"And boy have we patented it ! "

[kdarling]

The patent lawyers are going to get rich then...

Probably not.

For example, take the so-called pinch patent application.

Read its actual claims. It's about computing the finger offsets, not about pinch itself.

It is so specific to weighted averages, velocities, and so forth, that it's really only useful to Apple themselves.

Btw, you don't even need multi-touch to do a pinch gesture, if you're a bit clever about it. I've done it on regular screens, and so have others. For example, demo'd here on a Windows Mobile device.

 

[Pantocrator]

Who cares? Apple got to come out with it first- if other companies, including MS, want to include it to, why stop them? Don't put a crutch on progress by only letting one company use a cool technology. Most technology patents are stupid anyway- I read an article in a game informer (or OXM or something) a while ago that listed all the stupid patents companies owned which screwed over video game devs. Let MS copy, or there will be no competition, and competition is what makes the world great. I like the idea of iphone killers, because Apple is forced to make their next installment even better. When you don't have competition, you get Madden, and everybody should know how well that works out.

 

[BothBarsOn]

Spooky. I logged in to ask this exact question, which has been bugging me for days.

Seems like the word "patent" doesn't mean what I thought it did ...

 

[powderblue17]

Unfortunately, people do not have time to do any research on their own. So they must depend on news bloggers, who write breathless headlines to bring people to their advertisement-driven websites.

Jobs is a salesman, not an engineer. Do you believe everything salespeople say to you? Of course not. He depends on the naive misinterpreting his carefully chosen phrases. The paragraph you're talking about went exactly like this:

"And we have invented a new technology called multi-touch, which is phenomenal." - New to Apple, that is.

"It works like magic." - Uh, no. Just seems like that to non-programmers.

"You don’t need a stylus." - You can't use most stylii with it.

"It’s far more accurate than any touch display that’s ever been shipped." - More accurate than anything Apple has ever shipped.

"It ignores unintended touches, it’s super-smart." - As anyone here knows, it does not ignore unintended touches. What he meant was, if you touch, hold and scroll, it cancels the initial click.

"You can do multi-finger gestures on it." - True.

"And boy, have we patented it." - By "it", he mostly means the phone, and probably mainly design patents. They did apply for some software patents, which are for a very, very specific way of interpreting touch.



Multi-touch has been around for 25 years. Gestures, ditto. Many companies, such as Microsoft, have R&D projects that do all sorts of cool things that don't see the light unless marketing sees an opportunity.

I have been doing touchscreens for well over fifteen years. Engineers like me are not swayed by simple special effects that anyone can do. We've also seen and done so many dog and pony shows ourselves, that we're not so gullible.

So let's see you try to implement multi-touch that works as smoothly as Apple has. While I've seen plenty of multi-touch tech demos they have always been slow and jerky with poor animations. Even in Microsoft's demo of Windows 7 the other day you could see this. Surface looked pretty smooth from what I saw of it but it is also a big ass table and not a device that fits in your hand so it had hardware many times more powerful. I know Apple didn't invent multi-touch but Apple was the first company to provide an implementation of multi-touch for a mass audience and not just some gadget geeks. That's what Apple does, they take existing technologies and put the final layer of polish on those technologies by providing a superior user-interface. For multi-touch that means a user interface that reacts instantly to a touch and does everything smoothly on a device with very limited resources.

I'm sure Apple also has many R&D project that do all sorts of cool things that don't see the light unless marketing sees an opportunity. Unlike Microsoft they don't talk about unreleased technology they might be working on.

 

[woodekm]

Yea!!!!
Touch screen Vista!!!

 

[Virgil-TB2]

Hi All -

Remember the January 2007 iPhone announcement when King Steve was talking about multi-touch technology. He really went out of his way to indicate that the technology was patented.

Now it seems to be showing up all over the place? Specifically, the Microsoft goofs were introducing their multi-touch techno flop the other day and it seems to act exactly the same as what we are all used to with Macbook Air and iPhone / iTouch devices.

Maybe I am an idiot (and let's just assume I am) but I took from King Steve that "And boy have we patented it !" meant ... Just lookey no touchey.

Anybody? Bueller?

I was wondering about this lately also what with all the new iphone lookalikes out there.

There have been some intelligent responses (and many other responses as well ), on this thread about how they have patented the implementation as opposed to the idea of multi-touch itself, and how they did not really invent multi-touch anyway, but that still doesn't really explain why Apple hasn't moved on any of it's many patents.

Apple has gone out of it's way to patent the implementation and the underlying technical details of it, yet several companies are producing products that clearly violate these patents and they aren't being pursued (so far). Regardless of what you think of their chances in court, why even try to patent "the pinch" if you aren't going to defend it?

Apple also patented the idea of touching the screen to produce circular (or various other shaped) "virtual controls" which was demonstrated in that crappy Windows 7 demo yesterday by MS! I mean the patent drawings look fairly identical to me. How does Microsoft get away with this stuff? MS also released screen shots that showed a "dock" (not the one Walt points to in the video), that is virtually identical to the dock in Tiger.

The other part I find disturbing is that Apple also patented the "look and feel" of the iphone and trademarked it's "iconic" appearance as well, yet we have several companies producing products that are clearly intended to be mistaken (at a small distance) for an iPhone. RIM's 9000 model has the same chrome rim and smooth black face and even if you give them a pass for the fact that the top of their unit has a slight bulge, the next-gen full touch screen model due out in the fall will look even *more* like an iPhone. Lot's of other companies are mimicking the home button, the screen and most of the interface.

Isn't this kind of the same as if someone started producing "Nake" brand running shoes that look identical to the Nike originals but have a slightly different curved "swoosh" on the side? I don't get what the point of patent and trademark protection is it's not to be used for exactly this kind of stuff.

Is Apple just too busy to take folks to court or something?

.

 

[infowarfare]

Here's a popular history link by Microsoft's principal researcher, Bill Buxton:

Multi-touch systems I've known

And more to the pinch, an iPhone UI review by the famous Bruce Tognazzini:

Ex-Apple designer's viewpoint

Tog not only notes that he did the pinch at Sun Microsystems, but that Buxton was a big proponent of multi-touch, decades ago.

As for simple stuff like fingertip page-flipping and scrolling, even I did that back around 1982 on touchpads. There's rarely anything new, except to consumers.

Unfortunately, people do not have time to do any research on their own. So they must depend on news bloggers, who write breathless headlines to bring people to their advertisement-driven websites.

Jobs is a salesman, not an engineer. Do you believe everything salespeople say to you? Of course not.

<snip>

I have been doing touchscreens for well over fifteen years. Engineers like me are not swayed by simple special effects that anyone can do. We've also seen and done so many dog and pony shows ourselves, that we're not so gullible.

Really? Simple effects that anyone can do? With all of your 15 years experience along with all the other engineers and cell phone and computer makers, why is it then that the iPhone is getting so much press and buzz about it? No, no, let me quote your beloved Tog since you linked to him initially:

The origins of these bits and pieces, however, is not what’s important about the iPhone. What’s important is that, for the first time, so many great ideas and processes have been assembled in one device, iterated until they squeak, and made accessible to normal human beings. That’s the genius of Steve Jobs; that’s the genius of Apple.

It’s also speaks to the limited vision of the cell phone industry. Exactly why have we never had random-access voicemail on cell phones? We’re talking about hand-held devices with more computer power than the Apollo spacecraft that took us to the moon. We’re talking about devices with screens of more than sufficient resolution. Could nobody think of displaying the messages?

There is no mistaking that this is a first-release phone, both in the hardware and software. However, it is an Apple first release, equivalent in many respects to the fifth or sixth release quality we have come to expect from other major computer technology players.

The "fit and finish" of the device are extraordinary, both in terms of industrial design and human-computer interaction.

The iPhone really is a study in "delight." It really is wonderful that, in an industry rife with companies striving for mediocrity, one company is still doing things right. Those of us who flocked to Apple in the beginning did so not to build computers, but to change the world. Apple is once again doing just that.

Apple is now entering the consumer electronics world, where the lackluster attitude of "we'll fix it in the next release" is not good enough. The iPhone proves they are more than ready.

 

[t0mat0]

<snip> still doesn't really explain why Apple hasn't moved on any of it's many patents.

Apple has gone out of it's way to patent the implementation and the underlying technical details of it, yet several companies are producing products that clearly violate these patents and they aren't being pursued (so far). Regardless of what you think of their chances in court, why even try to patent "the pinch" if you aren't going to defend it?

Apple also patented the idea of touching the screen to produce circular (or various other shaped) "virtual controls" which was demonstrated in that crappy Windows 7 demo yesterday by MS! I mean the patent drawings look fairly identical to me. How does Microsoft get away with this stuff? MS also released screen shots that showed a "dock" (not the one Walt points to in the video), that is virtually identical to the dock in Tiger.

The other part I find disturbing is that Apple also patented the "look and feel" of the iphone and trademarked it's "iconic" appearance as well, yet we have several companies producing products that are clearly intended to be mistaken (at a small distance) for an iPhone. RIM's 9000 model has the same chrome rim and smooth black face and even if you give them a pass for the fact that the top of their unit has a slight bulge, the next-gen full touch screen model due out in the fall will look even *more* like an iPhone. Lot's of other companies are mimicking the home button, the screen and most of the interface.

Isn't this kind of the same as if someone started producing "Nake" brand running shoes that look identical to the Nike originals but have a slightly different curved "swoosh" on the side? I don't get what the point of patent and trademark protection is it's not to be used for exactly this kind of stuff.

Is Apple just too busy to take folks to court or something?

.

Let's go from the standpoint that you want to cover everything you're going to actually build or go forward with, with patents. Which means you're going to have patents on the things you had to stop developing. (E.g. they're likely to be patents on the non-released tablet Apple worked on). I'd imagine the view is to patent as much as you can, in the areas Apple sees itself going into. So they're likely to have patents that someone goes close to, but Apple doesn't actually have a product in the market for, whilst someone else brings one out.

In terms of defending their tech, has there actually been a device out yet that really steps over the line with respect to patents held by Apple? They have the flexibility of taking some amount of time in a response I imagine.

It'd be cool to get a patent lawyer on to chat about the fundamentals.

Will Apple release the 3G iPhone then a salvo of cease and desists? Apple has already taken to task some copycat models being hawked. It's odds on that Jobs will talk patents again at the keynote. He doesn't mind showing similarities/differences between Apple products and others, so the "start your photocopiers" theme might crop up again. Hopefully they aren't going to get too antsy about it all.

 

[Archie-]

Here's a video of early Microsoft surface from 2005.

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=19174

 

[lindsayanng]

I work with patent lawyers very closely, and I can tell you that you can have design patents and spec. patents that deal in the actual technology and not just the looks.

Now bare with me because I am not very tech savy, but i understand the patenting industry.

Think about music. You can NOT copyright a guitar rhythm. It is something that was debated A LOT when Vanilla Ice came out with Ice Ice Baby, a song that is VERY close to Under Pressure by Queen. Now it was not EXACTLY alike, but it sounded VERY much a like.

Now think about the new designs that are coming out the look A LOT like the iphone. Same chrome edge, same black glossy screen, ear piece in the same place, same home key button. LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME.. All the competitor would need to do is use a different material like a different plastic, metal, or screen and you have an entirely new product. I know there was some talk about the different materials you could use for a backing like the ceramic, ect. If a competitor came out with a phone that looks EXACLY the same as the iphone (minus the apple logo) but they used that new material on the back, that is a compeltely NEW patent and they are in NO WAY infringing on Apple's patent.

Like i said, patents are GREAT for ideas, and it gets you far, but it never completely saves you from copy cats. What patents do is (hopefully) push technology further. If a company has a patent on a technology, a competitor is going to have to make SOME kind of change in order for them to be able to produce a similar product. It forces them to change things, and usually they try to change it for the better by adding a technology, or by using a cheaper material to pass down the savings to the customer to undercut the competitor.


Think about it this way, if you were TRUELY able to patent an idea, there would be NO competition in the technology world. There would be NO WAY to exapnd on an existing technology.

Now when it comes to simple things with ONE component and only one possible material, it is A LOT easier to protect your product with a patent.

The idea of patenting technology is to force the competition into to spending as much money as the originator did on patent lawyers and such because if the competitor does not have to go through all that, then they immediately have a BIG upper hand because they have a technology that can just USE and not put any time into researching. That cuts their COST of creating their similar product A LOT. If there is a patent, now the competitor has to hire a patent lawyer and CHANGE it which requires man power and money.

I hope all of this is making sense..

the main thing to understand with patents is that is DOES NOT protect your product from being copied, but it DOES protect your product from being exactly reproduced for a fraction of the cost by a competitor

 

[kdarling]

Really? Simple effects that anyone can do?

Well, yeah. The UI is dead simple, with visual bling thrown in. That's its whole point, and its appeal.

That's why people were able to duplicate the iPhone UI in web based simulators within a few weeks of getting ahold of one.

It's not an advanced UI. Quite the opposite. It's what's known as a hub and spoke model, which has been around in GUIs since the early 80s, and on terminals for decades before that.

... why is it then that the iPhone is getting so much press and buzz about it?

See above. Simplicity and bling. And a Jobs to push it.

Having also designed casino touchscreen machines, I understand the need for ease of use... and more bling than you can think of!

You seem to think that saying it's a simple UI is somehow bad. It's not. Clearly people like the UI because it's simple (although many now wish for more functionality).

 

[kdarling]

... why even try to patent "the pinch" if you aren't going to defend it?

Please read responses above. They can't and didn't try to patent the pinch, which has been around for decades. They simply applied to patent a very particular way of calculating pinch distance.

Apple also patented the idea of touching the screen to produce circular (or various other shaped) "virtual controls" which was demonstrated in that crappy Windows 7 demo yesterday by MS!

Once again, it's a patent application. That one's trying to patent gestures we touchscreen programmers have used for decades, but with more than one finger involved. I don't think that one will be approved, since virtual controls have been around forever and using two fingers is pretty obvious stuff if you have the hardware.

Look guys, Apple should be commended for bringing a lot of this out to consumers. But it's all old, well known stuff in the industrial, military and R&D touchscreen world. Make no mistake about that.

Personally I'm grateful to Apple. My expertise is now higher in demand, plus I got to put bling back into some of my projects. Woo hoo!

 

[t0mat0]

Now think about the new designs that are coming out the look A LOT like the iphone. Same chrome edge, same black glossy screen, ear piece in the same place, same home key button. LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME.. All the competitor would need to do is use a different material like a different plastic, metal, or screen and you have an entirely new product. I know there was some talk about the different materials you could use for a backing like the ceramic, ect. If a competitor came out with a phone that looks EXACLY the same as the iphone (minus the apple logo) but they used that new material on the back, that is a compeltely NEW patent and they are in NO WAY infringing on Apple's patent.

<SNIP>the main thing to understand with patents is that is DOES NOT protect your product from being copied, but it DOES protect your product from being exactly reproduced for a fraction of the cost by a competitor

An interesting thing patent wise is Apple's potential moves away from previous styles slightly due to the move to add touch.

Similar to this (includes pictures of the evolution of the iPod) - Apple is moving away from it's iconic clickwheel - to a touch screen. Apple has as mentioned used patents, product design and a lot of advertising to strengthen links with the consumer, but this has been associated a lot more with the clickwheel plus a screen design, rather than the iPhone. The "one giant screen" design is a lot more susceptible to mimicking, so that at first glance rivals look similar, a convergent evolution of the phenotype, but not always as much convergence on the genotype (the hardware/software).

Edit: James G. Conley's "Inventing Brands: Opportunities at the Nexus of Semiotics and Intellectual Property" from the Design Management Review (description here) (Semiotics = systematic study of signs and symbols, or perhaps aesthetics in New Emporer clothes depending on your view) seems to be at odds with Apple's movements here. Intrinsic qualities of the touch-screen cause the less iconographic still (not turned on) visual image of it. (Though bear in mind, the patents on touch-pads from Apple that indicate thinking about having the surface non-flat and branching out beyond simple haptics).

I haven't finished the full article yet, but basically the tenet is that there is power inherent in the visual dimension of a brand, and linking this with patents, copyrights and other unique content has effects (e.g. that it extends the competitiveness and range of offerings in the marketplace.)

Whilst it isn't too hard to create a touch-screen product that stands out, it's much harder to create one that stands out visually
from it's competitors. It's design is a frame for the picture - the screen and it's content. Apple is having to move away from it's iconographic previous design, due to the move to another UI - Touch. Luckily it has more up it's sleeve.