Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asked Google Not to Use Multi-Touch in Android?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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)...
- 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 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?
Is it something Google's saying to explain a "deficiency" in its products?
It's the specific implementation, not the idea.
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.
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.
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.
VentureBeat claims 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 that Apple would aggressively protect the iPhone's intellectual property. Palm's new Pre Phone 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?
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.
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.
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
pot - kettle - black
Perhaps you should look at Apple's list of acquisitions before making a statement like that....
Perhaps you should look at Apple's list of acquisitions before making a statement like that....
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.
Don't mean to rain on your parade, but you should read this.
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.
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?
Rich
Quick quiz. I've got a gesture in mind for this idea - can you guess what it is?
Rich
APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A PATENT ON MULTI-TOUCH.
Good grief. How long will this stupid myth continue?
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.
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.
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.