ago. I'm sure it existed before that too. They may have been the first to market it in a consumer device (like the mouse), but own it out right? I don't think so.

kingtj

Feb 10, 2009, 09:36 AM

Hah! Palm has one foot in the grave, and the other on the edge of the casket. ANY "relationship* with them amounts to very little at this point, anyway.

(And I say that as someone who was a fan of Palm devices from the beginning. I owned the original "PalmPilot Pro" PDA, a Palm 3, and even one of those wireless Palm V's or whatever they were, with the monthly service plan on the proprietary network. I went on to buy two different Kyocera "smartphones" based on Palm devices, and owned two different Palm Treo phones after that.)

The fact is, they failed to keep up with the changing marketplace, and their products have slowly withered and died. (PalmOS couldn't even support later Bluetooth standards, so devices like their Treos had terrible support for headsets and car kits.)

Anything they're doing now is "too little, too late", and even a well done clone of Apple's way of doing multi-touch on the iPhone isn't enough to rescue them.

Apple and Palm have a relationship? I must have missed that one.

dizzy13

Feb 10, 2009, 09:36 AM

Agreed. How could they? It's been used all over. I think I first saw it on a TED video a long time ago. I'm sure it existed before that too. They may have been the first to market it in a consumer device (like the mouse), but own it out right? I don't think so.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/26/apple_awarded_key_multi_touch_patent_covering_the_iphone.html

sharp65

Feb 10, 2009, 09:47 AM

Look at all the other multi touch phones out there, they are a half assed rip off of the iPhones multi touch.

Exactly, because Apple thinks they now own any form of multi touch so other companies need to implement it in a half-assed way.

dizzy13

Feb 10, 2009, 09:49 AM

Exactly, because Apple thinks they now own any form of multi touch so other companies need to implement it in a half-assed way.

There are no other multitouch phones out there yet. Not sure what you guys are talking about? :confused:

megfilmworks

Feb 10, 2009, 09:50 AM

This shows how Apple and the ridiculous intellectual property rights system is stiffling competition and hurting consumers.

Without the intellectual property rights and patent protection no company would invest in the R&D to make innovative products. There would be no iPhone. Or anything else of interest, just old rehashed ideas in the public domain.

QuantumLo0p

Feb 10, 2009, 09:51 AM

Zoboomafoo

Feb 10, 2009, 10:15 AM

All this patents stuff is just to laugh at. Patents are there to protect vast investments into research that cannot be done otherwise, not to protect an idea that almost anyone would have thought of if they really wanted.

Robert Kearns is rolling in his grave.

Zoboomafoo

Feb 10, 2009, 10:17 AM

Without the intellectual property rights and patent protection no company would invest in the R&D to make innovative products. There would be no iPhone. Or anything else of interest, just old rehashed ideas in the public domain.

Yeah, so pharmaceutical companies spend maybe a billion on a drug before they stop to ask, are we going to get this patented? If no, that's the end of the drug. It may suck for the consumer, but seriously ... they gotta recoup their investment. Same goes for Apple. Why develop this stuff then give it away?

megfilmworks

Feb 10, 2009, 10:19 AM

Don't get me wrong, I love the iPhone design but Apple is clearly using its position to stifle competition. Competition is good for the market so, IMO, this little fiasco is bad for everyone except Apple.

Two thumbs down to Apple AND Google.
:eek:
Intellectual protection encourages new ideas, instead of copying old ideas.
Patent and copyright protection encourages competition and discourages copycat products by companies too lazy to develop new ideas.

farmboy

Feb 10, 2009, 10:22 AM

wonderbread57

Feb 10, 2009, 10:25 AM

One more time for those who are late to the patent discussions:

Pinch is old. It's even demonstrated in the 1992 Starfire project video by Sun (http://www.asktog.com/starfire/).

Yes, the iPhone was first to use it in a civilian handheld device, but that does not constitute an invention, only marketing.

How is making reference to a movie relevant to this patent discussion? For those who don't know any better: MOVIES ARE NOT REAL. They didn't implement pinch zoom, it's fake. I know this could come as a shock to many. An anti-gravity skateboard could still be patentable if invented, even though it existed in the movie back to the future 2. You can't patent something that is already in use. Pinch zoom was not in use.

jellomizer

Feb 10, 2009, 10:32 AM

Wow.. just wow. I'd be amazed to think that Google would bow down to Apple.

That said i guess the relationship means more then the product?

Well lets be realistic Google Android is only one product, not even a very profitable one. Apple iPhone support for other Google services is much more profitable. Why sacrifice a known revenue source for a potential long term smaller revenue source.

HLdan

Feb 10, 2009, 10:33 AM

This is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. If this is the case, Apple is going to stifle innovation on this front for years.

Apple is the new Microsoft. But a whole lot worse.

I don't know how true this is but I think you are greatly missing the point. If said company (Apple) creates a product that they have patented certain features of it, then comes along said company (Google) and creates a product that is stepping all over patents from Apple's product then Apple has the right to tell Google to remove those "Apple Patented" features from Google's product.
It has nothing to do with monopolizing or stifling innovation, it's about companies creating their OWN PRODUCT and violating other company's patents.

wesleyh

Feb 10, 2009, 10:36 AM

Apple: Worse than Microsoft?

pohl

Feb 10, 2009, 10:36 AM

There must be more than meets the eye here. Otherwise, wouldn't this raise some serious anti-trust issues? (not that I really know).

You can go read about the concept of US antitrust law over at wikipedia if you're curious. Warning a competitor away from your patented domain does not run afoul of antitrust law. The classic examples are price-fixing, bid-rigging, geographic market allocation, and "Walker process fraud". This is unlike any of those. It is also unlike the antitrust case against Microsoft, wherein they held a monopoly on PC operating systems and took actions to crush threats to that monopoly. (See Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in that case.) Apple does not hold a monopoly in mobile phones, or even smart phones, so that precedent means nothing here either.

theheadguy

Feb 10, 2009, 10:43 AM

This is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. If this is the case, Apple is going to stifle innovation on this front for years.
Apple is the new Microsoft. But a whole lot worse.
Agreed. However, it's not even worth bringing up here. Most forum viewers have this idiotic idea that Apple SHOULD stifle the innovation of others by way of insane defense of intellectual property to the nth degree because they imagine that it all translates into a higher AAPL stock price.

Not to say that they should never defend true innovation, but there are better ways of succeeding aside from endlessly defending itself. A real world example of this is a company of Apple's size spends far more on R&D than Apple does. Of course, this is a testament to Apple producing on a tight budget but imagine if Apple spent less on legal affairs and instead pumped the cash into the laboratories. Google could use multitouch (or Palm) and Apple would have to come out with something better, sooner! So, let me say to the masses we can agree to disagree.

farmboy

Feb 10, 2009, 10:43 AM

If true, this is ridiculous. I have seen multi-touch technology (as an idea) in action before the iPhone. So what could Apple possibly have patented?

- The idea - which is not theirs?
- The implementation?

All this patents stuff is just to laugh at. Patents are there to protect vast investments into research that cannot be done otherwise, not to protect an idea that almost anyone would have thought of if they really wanted.

If Apple values intellectual property so much, please pay John Von Neumann's family for the invention of computer architecture (which all, including Apple use up until now.) Apple (and others) use great inventions and results of (mathematics, physics, computer science) research for free. Now they want others to pay them because they managed to bustle some toy (as compared to the real research stuff)...

You are wrong on so many points here, it really is "to laugh at." Apple bought a company which held many "multi-touch" gestural patents, so they own those as well. Apple patented their specific use of the technology (implementation) in the iPhone/iPod Touch.

Further, you CANNOT GET A PATENT ON AN IDEA THAT IS "OBVIOUS". It's the law everywhere that has a national patent office! Do any of you who insist on restating this endlessly ever read anything? And if "almost anyone would have thought of it if they really wanted" then these "almost anyones" should have taken a few days and written a patent application themselves. Of the billions of people on the planet, no one else did. So it wasn't so obvious after all.

As far as von Neumann, even if he had a patent----it would have expired over a century ago, and it's free to use. Patents only have a limited life span. You should read more books, fewer blogs.

Digitalclips

Feb 10, 2009, 10:48 AM

Yeah, that's why companies do stuff. To help consumers! It's not at all to make money, right? ...

... just maybe, this report from an anonymous source is complete BS.

My thoughts too, but then again this site is called MacRumors we can't really complain. ;)

michaelvoigt

Feb 10, 2009, 10:51 AM

Palm has been busy and the Pre is coming. A lot of people are quite excited about this phone and again are saying 'iphone killer'. I lost a lot of my excitement for Palm from their continued push to Window Mobile and away from palmOS, however this phone is back to a Palm OS and this could be a change in the right direction.

I have outlined the challenges that this phone is going to face, and then listed secret weapons that could really change the game :

1. Timing: This phone really needed to be out for the iPhone 3G launch, that timing would have been impeccable. Apple currently is on top of their game and not showing signs of weakness, is this really the right time for a weakened Palm to make their big move? Exactly like the xBox 360 proved, time to market may be the largest factor for modern electronics, if the PS3 was around during the launch of the 360 we would be in the midst of a much different console ecosystem, this ecosystem might not even include the 360 if timing was changed.

Timing also becomes a double whammy when we look at how long this stuff takes to catch on. The iPhone and App store just didn't happen overnight. The iPhone had the luxury of being a true game changer, while everyone else was playing catch-up Apple was building the phenomena that we have today. Palm delivering on all that is promised is going to be quite a challenge, daunting in fact.

2. Momentum, 13 million iPhones and growing: Even Apple haters have to admit that the iPhone is here and not going anywhere soon The app store is quite a large beast to take on and has momentum within the developer community. It would be hard to find a entertainment or game company that isn't thinking about or currently in development of a product for this platform. While this momentum continues to build, Palm is going to have to put a lot of effort in to generate momentum for a entire new platform and a entire new development community and tools.

3. iTunes: iTunes clocked 5 billion song downloads over 7 months ago (June 2008), that is 5 billion songs that people are not going to want to convert over to the next thing. Are people going to get excited about having some mechanism to convert their precious music libraries for a new phone? Amazon is arguable gaining momentum however iTunes is currently king, and quite a few people use and like iTunes.

4. Hype and wait: Apple's release of the iPhone was very crafty, the phone was available and ready for purchase as it was announced. The iPhone was a got to have it now item and people got to have it, and boy did they get it. The Pre currently is a hype and wait marketing model, Palm is not holding much back, their are hundreds of reviews and sites and the phone is not even available yet. This takes a bit away from spontaneous purchases and makes people stop, think and analyze. Some of these people might just not make that purchase when they have time to over think it, some of them might not want to wait and just get a iPhone.

2. The present state of the union: It fascinates me that Palm is pushing a luxury based high-end smart phone in to a depressed market place. People are hunkering down across the board and probably a bit less excited about dropping a chunk of money on the latest new smartphone. Even worse, possible current iPhone users that might have converted during better times, might now reconsider converting and just keep their present iPhone. It might not be the best time to bet-the-farm with a gigantic product launch?

2. Me-Too Factor: The iPhone clones have helped to prove that 'me-too phones' don't always do as well as expected. Some would argue that a lot of the functionality and features of the Pre are a bit more than 'inspired-by' the iPhone and more along the lines of reverse-engineered from the iPhone. This form of flattery might turn off some buyers, it might not?

3. The right customers: A large portion of Apple customers are from a subset of people that any company would love to have as theirs. They represent people that often have disposable income and extreme loyalty. Plenty of these customers have already made the choice and are with AT&T, iPhone in tow.

Exceptions aside, every person that I know with a iPhone is the type of customers that I would want. They are generally not cheap and spend accordingly.

Sure, it is a big world and there are plenty of these premium customers left, but a large chunk of these people are spoken for.

4. The wrong customers: On the flip side, the average Sprint customer might be a bit on the frugal side. Arguably Sprint is considered the budget minded cellular provider. Their call plans are hands-down the cheapest and the customer service ratings reflect that. Are Sprint customers going to be the best early adopters and rushing out to buy a premium smartphone?

5. The fashion statement: The Pre is just not stacked up to become a fashion statement. The design is solid but it fails to excite or make a identity statement. The iPhone was able to really change the game in this department and continues to be considered a personal statement as much as a smartphone. I just don't see the current Pre producing this level of sex appeal.

6. $300 for copy and paste: We all know the media-hyped short-comings of the iPhone, competitive predecessors have addressed them with mixed results. Are people going to run out and get a new smartphone so they can have a removable battery, video recording and copy and paste?

6. Google couldn't do it: The google phone had arguably more hype then even the Pre is currently commanding and failed to deliver to that hype. If a monster like google couldn't dethrone, can we expect a cash-strapped Palm to perform any better?

7. The iTouch Factor: A dirty little secret might be the number of iTouch units that are out there. I know quite a few people that have forgone the AT&T switch and have gotten a iTouch instead. They use their iTouch units quite extensively in wifi zones and their phones as just phones. These people are adverse to the cellular contracts and have found wifi nirvana with the iTouch.

7. Palm's desperation: Recent press might lead one to believe that Palm is a bit desperate and this is a critical product launch for the future of the company. This might be caution the marketplace and make them wonder if Palm has the horsepower to push this all the way through. Does Palm have the cash to go big enough on this one?

8. litigation: The Apple patents are not going away, and Apple has stated that they will defend their intellectual property fiercely. I think the pre is going to be a major target for this litigation. Could this delay the launch, could this cost Palm a large chunk of money to defend? These factors could damage this product launch.

9. The Missing Sync: The weak link for recent PalmOS phones has been the syncing software, in fact a large portion of Palm TREO users have relied on third party tools like 'The Missing Sync' to have a more complete sync solution. The Palm desktop software has fallen short for some, will they get the sync software right this time? Will they execute a Cloud computing system like Apple's mobileMe?
Factors that could change the game for the Palm Pre:

1. Asia: The Pre could catch on in Asian countries and really gain momentum there, Apple has struggled in these markets.

2. Microsoft Money: Microsoft could be doing some amazing secret integration with the new Palm OS, or could write a blank check to help. Exclusive Windows 7 integration, maybe?

3. Bad publicity from litigation: If Apple does sue the pants off of Palm, this could generate some bad press and martyrize this product. The Pre could become the underdog product that is 'sticking it to the man.'

4. Netflix: Some secret Netflix deal, free movie rentals on the Pre for Netflix members?

5. Free Tethering: Sprint kicks in free tethering for laptops for Pre phones with unlimited data plans. AT&T is currently charging iPhone customers for this service.

6. The pirate phone: Palm and Sprint are not heavily vested in the entertainment industry, does pirating really affect them? Could the Pre be the best phone to bit-torrent, play and share copyrighted material? That would be a plus for much more people then we would like to admit.

7. It runs windows: Steve Jobs made a phone with one button, maybe Palm could make a phone that runs Windows applications. Imagine a phone that runs the same applications that your laptop does, it could happen.

8. $99 or even better , free: If Sprint and Palm somehow are able to sell this phone for $99 or even less that would be momental for increased success.

9. 3 year contract, or no contract: If $99 or less is just not possible with a two year contract, how about a 3 year contract? How about no contract?

10. 'One more thing': Are we going to see something that we cannot even imagine, some feature that is a game-changer? Does Palm have something up their sleeve?

Digitalclips

Feb 10, 2009, 10:51 AM

How is making reference to a movie relevant to this patent discussion? For those who don't know any better: MOVIES ARE NOT REAL. They didn't implement pinch zoom, it's fake. I know this could come as a shock to many. An anti-gravity skateboard could still be patentable if invented, even though it existed in the movie back to the future 2. You can't patent something that is already in use. Pinch zoom was not in use.

Too funny ... I can imagine the writer you replied to saying ...

'OMG, Are you telling me there is no Superman?'

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 10:52 AM

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/26/apple_awarded_key_multi_touch_patent_covering_the_iphone.html

Thanks, but that article was debunked within a day. There are too many "reporters" on the web who don't know how to read patent claims, but do know how to generate revenue-producing reader traffic with bogus headlines.

How is making reference to a movie relevant to this patent discussion? For those who don't know any better: MOVIES ARE NOT REAL. They didn't implement pinch zoom, it's fake. I know this could come as a shock to many. An anti-gravity skateboard could still be patentable if invented, even though it existed in the movie back to the future 2. You can't patent something that is already in use. Pinch zoom was not in use.

Your example is totally irrelevant. The skateboard is a device. Pinch is not. It's a gesture, and in this case, a well known one in the touch field. You can only patent the methods you use to detect such a gesture.

Pinch zoom dates back to at least 1983. Here's a video of it in use in 1988 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo). Jump ahead to time 4:30 and you'll see the in/out motion being used for scaling. Also see this 1991 video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5772530828816089246), jump to 6:30 for pinch with copy/paste. And yes, even Han and his much later 2006 two-finger zoom (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html)at TED (see about 2:40 in).

I have been programming touchpads since 1983 and touchscreens since 1992. A lot of stuff has been in use in industrial and military settings, that you have never heard of.

Digitalclips

Feb 10, 2009, 10:57 AM

Palm has been busy and the Pre is coming.

See above for michaelvoigt's post.

Excellent summation, very thought provoking. Thank you.

organerito

Feb 10, 2009, 11:00 AM

No, I think that Apple is still about the people and making the best products that they possibly can. Otherwise, their support would be aweful.

The least Apple can do is to offer good support for the price each customer pays for their products.

Vulpinemac

Feb 10, 2009, 11:05 AM

They were originally conceived to prevent other companies or individuals from making a profit off of the creator's designs without permission.

Granted, the current patent system needs to be fixed. The idea of someone patenting an idea that is already in the wild is both stupid and fraudulent. Regrettably, there are individuals and companies that are doing exactly that, filing patents on products already on the shelf and then suing the creators and other users just for the money -- without ever having produced an item using that patent.

I say, fix the patent system, then shoot down all these fraudulent lawsuits!

str1f3

Feb 10, 2009, 11:09 AM

This shows how Apple and the ridiculous intellectual property rights system is stiffling competition and hurting consumers.

you're ridiculous. there is a reason why there are patents. who pays apple for the millions upon millions for reasearch, prototypes and man hours over the 3 and a 1/2 years it was being developed? you're thinking about it from your own selfish point of view. the customer. read the wired article about how hard it was for apple to get the iphone ready in time for macworld. is it fair to have some company use all of apple's research (with apple employees mind you) to come out with thier own product?

farmboy

Feb 10, 2009, 11:15 AM

Agreed. However, it's not even worth bringing up here. Most forum viewers have this idiotic idea that Apple SHOULD stifle the innovation of others by way of insane defense of intellectual property to the nth degree because they imagine that it all translates into a higher AAPL stock price.

Not to say that they should never defend true innovation, but there are better ways of succeeding aside from endlessly defending itself. A real world example of this is a company of Apple's size spends far more on R&D than Apple does. Of course, this is a testament to Apple producing on a tight budget but imagine if Apple spent less on legal affairs and instead pumped the cash into the laboratories. Google could use multitouch (or Palm) and Apple would have to come out with something better, sooner! So, let me say to the masses we can agree to disagree.

OK, you're just not listening, are you? Apple is REQUIRED to defend its patent, or they lose the right to do so at all. They're not doing it to the "nth" degree on the iPhone or anything else.

I don't know where you got the idea that most forum viewers want Apple to "stifle innovation" to increase the stock price. Quite the opposite here, where you and half of the others have no clue about patents at all.

And, of course, patents do not stifle innovation. That's just a "patently" ridiculous argument. Do we all drive the exact same cars with the exact same technology---no, even tho auto technology is massively patented and always has been. The ideas that thrive in the market are the ideas that WORK, regardless of patent position.

Very basically, patents in the US run for 20 years from the date of application for utility patents, and 14 years from the date of issue for design patents. Think back 14 years ago---what was computing like? Did any patents restrict innovation? Are you still using that Iomega Jasmine Bernoulli drive? Floppy disks? Tape drives? Apple Talk printer connectors? Parallel ports..oh, sorry Windows box users. Fifty pound cathode ray tube monitors?

I tell you what: if there is no significant change in phone technology in the time of Apple's iPhone patent coverage...I will donate $1000 dollars to the St. Jude's Children's Hospital. I will do so anyhow, but even you anti-patent people know beyond a doubt that even five or seven years from now the phones and touch devices in general will be astoundingly different. And no patent will change that.

Apple spends a huge amount on R&D, far more than other companies, so you are just wrong there.

mrgreen4242

Feb 10, 2009, 11:18 AM

Peace

Feb 10, 2009, 11:23 AM

Shasterball

Feb 10, 2009, 11:33 AM

You can go read about the concept of US antitrust law over at wikipedia if you're curious. Warning a competitor away from your patented domain does not run afoul of antitrust law. The classic examples are price-fixing, bid-rigging, geographic market allocation, and "Walker process fraud". This is unlike any of those. It is also unlike the antitrust case against Microsoft, wherein they held a monopoly on PC operating systems and took actions to crush threats to that monopoly. (See Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in that case.) Apple does not hold a monopoly in mobile phones, or even smart phones, so that precedent means nothing here either.

Yes, I have little knowledge about these areas. What I do know is that warning a potential patent infringer that you will fight is certainly not an antitrust issue -- as you eluded to.

Still smells fishy....

mrgreen4242

Feb 10, 2009, 11:34 AM

Palm has been busy and the Pre is coming.<snip>

You've missed the most important factors here: lock outs.

1) The Pre will be Sprint exclusive for all of 6 months. Then Verizon will get it, and GSM carriers within a year. There are LOTS of people who don't want to switch carriers or are mid contract, etc. This is the iPhone for people who don't want AT&T (and there's plenty of them).

2) Software lockout. Apple has the iPhone locked down pretty hard (not that you can't hack it, even easily, just that you have to hack it to do much of anything Apple hasn't preordained). Not sure how the Palm will hold up to thins, but it's likely to be better than the iPhone.

I think you are also missing the mark on the "missing sync". Syncing is very 1990's, imo. No one wants to sync. We should have realtime multidirectional push with the Cloud. Which Palm just might deliver, and where the iPhone fails pretty bad. See: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/01/of-clouds-palms-webos-and-cutting-the-cord.ars

The iPhone may sell to "hipsters" and iPod obsessed techies (I include myself here, I have an iPod touch and love it), but the Palm Pre may merge that market and the Blackberry crowd into a single media rich, business capable device. Maybe. It's too early to tell, yet. I'm getting one, though, assuming the price is decent - I have a Sprint SERO contract (500min, 7pm N&W, m2m, unlimited text/photo msg, unlimited data for $30/month) so the iPhone is just a non-starter for me. I'd pay over 3x the monthly fee for similar service. No thanks.

Unspeaked

Feb 10, 2009, 11:36 AM

Apple spends a huge amount on R&D, far more than other companies, so you are just wrong there.

Are you sure about that?

I think the key point the post you were replying to was trying to make was that other tech companies of Apple's size spend more than Apple on R&D.

Sure, Apple spends a ton, but they don't spend more than their peers, and there's far smaller companies that spend proportionally more than they do.

(Palm, for example, is 1/80 the size of Apple but has 1/6 the R&D budget.)

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 11:40 AM

Here's a novel concept.

Perhaps Apple and Google actually like each other ( ergo Schmidt on the Apple board ) and don't want to step on each others toes. Apple simply asked Google not to implement multi-touch and Google said ok.

I really don't think Google has the mindset of trying to overtake the iPhone.

I have said all along that Google is primarily going after Windows Mobile, not Mobile OS X. The only direct competitor to Mobile OS X is Palm's Web OS (that isn't to say that Android phones can't compete with the iPhone and shouldn't be compared to it).

davidbrummy

Feb 10, 2009, 11:48 AM

Google is a very difficult position. Since they have their fingers in so many pies it has to tred a very tight line with companies it makes money off in one area and compete with in another. Remeber when they pissed off EBay about scheduling something the same time as a PayPal even and EBay pulled their advertising?

As for Palm I agree they do not care who they annoy. They need the new Phone to be a hit or they are dead. Sprint who will I understand have an exclusive agreement with Palm will be in the same boat as their market share is crashing. It is Palm's own fault cause like many people I was a loyal Palm owner from the V to the Treo 755p and they totally failed to keep up.

michaelvoigt

Feb 10, 2009, 11:50 AM

See above for michaelvoigt's post.

Excellent summation, very thought provoking. Thank you.

That was from my iReport on CNN.

Your welcome and thank you for commenting, I really think the iPhone will remain unscathed by the Pre. The game will still be lead by the iPhone...

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 11:55 AM

1) The Pre will be Sprint exclusive for all of 6 months. Then Verizon will get it, and GSM carriers within a year. There are LOTS of people who don't want to switch carriers or are mid contract, etc. This is the iPhone for people who don't want AT&T (and there's plenty of them).
And you're forgetting about the iPod Touch.

2) Software lockout. Apple has the iPhone locked down pretty hard (not that you can't hack it, even easily, just that you have to hack it to do much of anything Apple hasn't preordained). Not sure how the Palm will hold up to thins, but it's likely to be better than the iPhone.
Palm apps are almost exactly like the original iPhone web apps (as far as we can tell with the limited information available). They will have nearly the same abilities with the exception of the Palm web apps being able to run in the background while the iPhone web apps could not. There is no difference with respect to lockout as there is no store for web apps (which is what you're complaining about, not lockouts).

I think you are also missing the mark on the "missing sync". Syncing is very 1990's, imo. No one wants to sync. We should have realtime multidirectional push with the Cloud. Which Palm just might deliver, and where the iPhone fails pretty bad. See: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/01/of-clouds-palms-webos-and-cutting-the-cord.ars
Define fails pretty bad. The iPhone has access to exchange servers (and mobileme, which is vastly improved over the botched launch). By denying the ability to connect directly to a computer and forcing users to use only over the air syncing Palm is in fact limiting the choices, not increasing them.

The iPhone may sell to "hipsters" and iPod obsessed techies (I include myself here, I have an iPod touch and love it), but the Palm Pre may merge that market and the Blackberry crowd into a single media rich, business capable device. Maybe. It's too early to tell, yet. I'm getting one, though, assuming the price is decent - I have a Sprint SERO contract (500min, 7pm N&W, m2m, unlimited text/photo msg, unlimited data for $30/month) so the iPhone is just a non-starter for me. I'd pay over 3x the monthly fee for similar service. No thanks.
As far as I can tell the Pre is not this device. Lets go through your description of the phone compared to the iPhone.

Media rich: Let me know how over the air sync works for you there.
Business capable: Both have access to exchange servers. I'm not sure about the Pre's ability to be remote wiped (nor other security features).
US Carriers: Pre will likely be available to different carriers.

So what will make the Pre perfect by your standards is that it is less capable as a rich media device but is sold by more carriers in the US.

I'm sorry but you're incredibly biased.

I'd love for Palm to succeed but they just aren't living up to the hype as far as I'm concerned. They have been silent on battery life as well as specifics regarding web app development. There is a lot of conjecture here and as far as I can tell it usually stems from someone's iPhone pet peeve (yours being carrier options, others include physical keyboard, the whole "open"/webapp thing, not being a company named Apple, etc...)

Lets wait to see something close to the released product before we go heralding this as the solution to everyone's problems.

TMay

Feb 10, 2009, 11:58 AM

Are you sure about that?

I think the key point the post you were replying to was trying to make was that other tech companies of Apple's size spend more than Apple on R&D.

Sure, Apple spends a ton, but they don't spend more than their peers, and there's far smaller companies that spend proportionally more than they do.

(Palm, for example, is 1/80 the size of Apple but has 1/6 the R&D budget.)

Traditionally, a technology company has a large R&D budget as a percentage or revenue until that company either starts generating a lot of income from products (which is what Palm needs to do), gets bought out for the same technology, or goes bankrupt. Dell is an example of a company that did quite well for a while with a relatively small amount of R&D, but a supply chain business model that the competition ultimately mastered.

You might want to look back to a time when Apple was spending a much higher portion of its revenue in R&D, with much less cash on hand, and what has and is still coming out of that in the way of products and revenue.

I applaud Palm for breaking with past products to develop the Pre, but, there is no guarantee that they will be successful. They are, after all, late to the game.

h.21

Feb 10, 2009, 12:01 PM

Good. Google would have half implemented multitouch and it would have been buggy. I'm glad they didn't put it in the G1.

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 12:04 PM

I think the key point the post you were replying to was trying to make was that other tech companies of Apple's size spend more than Apple on R&D.

Sure, Apple spends a ton, but they don't spend more than their peers, and there's far smaller companies that spend proportionally more than they do.

Correct. Apple spends about 4% of its income on R&D. Most other tech companies spend around 15%.

Of course, amount isn't everything. But raw amount is the wrong thing to boast about, in Apple's case.

Unspeaked

Feb 10, 2009, 12:11 PM

Good. Google would have half implemented multitouch and it would have been buggy. I'm glad they didn't put it in the G1.

And you know this how...?

Correct. Apple spends about 4% of its income on R&D. Most other tech companies spend around 15%.

Of course, amount isn't everything. But raw amount is the wrong thing to boast about, in Apple's case.

Yes, you can't look at a single number and learn a lot from it without looking at other figures, and if any company has done well with a relatively low R&D budget it's been Apple, but I just wanted to clarify that for the poster.

michaelvoigt

Feb 10, 2009, 12:41 PM

The iPhone may sell to "hipsters" and iPod obsessed techies (I include myself here, I have an iPod touch and love it), but the Palm Pre may merge that market and the Blackberry crowd into a single media rich, business capable device. Maybe. It's too early to tell, yet. I'm getting one, though, assuming the price is decent - I have a Sprint SERO contract (500min, 7pm N&W, m2m, unlimited text/photo msg, unlimited data for $30/month) so the iPhone is just a non-starter for me. I'd pay over 3x the monthly fee for similar service. No thanks.

I cannot argue with that monthly price you should stay with Sprint. But, I just think this Pre is going to be another me-too smartphone. It just doesn't say sexy, it just doesn't have a 'got to have it' feature, IMO. There are 13 million plus iPhones out there... momentum, momentum.. momentum.

theheadguy

Feb 10, 2009, 12:50 PM

OK, you're just not listening, are you?
...
Apple spends a huge amount on R&D, far more than other companies, so you are just wrong there.
Like I said, we can agree to disagree. Also, you are dead wrong with wherever you pull your figures from.

As you can see here (http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/gamesandgadgets/10273658_2.html), here (http://www.whdlaw.com/Publications/Giftos_CapitalRegionBizTimes10.2008.pdf), here (http://seekingalpha.com/article/69148-it-s-all-about-apple-s-r-d), here (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-314861/Why-big-companies-can-t.html), and here (http://w1.siemens.com/innovation/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_fall_2006/sustainable_city_development/interview_with_steven_veldhoen.htm); Apple spends relatively little on R&D. So no, you are just wrong there. Try looking some facts up before spewing out falsities.

Katuls

Feb 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

Google made not have implemented 'multi touch' on Android, but that doesn't mean open source developers couldn't make it happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSBYqmWVqeM&eurl=http://gizmodo.com/5097166/android-multitouch-proof-of-concept-aint-pretty-but-it-works&feature=player_embedded

farmboy

Feb 10, 2009, 01:05 PM

That is incorrect. You DO NOT give up patent rights if you don't enforce them. You're thinking of trademark law, which you do lose if you don't defend it.

If what you are saying was true there would be no such thing as patent "torpedoing".

As a matter of patent law, no defense is required. The patent office does not care if you defend your patent. Or if you ever bring it to market.

But as a matter of case law, you do indeed have to put infringers on notice and take active steps to defend your patent or you risk losing the protection against that infringer.

kurosov

Feb 10, 2009, 01:15 PM

I find these "stifling innovation" comments a little pathetic.

What part of using someone elses ideas is innovative?

If a company is unable to churn out copies of the iPhone and multi-touch then to be a success they have to come up with the next big thing and release a product that has a newer, better approach. THAT is innovation.

If every company released a multi-touch smart phone then thats all we would see.

Silver-Fox

Feb 10, 2009, 01:17 PM

No, I think that Apple is still about the people and making the best products that they possibly can. Otherwise, their support would be aweful.

It is pretty much getting worse and worse

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 01:40 PM

It is pretty much getting worse and worse

Fascinating. You say so little in so many words.

Bruce Oksol

Feb 10, 2009, 02:06 PM

...Apple product?

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary

*LTD*

Feb 10, 2009, 02:11 PM

So what.

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 02:15 PM

...Apple product?

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary

Because we're all too busy buying the latest Sony POS:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5150189/so-mean-but-maybe-true-nsfw

Virgil-TB2

Feb 10, 2009, 02:23 PM

Thats crazy. Why would google need to listen to Apple? They're huge! What would they lose by not listening to Apple?

Doesn't make a great deal of sense to me...where have you been?

Google is not that much bigger than Apple market capitalisation wise. It's not like a giant talking to a pee-wee or anything.

Glideslope

Feb 10, 2009, 02:23 PM

It is pretty much getting worse and worse

Yes, and Apples Director of World Wide Service just exited over it. Can't make an Apple Pie if your given Applesauce. We are entering the Tim Cook era. Steve is gone. Face it. We will see a much more aggressive market driven company. Only time will tell.

At least I can still look at my collection of multicolored Apple Stickies. :apple:

Cybbe

Feb 10, 2009, 02:25 PM

Without the intellectual property rights and patent protection no company would invest in the R&D to make innovative products. There would be no iPhone. Or anything else of interest, just old rehashed ideas in the public domain.
There's a different between no IP rights at all and the highly liberal rules on what you can patent nowadays. Like the ridiculous patent eBay got for oneclick purchases online. How can you patent such general ideas? Should the first guy who made a car that moved four wheels steered through a steering wheel have beena able to patent that 'idea' ? Apple should be allowed to patent specific technology, but not ideas as general as using two fingers to control a device. That isn't Apple technology, and not recognizing at such would not hurt innovation or the incentive on Apple's part to 'invent' it at all.

What R&D budget do you need to think of the idea to use two fingers to control a device? The technology to implement it, yes, but that is something very very different.

Think of the difference between the recipie of Coca Cola (which is not patented btw but still intellectual property) and a similar taste. You can't gain IP to the latter.

Virgil-TB2

Feb 10, 2009, 02:28 PM

See above for michaelvoigt's post.

Excellent summation, very thought provoking. Thank you.I thought it was an overly long poorly-written bit of self-puffery.

I mean who writes in point form and then gets the numbers of the points horribly out of order/wrong?
(1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 1, 3, ????)

If the guy can't do math and can't write anything in less than five pages, what's the odds that it's really worth reading his lovely, interesting thoughts?
:rolleyes:

kjs862

Feb 10, 2009, 02:28 PM

I thought this was what a patent was for.

Virgil-TB2

Feb 10, 2009, 02:31 PM

... Yes, the iPhone was first to use it in a civilian handheld device, but that does not constitute an invention, only marketing.You don't know what you are talking about. It's exactly the reverse of what you are saying here, and no I'm not going to explain that, you should go look it up. In fact you should have done that before you commented.

h.21

Feb 10, 2009, 02:34 PM

And you know this how...?

Look at the G1. It is slow and buggy. Therefore, anything that would be a subset of the G1 (like multitouch) would also inherently be slow and buggy.

Virgil-TB2

Feb 10, 2009, 02:44 PM

... One more time for the non-engineers: Apple has no general patent on multi-touch. It has one for a very specific way of deciding if you want to do vertical scrolling, which stops no one.I know you love to pound on this point but it's just not very accurate

There is no patent on "multi-touch" true, but there never really could be as it's probably far too general a thing to patent and there is way too much prior art at this point. Your argument is a bit of a straw man argument in that this would never really be the case to begin with.

Patents are issued on implementations, so yeah it's also true that Apple only has a patent on one implementation.

But the problem with the way you are phrasing this and presenting it to people is that there are only (so far) a limited amount of ways multi-touch can be implemented on device in general and even more limited amount of ways that multi-touch can be implemented on a portable, handheld device.

It would be less mis-leading, and far more accurate, to say that Apple has a patent on pretty much the only few good ways there is to use multi-touch on a portable device. It would also be fair to say that Apple holds the patents on pretty much any desktop implementations as well. Apple currently owns the patents on almost all implementations of multi-touch for the desktop and the portable.

For example, Microsoft has the "Big Ass Table" which is multi-touch, but they don't have the patent on capacitive multi-touch for desktop screens or mobile handhelds and the method used there (tracking cameras), is not useful for any other situation where you don't have the big ass table.

By conflating "multi-touch" and Apple's iPhone patent you are just confusing the issue even as you claim to be mentally separating the two.

breeze

Feb 10, 2009, 03:09 PM

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 03:12 PM

Anyone surprised at the strength of an Apple/Google relationship may remember and ponder Dr. Eric Schmidt's quip at the iPhone Launch event about what to call the two companies "when" they merge: AppleGoog? he asked.....

I'd rather the two stay separate. They have very different cultures and provide services differently. I like this distinction even if I do like it when the cooperate.

Unspeaked

Feb 10, 2009, 03:23 PM

I'd rather the two stay separate. They have very different cultures and provide services differently. I like this distinction even if I do like it when the cooperate.

I think Microsoft agrees wholeheartedly.

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 03:25 PM

Patents are issued on implementations, so yeah it's also true that Apple only has a patent on one implementation.

What patent are you talking about?

The one we're discussing is the recent and very limited one about scrolling vs choosing, which the popular press incorrectly presented as being all about multi-touch.

Apple currently owns the patents on almost all implementations of multi-touch for the desktop and the portable.

Either name one, or stop making stuff up. Apple has no such patents.

In the meantime, HP is making multi-touch tablets (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10102285-1.html).

For example, Microsoft has the "Big Ass Table" which is multi-touch, but they don't have the patent on capacitive multi-touch for desktop screens or mobile handhelds ...

Neither does Apple. Heck, I was programming with capacitive screens over 15 years ago.

breeze

Feb 10, 2009, 03:25 PM

necessarily blur the differences or cause them to interfere with each other...it would just bolster their effectiveness...

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 03:49 PM

I think Microsoft agrees wholeheartedly.

I think Captain America agrees wholeheartedly.

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 03:53 PM

[a merger wouldn't] necessarily blur the differences or cause them to interfere with each other...it would just bolster their effectiveness...

And you know this how? Back up your statements with some information that you apparently have.

Mergers don't = universally good. Yes, they can be an effective tool but that doesn't mean your fantasy version is incredibly likely.

JForestZ34

Feb 10, 2009, 04:03 PM

Apple has not wavered from a commitment to quality. If anything, their insane revenues enable them to pursue it even more.

I don't know about this statement.. I know most of my friends are there 4th iphone and some are on there 3rd macbook or macbook pro. I know when it comes to electronics anything can be a factor.. If apple hasn't already there are starting to get money hungry.. They will turn into every other company, all they want to do is turn a profit.

Just sitting here thinking while I type this, we all love our iphone's and out mac pro's and what not.. I think that Mac's laptop's are way over priced to begin with.. You are probably paying for ease more than anything else.. These computer's have the same thing inside them as dell one's do.. The only thing that is really different is the operating system..

James

MattInOz

Feb 10, 2009, 04:35 PM

It's funny that Apple thinks they own the rights to techniques and technologies researched by other people years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY

Um... the video is from 2006.

Apples Implementation of Multi-Touch developed out of the Fingerworks research that Apple acquired after they worked together on the scrollwheel for the iPod. Fingerworks started in 1999 with shipping product not long after. I guess if we had a look at their Patent Apps the research by the main guys there may even have started by 1996. The tech showed up not to long after that as the multitouch trackpad on the powerbook. Either way

But in Patent terms we have 2 different implimentations of MultiTouch here.
Jef Han uses a camera looking at the rear of a screen the interface is projected on. Which is very cool but not at all useful on a very thin phone.

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 04:39 PM

And Gruber now says he heard something similar from an Apple employee (http://daringfireball.net/2009/02/apple_google_palm).

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 04:39 PM

But in Patent terms we have 2 different implimentations of MultiTouch here.
Jef Han uses a camera looking at the rear of a screen the interface is projected on. Which is very cool but not at all useful on a very thin phone.

Likewise, Fingerworks only designed touch technology for opaque surfaces.

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 04:49 PM

And Gruber now says he heard something similar from an Apple employee (http://daringfireball.net/2009/02/apple_google_palm).

Yeah, the headphone jack explanation really points out how reliable a source it was.

Seriously, he claims that Google didn't include a 3.5mm headphone jack because Apple didn't want them to? Seems more related to what HTC liked to do at the time.

donbadman

Feb 10, 2009, 04:56 PM

I haven't read the comments so appologies if this has been said already but apple are taking the bloody pi$$ and so are Google this kind of scam is exactly whats wrong with the economic system at the moment.

So competition is only good until there is one dominant market player?

I for one can't wait for my iphone contract to expire so i can get a mobile phone that i can make calls on again...

My next PC is one I build myself

Virgil-TB2

Feb 10, 2009, 05:24 PM

What patent are you talking about? The iPhone patent dummy.
Either name (a patent on a desktop implementation of multi-touch that Apple has), or stop making stuff up. Apple has no such patents. Name almost any product for the computer desktop that uses multi-touch or multi-touch gestures that has been produced patented and sold in the last few years and it will be a product made by Fingerworks or Apple. To which Apple now holds the patents.

Fingerworks produced keypads, trackpads, and keyboard replacement products using multi-touch and gestures for years. All patented, all now owned by Apple. These are all implementations of multi-touch, they comprise as a whole, almost the entire body of work using multi-touch in a desktop computing environment and all are owned by Apple.

It's not a slam-dunk of course, but by and large Apple does really actually have these patents and they comprise the bulk of the work in the area that Apple is claiming it owns the patents to. I don't know how you think you can argue otherwise.

Sorry almost forgot ...

dummy. ;)

NAG

Feb 10, 2009, 05:35 PM

Yeah, the headphone jack explanation really points out how reliable a source it was.

Seriously, he claims that Google didn't include a 3.5mm headphone jack because Apple didn't want them to? Seems more related to what HTC liked to do at the time.

Yeah, I don't think these stories are 100% accurate but since there is some degree of agreement from two different sources there is probably some truth. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple and Google talked quite a bit, for instance. I'm not sure Google would actually come to Apple with the G1 though.

branjosef

Feb 10, 2009, 06:01 PM

Yeah Apple...way to stifle any competition screwing the consumers. Keep it up Multi-touch technology = non removable battery and 16gb HD limits.

Stratus Fear

Feb 10, 2009, 06:06 PM

Yeah Apple...way to stifle any competition screwing the consumers.

Oh, yes, the poor competition. They just can't make it without directly copying someone else's work. Why should they have to innovate? That's ridiculous!

Not to mention those consumers, I mean, without the choice of five phones that are all the same to choose from instead of a bunch of phones with different features, I don't know what they'd do!

branjosef

Feb 10, 2009, 06:17 PM

Oh, yes, the poor competition. They just can't make it without directly copying someone else's work. Why should they have to innovate? That's ridiculous!

I don't look at multi-touch technology that way. Thats like saying the windows (typical) GUI for computers is sole property of the company who invented it. Everyone else needs to find a different way to interface with computers or anti-lock brakes and delayed wipers should only belong on cars of the company who invented it. That sucks for everyone who wants variety. I say let everyone incorporate multi-touch technology on their phones. Its better for the consumer. Get off your knees and take a breather- Apple can only handle so much of you on their jock. :eek:

Stratus Fear

Feb 10, 2009, 06:22 PM

I don't look at multi-touch technology that way. Thats like saying the windows (typical) GUI for computers is sole property of the company who invented it. Everyone else needs to find a different way to interface with computers or anti-lock brakes and delayed wipers should only belong on cars of the company who invented it. That sucks for everyone who wants variety. I say let everyone incorporate multi-touch technology on their phones. Its better for the consumer.

Other companies can already make their own implementation of it and patent that. Why haven't they? You'd have to ask them.

Get off your knees and take a breather- Apple can only handle so much of you on their jock. :eek:

Kind of uncalled for, and pretty presumptuous. Yes, I like Apple products, but this was more of a defense of proper use of patents.

The Apple/Google agreement aside, if Google wanted to make their own multi-touch implementation, there wouldn't be anything stopping them, even Apple raising a stink wouldn't win that one. If Google (or anyone) directly copied Apple's implementation, I'd expect Apple to sue and win. Apple hateboys would have a fun day with that one, though.

wonderbread57

Feb 10, 2009, 06:22 PM

Fingerworks produced keypads, trackpads, and keyboard replacement products using multi-touch and gestures for years. All patented, all now owned by Apple. These are all implementations of multi-touch, they comprise as a whole, almost the entire body of work using multi-touch in a desktop computing environment and all are owned by Apple.

I'm leaning towards believing this too but considering U.S. patents are public domain, one of the draw backs of filing a patent, I would be curious to see Apple's actual owned, approved or applied for patents regarding multi-touch or gestures.

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 07:30 PM

The iPhone patent dummy.

If you mean this one (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=multi-touch&s2=multitouch&OS=multi-touch+AND+multitouch&RS=multi-touch+AND+multitouch), popularly called the iPhone patent, then no it's not a broad patent for multitouch. Not even close.

Why don't you tell us what you think it covers?

Since you've obviously never read or understood it, this time be sure to note all the referenced documents and patents at the beginning... from other companies. Those are the prior art and patents that Apple is building on.

mahonmeister

Feb 10, 2009, 07:37 PM

Not cool Apple. Not cool.

Scottsdale

Feb 10, 2009, 07:46 PM

I could be totally wrong here. But the first time I ever saw multi touch was at TED Conference. There was a guy who developed an inexpenive projection screen that projected from the bottom and it made the surface of glass "table" into a multi touch display. That is where I saw multi touch first, and I always figured Apple lifted the idea there hopefully by paying the guy. The inventor of this display was at TED and showed to the audience the same pinch, swipe, and etc motion that Apple uses on trackpads and iPhone. Maybe Apple somehow created it first, but that's not the way I remember it.

So I don't know quite how Apple "owns" the right to exclusively use it??? Would be nice to know.

MattInOz

Feb 10, 2009, 07:47 PM

Touch goes back decades, not years. I did capacitive multi-touch games for casinos back around 1993.

Thanks for the info.....
Why does all the cool technology get used for killing or robbing people first?

Eso

Feb 10, 2009, 08:04 PM

The iPhone patent dummy.

You mean this one? (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,479,949&OS=7,479,949&RS=7,479,949)

I've done the liberty of reading the claims of this patent for you, and it hardly encompasses almost all implementations of multi-touch In fact, not only is every command specified on the contact of "one or more fingers", but for those commands actually implemented on the iPhone, they are all single-touch gestures (swipe, vertical/horizontal/free-form panning). Any talk of multi-touch in context of this patent is quite inaccurate.

So when kdarling says, Either name one, or stop making stuff up. Apple has no such patents. he means to actually cite these patents. Otherwise, you are making blind claims based on assumptions you have drawn from naught but a headline, placing you in a poor position to call anyone else a dummy.

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 08:04 PM

I could be totally wrong here. But the first time I ever saw multi touch was at TED Conference.

You're right, that's probably the first time many people saw it. However, it's been around much, much longer.

Short overview of multi-touch systems (http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html)

A lot of things are also used in the military, and don't show up in civilian usage for years. I was using Top Secret digital scanners in field for NSA, long before anyone outside knew about them. (Each one had circles printed on it, where you would place thermite grenades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Military_uses)in case of imminent capture.) Anyway, there have been multi-touch military devices as well.

Scottsdale

Feb 10, 2009, 08:31 PM

You're right, that's probably the first time many people saw it. However, it's been around much, much longer.

Short overview of multi-touch systems (http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html)

A lot of things are also used in the military, and don't show up in civilian usage for years. I was using Top Secret digital scanners in field for NSA, long before anyone outside knew about them. (Each one had circles printed on it, where you would place thermite grenades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Military_uses)in case of imminent capture.) Anyway, there have been multi-touch military devices as well.

Thanks for the information. It's great to know.

wonderbread57

Feb 10, 2009, 08:36 PM

Um, DOD Hotline, we have a possible leak of classified information from a blowhard on an internet bulletin board. I am emailing the source of this dissemination. Please confirm receipt.

Back to the topic, obscure and/or secret uses do not inhibit the filing of a patent. This is not an "i did it first" contest, it's an "i patented it first" contest.

Scottsdale

Feb 10, 2009, 08:47 PM

But why does Apple get to request anyone NOT use it then??? Seems unfair to me. Just a thought...

kdarling

Feb 10, 2009, 09:00 PM

Back to the topic, obscure and/or secret uses do not inhibit the filing of a patent.

They do inhibit the public revealing of it. Over 5,000 patents are still kept secret (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/us-patent-office-reveals-numbe.html)in the US alone.

This is not an "i did it first" contest, it's an "i patented it first" contest.

And there's still no patent presented that would cause Google to not implement multi-touch.

The upshot is, if Google did ignore multi-touch because Apple asked, it was obviously for other reasons than patent fear.

Certainly Google has shown that they're willing to license technology they desire. The recent Exchange Activesync for Google Sync is a large example.

mdriftmeyer

Feb 10, 2009, 10:09 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how FUD becomes FACT in the land of the Internet where verification and research succumb to hysteria and mythology.

I WAS the one

Feb 10, 2009, 10:49 PM

... And this is why I went UBUNTU. to start from scratch...

NT1440

Feb 10, 2009, 10:51 PM

... And this is why I went UBUNTU. to start from scratch...

What does that have to do with android?:confused:

branjosef

Feb 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

Other companies can already make their own implementation of it and patent that. Why haven't they? You'd have to ask them.

Kind of uncalled for, and pretty presumptuous. Yes, I like Apple products, but this was more of a defense of proper use of patents.

The Apple/Google agreement aside, if Google wanted to make their own multi-touch implementation, there wouldn't be anything stopping them, even Apple raising a stink wouldn't win that one. If Google (or anyone) directly copied Apple's implementation, I'd expect Apple to sue and win. Apple hateboys would have a fun day with that one, though.

I wasn't necessarily trying to be mean, its just we get alot of die hard apple fanboys who seem to think Apple can do no wrong. My apologies

iMaggot

Feb 11, 2009, 12:31 AM

Damn........ Apple is so going to sue Palm lol

needthephone

Feb 11, 2009, 02:01 AM

This shows how Apple and the ridiculous intellectual property rights system is stiffling competition and hurting consumers.

What a ridiculous thing to say. So patents "stifle" competition. Patents stop your IP being ripped off. A company spends a lot of money developing some feature and then some fly by night company can take the idea and run with it, right?

The whole concept of patents was developed to protect companies investment in R&D.

Sorry what a ridiculous thing to say.

apple have come up with something unique and naturally everyone wants a piece of the action. OK but think of something else.

If apple have protected it then good luck to them and I hope they sue Palm and anyone else to the brink. Go get em apple.

oh and if you have any Palm shares sell them now when they are still worth something....

wonderbread57

Feb 11, 2009, 02:36 AM

MR can be attributed for the populous impression that Apple holds a multi-touch specific patent due to their Jan 26th headline "Apple Awarded iPhone and Multi Touch Patent"

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/26/apple-awarded-iphone-and-multi-touch-patent/

The story mentions this is the huge 358 page "iPhone" patent but also quotes this part of the patent, "A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command". Sounds general but alas, it was approved. Whether or not this can be upheld against, say the Pre, is for the courts to decide.

MH01

Feb 11, 2009, 04:33 AM

Technically Google have more cash but they have no influence over the industry like Apple.

They only make money because of low overheads and ridiculously high prices on advertising. Youtube, barely break even, ad supported. GMail, ad supported. Web apps, ad supported. Phones, they've sold a few.

Apple on the other hand, have the music industry under their thumb, shortly to have the film industry under their thumb, cornered the world on MP3 players, will corner the world on phones, cornered America on laptops.

What industry are you referring to? One could argue that google have a monopoly on the internet industry, and the money they make from advertising dwarfs that what apple makes.

In the end Advertising makes the most money.

And apple does not hold the music industry under its thumb, they have some muscle. Just because Jobs got his way on xmas in regards to DRM free music does not mean he holds it under his thumb. Itunes is not exactly the choice app for people who run PCs. Also outside of the US, Itunes prices are a rippoff.

Bold predictions about it corning the world of phones, and how on earth did you work out they have cornered the world of Laptops???

ccuk

Feb 11, 2009, 04:45 AM

What a ridiculous thing to say. So patents "stifle" competition. Patents stop your IP being ripped off. A company spends a lot of money developing some feature and then some fly by night company can take the idea and run with it, right?

The whole concept of patents was developed to protect companies investment in R&D.

Sorry what a ridiculous thing to say.

apple have come up with something unique and naturally everyone wants a piece of the action. OK but think of something else.

If apple have protected it then good luck to them and I hope they sue Palm and anyone else to the brink. Go get em apple.

oh and if you have any Palm shares sell them now when they are still worth something....

Go get em Apple? Are you kidding?! That statement right there shows where your head was at when you made that post.

Patents DO stifle competition. Many are made and never used so the patent owner can obtain royalties from the idea rather then ever actually intend using it. And the patents Apple have taken out with regards to multitouch are their attempt to prevent anyone else making a competetive product, which is not good for the consumer. Competition in the market place is the driving force behind innovation. Without it, companies become lethargic and don't make many updates to their products since there is no need... their prices remain high... why... no competition.

Apple haven't reinvented the wheel, they are just the first company to produce a touchscreen device which is very useable. The more companies producing devices similar to the iPhone in terms of usability the better as far as I am concerned.

kdarling

Feb 11, 2009, 07:43 AM

MR can be attributed for the populous impression that Apple holds a multi-touch specific patent due to their Jan 26th headline "Apple Awarded iPhone and Multi Touch Patent"

Yes, which was just as non-accurate as the previous headlines saying that Apple was allowing third party browsers.

Eso and I and others who actually READ the patent, immediately pointed out here that it was no such thing.

A couple of days later, cooler heads prevailed elsewhere as well, and we saw better researched articles such as this one from Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/)pointing out the fallacy of the headline.

The story mentions this is the huge 358 page "iPhone" patent but also quotes this part of the patent, "A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command". Sounds general but alas, it was approved. Whether or not this can be upheld against, say the Pre, is for the courts to decide.

The reason that sounds general, is because that's from the abstract, which is NOT the patent. Nor is the rest of the 300 pages, which are descriptions of it being applied.

The much more boring patent itself, is in the claims section, which is about two pages of related paragraphs, with one main device implementation stated in claim 1 and repeated in claims 11 and 17 for distribution via software and software media:

"a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display;"

So one requirement is using the initial angle to decide if you want to scroll vertically or move the page around. (The "one or more" also immediately tells us it's not directed solely at multi-touch.)

"a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display;"

The next requirement is that you have a separate section of code that decides if you want to move the page around instead of scrolling vertically. Also based on initial angle.

"and a next item heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items"

And it also has code to decide if you want to scroll a list or choose an item from it.

Even a casual reader can tell it's not a patent on multi-touch.

Moreover, change or leave out any part of it, and you do not violate the patent.

Cheers, Kev

branjosef

Feb 11, 2009, 02:59 PM

Some patents I think are good. The guy who invented the cart corral at the supermarket. Good for him.. get your money protect your investment, but multi-touch technology? That's like patenting the way toilets flush or the way cars stop at an intersection. Just think if the windows (not the company -windows) GUI concept was limited to just one brand? That would suck. I look at multi-touch technology the same way. I think if someone line for line copied apples methods for doing it, well then that is inappropriate but if someone can come up with another way to incorporate multi-touch technology into their phone or computer, then they should be able to. It only betters the consumer in the end. Just think if Ford was the only company with anti-lock brakes and sued everyone else for incorporating that technology in their cars. That would suck and I bet alot of people would cry foul. Screw apple for trying to monopolize that technology. Good thing Xerox didn't feel that way in the early 80s..otherwise we would all be posting these comments via command line because xerox doesnt make computers.

:)

twoodcc

Feb 11, 2009, 06:23 PM

wow! i'm glad that google has much respect for apple. i guess we'll see what happens with palm soon

branjosef

Feb 11, 2009, 08:17 PM

Bring on the palm pre.
Has anyone seen the hands on video of it. It looks pretty "snappy" - not slow at all.

dizzy13

Feb 11, 2009, 08:18 PM

Bring on the palm pre.
Has anyone seen the hands on video of it. It looks pretty "snappy" - not slow at all.

Remember the Pre will be competing against the 3rd gen iPhone, not the iPhone 3g :eek:

branjosef

Feb 11, 2009, 08:20 PM

Remember the Pre will be competing against the 3rd gen iPhone, not the iPhone 3g :eek:

I'm down with the iphone- make no mistake :D . I just look at it as spurring more competition resulting in more iphone like devices available for the consumer...which is always a good thing.

QuantumLo0p

Feb 11, 2009, 08:51 PM

Intellectual protection encourages new ideas, instead of copying old ideas.
Patent and copyright protection encourages competition and discourages copycat products by companies too lazy to develop new ideas.

Yeah. Just imagine if that guy who invented the wheel had put a patent on it. We'd be flying around in DeLorians equipped with flux capacitors.
:D

lamadude

Feb 12, 2009, 06:00 AM

Actually there is a lot of debate on whether patents really do encourage R&D, many small companies might not innovate because they are affraid they'll get sued, and wether they are right or not the legal mess that creates is enough to drive them away.
Also you can look at all the amazing inventions that were done before the patents system existed, or all the music that was created before copyright existed.

hzc71

Feb 12, 2009, 06:52 AM

But why does Apple get to request anyone NOT use it then??? Seems unfair to me. Just a thought...

Have any of you even read one line of the 384 or so page patent? It's not just if you can put two fingers on it, you're violating Apple's multi-touch. It's a very specific implementation of such things as the technology and method of detecting touches, determining which object was touched when there are overlapping objects, etc.

AND... patents don't last forever. It's there to protect the inventor for a certain period of time so people don't just rush out with exact copies and get paid for something they did not take the time to do themselves.

kdarling

Feb 12, 2009, 08:36 AM

Have any of you even read one line of the 384 or so page patent?

It's a lot more fun to make up stuff to get readers or argue over. :rolleyes:

To those who haven't read it, the actual patent claims are only about two pages. The other 300+ pages are examples, detailed apparently just to get Jobs name inscribed at the top of iPhone history. Well, he's the CEO, after all.

It's not just if you can put two fingers on it, you're violating Apple's multi-touch. It's a very specific implementation of such things as the technology and method of detecting touches, determining which object was touched when there are overlapping objects, etc.

Better than my own, I just read the simplest explanation yet, in this article (http://precommunity.com/a-championship-bout-ahead-200929453):

the core of Apple’s touted Multi-Touch patent is based on one (relatively) simple ability:
sense an initial scrolling mode - 1D, horizontal OR vertical and 2D, panning horizontal/vertical - and locking into that mode until the finger-touch is released from the screen.

For example, when you flick a webpage under Safari to scroll vertically, it locks into that mode instead of accidentally panning sideways with your finger.

MikeTheC

Feb 12, 2009, 12:32 PM

Thus are the pitfalls of software patents, folks.

While I like the iPhone and hope to see it continue to experience success, I also believe that competition is very healthy, and would prefer, as others here have expressed, that Apple not have done this. Apple and Google together could really transform the entire telecom industry (as it revolves around the cell phone industry model) and thereby allow us individuals to all benefit. A rising tide floats all boats, after all.

hzc71

Feb 13, 2009, 06:41 AM

Better than my own, I just read the simplest explanation yet, in this article (http://precommunity.com/a-championship-bout-ahead-200929453):

For example, when you flick a webpage under Safari to scroll vertically, it locks into that mode instead of accidentally panning sideways with your finger.

Yeah, the article states:
First, the core of Apple’s touted Multi-Touch patent is based on one (relatively) simple ability: sense an initial scrolling mode - 1D, horizontal OR vertical and 2D, panning horizontal/vertical - and locking into that mode until the finger-touch is released from the screen.

Simple? I'd like to see them try to implement that! Oh wait, that would be patent infringement. :D

The iPhone Multi-Touch Patent Myth (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/02/13/the-iphone-multitouch-patent-myth/)

MikeTheC

Feb 13, 2009, 12:00 PM

Yeah, the article states:The iPhone Multi-Touch Patent Myth (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/02/13/the-iphone-multitouch-patent-myth/)
The only issue I have with this is the author's assertion that Apple's reason for not patenting the stuff that Microsoft ripped off was that they didn't feel it was necessary. While it's true they may not have felt it necessary, the ability to patent software is a relatively recent one, and may not have been available at the time for Apple to make use of, should they have even wanted to.

Moreover, the notion that patent protection actually stops anyone is completely uninformed and bogus. There are numerous examples of patent holders having their patented inventions stolen and used by others, only to have them poison the market and then withdraw from it and "apologize", thus completely spoiling any further future opportunity the legitimate patent holder had. My dad, for one, was such an affected person in the 1970s.

Part of why the patent system in this country is in desperate need of reform is the way in which one can go about patenting things which incorporate usability concepts, not just the underlying implimentational concept. As much as that guy wants to get up on his bully pulpit and preach, his online rag website needs to fact-check him as much as the Ms. Litella character to which he does somewhat accurately refer.

branjosef

Feb 13, 2009, 03:26 PM

I asked apple to kiss my a*s...doesnt mean anything. Let them ask all they want. :D

toores

Feb 15, 2009, 05:19 PM

kurosov

Feb 15, 2009, 05:26 PM

Read this article to the end.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/

And i agree, apple is getting worse than microsoft. First they launch iPhone, then iPhone 3G so you would have to buy new one. Allways giving a little less then possible. I think Palm's Pre is a phone with features like every phone should be. And way better then iPhone. (You don't need gaming, you need to get the basics right)

You come across as the type of person who believes everything they read. Apple are no different to how they where a few years ago. The products they release are aimed at pleasing a specific type of person, as is the iphone.

Just because YOU want what you class as the basics instead of gaming that does not mean someone else will. For someone wanting a single portable entertainment device bundled with a mobile phone the iphone is a great product.

If you think the palm pre is better then buy one when it comes out.

elgrecomac

May 5, 2009, 02:13 AM

Agreed. While Apple has made a major push to build revenue on numerous fronts, that has only allowed them to do what they do best... create a great user experience. Steve, himself, stands up there on stage and communicates that for us all to hear. They don't have some hidden, sly agenda. It takes money to do what they do. While it's easy to focus on just the money-making goal alone, one must take it in context. Apple has not wavered from a commitment to quality. If anything, their insane revenues enable them to pursue it even more.

http://www.truveo.com/Is-the-NSA-reading-your-email-pbsorgFRONTLINE/id/2778418705