Apple Awarded iPhone and Multi-Touch Patent

[Eso]

In other words, can I patent a 'warp drive' even if I don't have a blue-print or schematic for one? I can just patent the IDEA of one? There are plenty of ways to skin a cat and if one company could patent the idea of something like a "camera" and that would mean that NO ONE could make a competing camera because the entire idea in whole of a "camera" was patented by someone else... well let me just say it, it's STUPID.

Clearly you understand nothing about patents. And by the way, patents are not issued on fiction, a la the "warp drive". All patent applications require the submission of sketches and drawings that illustrate possible implementations of the idea.

Yes, the exact schematics and methods of Apple being protected are ONE thing, but the patent system in recent years have gone FAR FAR beyond reasonable in the ways it awards patents.

Actually, that is backwards. Most recently, the Supreme Court (which is rarely involved in patent cases, FYI) in KSR International vs. Teleflex Inc. over-ruled the Federal Circuit court upholding Teleflex's patent (No. 6,237,565) for an adjustable pedal system with electronic throttle control, stating that the combination of these two technologies was an "ordinary innovation" for one of ordinary skill in the art. The "Supreme Court held that even if there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to make the combination, the combination may still be obvious" - and thus not patentable. In actuality, the issuing of patents has actually become tighter since 2007.

So if Apple discovered the ONLY way to make multi-touch function (one circuit and one method) that's fine. But if someone else can make it work with a different circuit, I say TOO BAD.

This touches somewhat on the difference between a patent and copyright. The copyright only protects the particular algorithm that controls the implementation multi-touch whereas a patent protects the idea of multi-touch. Note this patent granted to Apple only applies to a handful of very select input methods and corresponding fucntions for a touchscreen (single or multi) device. Whether or not software should be patentable is a debated topic.

Compare that to the medicine industry where you can patent a FORMULA (which IS a SINGLE EXACT THING) but only for a limited amount of time for the common good of everyone. That's a MUCH more reasonable system.

This is highly debatable. First of all, "for the good of everyone" usually means for the good of the drug company that holds the patent. Many people feel that drugs should be not patentable as they are related to people's health. It's not like having an iPhone - some people rely on certain medications for their life, patents on which can make them very expensive. Furthermore, patents can be held on a person's genes. A patent can be granted, for example, for a specific enzyme-producing gene that occurs naturally in a certain patient. For all intents and purposes, the patent owner now owns a part of said patient's body, and has a reasonable right to access their property at will. "At the moment, Hepatitis C, HIV, hemophilus influenza, various diabetes genes, are all owned by somebody."

 

[dsp81]

I'm endlessly amazed at how patent offices can issue 'patents' over 'ideas' instead of implementations. I mean is this about a WAY to achieve multi-touch or is this idea of using more than one finger to accomplish something a unique idea? If so, I think the piano and even the joystick and keyboard have one over on Apple.

In other words, can I patent a 'warp drive' even if I don't have a blue-print or schematic for one? I can just patent the IDEA of one? There are plenty of ways to skin a cat and if one company could patent the idea of something like a "camera" and that would mean that NO ONE could make a competing camera because the entire idea in whole of a "camera" was patented by someone else... well let me just say it, it's STUPID.

Yes, the exact schematics and methods of Apple being protected are ONE thing, but the patent system in recent years have gone FAR FAR beyond reasonable in the ways it awards patents. If you just make up a patent that describes some future method of doing something you imagine MIGHT just be useful to someone somewhere and somehow and never mind if that person ever read your patent or even has a clue about it, you can then sue them (including suing Apple, which gets endless negative attention on places like this every time it happens when some small company or individual sues Apple over patent infringement yet when Apple does it, it's OK).

So if Apple discovered the ONLY way to make multi-touch function (one circuit and one method) that's fine. But if someone else can make it work with a different circuit, I say TOO BAD. You shouldn't be able to patent basic ideas. Otherwise, someone could have patented 1+1 = 2 and any time that shows up ANYWHERE, they could sue. The whole system need overhauled.

Compare that to the medicine industry where you can patent a FORMULA (which IS a SINGLE EXACT THING) but only for a limited amount of time for the common good of everyone. That's a MUCH more reasonable system.

An no, I have no personal interest in any of it; I just don't like the legal system regarding the way patents are issued for things with very little understanding or way of proofs or exacting specifics.

Perhaps if you actually understood how the US patent system worked, then it would make more sense. Most of the claims you make about the patent system are, well, patently false. That's not to say that there are not problems with the USPTO, but you should at least understand how patents are issued and what is required to get a patent before you critique the system. For example, all patents are time governed - not just medical patents. Also, the scope of the patented subject matter is governed by how the claims are drafted - not simply because you mention the word "multi-touch" (Is it a means-plus-function claim? A Jeppson claim? An independent or dependent claim? An open claim? A closed claim?). And you could patent a warp drive (it happened in one case, and was rejected in another case), but that doesn't mean you could prevail in securing those rights when someone actually makes a warp drive work.

And was pointed out about 5 pages ago, the granting of a patent does not gurantee you patent rights. Those rights have to be secured through litigation. Filing a patent simply means that you think you are the inventor. There are multiple ways patents can be invalidated after issuing. Just because the USPTO says you have a patent, doesn't mean you actually have the right to restrict other's use of the technology.

Perhaps many of you would be better suited learning about the patent system before you prognosticate on how Apple might enforce their will on humanity.

 

[koobcamuk]

This thread is getting amazing.

 

[needthephone]

Of course apple will enforce their legal rights with litigation.

It easy with hindsight to think something is obvious but the really simple clever ideas aren't easy to come up with.

This will be the test case of the century.

 

[ogee]

Apple would be suing Palm, Microsoft, and HP, among them.

Let's see it happen, shall we?

I think it more likely Apple would wave the patent in the air and then say the license costs $$$$.

 

[mags631]

I was going to say, isn't getting a patent on a touchscreen phone like Reebok trying to patent jumping when it came out with "the pump".

No, it would be like Apple getting a patent on touching.

 

[gnasher729]

When I had a couple of ideas (I thought were patent worthy) I had to look up patent databases to see if I am infringing on any others patents.

Actually, the only reason to do this is to avoid embarrassment when your patent is rejected. It is illegal to file a patent when you _know_ about prior art, but there is no law that says you have to look particularly hard, so not knowing is to your advantage. As you said, with patents it is often the numbers that count, so having a patent is good, even if it could be invalidated.

Of course, that applies most for situations when someone wants to sue you, and you can say "just try it, we have 1400 patents and we are sure you must be infringing on some", and the only thing that counts is the number 1400. Or if you are a patent troll, who says "we have this patent, doesn't matter whether it is valid or not, we can sue you and cost you lots of money unless you pay us to go away".

 

[rahrens]

i know i'm late

Pardon me if someone noticed this already, but did anybody see the "Optical Sensor" at the top center of the schematic?

Is that an indication that Apple really has plans for adding a camera to the front of the iPhone for video chat purposes?

One can hope.

 

[Eso]

Patent infringements

According to the patent claims in the document, I've gathered some info about how this affects the Palm Pre and BlackBerry Storm.

BlackBerry swipe in photos application infringement of claim 1: "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."

Palm Pre swipe in photos application infringement of claim 1.

Palm Pre swipe to switch cards (applications) infringement of claim 1. Functionality is referred to as a deck of cards with a "next item heuristic" that determines a swipe (one or more finger contacts) corresponds to a command to transition from displaying a respective item (current card/application) in a set of items (deck of cards) to displaying a next item in the set of items (next sequential application).

Here is a potential problem for the Pre. From what videos I've seen, this application system is the backbone of multitasking and using applications. According to claim 1, the patent covers any touch gesture/method that corresponds to a command to move to the next item in a series, which would obviously including a swipe gesture to move to the next card in the deck of Pre applications.

A few things to important things note about what the patent does not cover: multi-touch, pinch zooming, or double-tap zooming. Obviously there is plenty more, but these are probably the biggest things that most people in this thread just assume Apple has the rights to now.

In my opinion, the Palm (et al) has nothing to worry about. First of all, the swipe gesture could easily be circumvented by adding back and forward buttons below the cards (juding by the videos there is sufficient room for this) to switch applications. It does lose a minimal amount of ease of use, but that is hardly a Pre-killer. Secondly, in my opinion, this is an infringement to what amounts to the weakest claim of the patent. I would be very surprised if this goes to court and this claim is upheld. Swiping to advance to the next item is as intuitive as horizontal scrolling, which implies obviousness, which means it is not patentable.

This patent is no big deal, Apple will not be bringing suit to MS, Palm, BB, HP or whatever other company anytime soon, and if they do they will most likely lose.

Edit: Oh yeah, and for what it's worth, the Pre looks very functional.

 

[thomasfxlt]

Perhaps if you actually understood how the US patent system worked, then it would make more sense. Most of the claims you make about the patent system are, well, patently false. That's not to say that there are not problems with the USPTO, but you should at least understand how patents are issued and what is required to get a patent before you critique the system. For example, all patents are time governed - not just medical patents. Also, the scope of the patented subject matter is governed by how the claims are drafted - not simply because you mention the word "multi-touch" (Is it a means-plus-function claim? A Jeppson claim? An independent or dependent claim? An open claim? A closed claim?). And you could patent a warp drive (it happened in one case, and was rejected in another case), but that doesn't mean you could prevail in securing those rights when someone actually makes a warp drive work.

And was pointed out about 5 pages ago, the granting of a patent does not gurantee you patent rights. Those rights have to be secured through litigation. Filing a patent simply means that you think you are the inventor. There are multiple ways patents can be invalidated after issuing. Just because the USPTO says you have a patent, doesn't mean you actually have the right to restrict other's use of the technology.

Perhaps many of you would be better suited learning about the patent system before you prognosticate on how Apple might enforce their will on humanity.

And this is why Lawyers run America........

I might file a patent because I "think" I am the inventor, but the patent office issues a patent because it determines you "are" the inventor. But of course, nothing really means anything in America anymore because anything can be challenged by a good enough legal team.

Apple or any other "inventor" including Palm, MS et.... should protect their inventions; hardware, software and otherwise.

Apple turns the cell phone industry on it's ear overnight and the industry clamors to figure out a way to respond. Apple's intellectual property came with a high price and they have a right to protect it.

Full Metal Jacket....

 

[Jayomat]

is this leading somewhere?

 

[Winni]

Apple has received a patent for a lot of stuff that can - and will be - invalidated because of "prior art" should they go to court. For example, that screen-turning feature has been around in displays of various sizes since the 90s. Hardly anything new and patent-worthy.

Anybody remember the last time Apple had such a big mouth when they sued Microsoft and everybody else who had a mouse in their basement and a trash bin near their desk until kingdom come? Apple almost went bankrupt over their own idiocy and eventually they did -not- win any lawsuit at all, but had to settle.

It's about time to discard the entire patent system as we know it. All it does is create jobs for lawyers and hinder innovation.

 

[Shasterball]

Amazing that people on here think that this means anything. This application has been pending for a long time and just because it issued does not mean that they can sue everyone. Just because there is a picture of something in a patent does not mean it is protected. Honestly, this is one tool in their arsenal, but NO ONE is shaking in their boots. EVERYOPNE in the industry knew about this application and was following it until it issued. This doesn't mean that people won't be sued, but it also doesn't mean that anyone is in trouble or was caught off guard.

Once again -- too much hype....

 

[Shasterball]

According to the patent claims in the document, I've gathered some info about how this affects the Palm Pre and BlackBerry Storm.

BlackBerry swipe in photos application infringement of claim 1: "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."

Palm Pre swipe in photos application infringement of claim 1.

Palm Pre swipe to switch cards (applications) infringement of claim 1. Functionality is referred to as a deck of cards with a "next item heuristic" that determines a swipe (one or more finger contacts) corresponds to a command to transition from displaying a respective item (current card/application) in a set of items (deck of cards) to displaying a next item in the set of items (next sequential application).

Here is a potential problem for the Pre. From what videos I've seen, this application system is the backbone of multitasking and using applications. According to claim 1, the patent covers any touch gesture/method that corresponds to a command to move to the next item in a series, which would obviously including a swipe gesture to move to the next card in the deck of Pre applications.

A few things to important things note about what the patent does not cover: multi-touch, pinch zooming, or double-tap zooming. Obviously there is plenty more, but these are probably the biggest things that most people in this thread just assume Apple has the rights to now.

In my opinion, the Palm (et al) has nothing to worry about. First of all, the swipe gesture could easily be circumvented by adding back and forward buttons below the cards (juding by the videos there is sufficient room for this) to switch applications. It does lose a minimal amount of ease of use, but that is hardly a Pre-killer. Secondly, in my opinion, this is an infringement to what amounts to the weakest claim of the patent. I would be very surprised if this goes to court and this claim is upheld. Swiping to advance to the next item is as intuitive as horizontal scrolling, which implies obviousness, which means it is not patentable.

This patent is no big deal, Apple will not be bringing suit to MS, Palm, BB, HP or whatever other company anytime soon, and if they do they will most likely lose.

Edit: Oh yeah, and for what it's worth, the Pre looks very functional.

This is sadly based on nothing.

 

[Shasterball]

It's about time to discard the entire patent system as we know it. All it does is create jobs for lawyers and hinder innovation.

Then get ready to say goodbye to innovation, drugs, technology, or anything worthwhile developing...

Clearly you understand nothing about patents.

someone who actually seems to know what he is talking about!

 

[Eso]

This is sadly based on nothing.

Care to elaborate?

 

[HyperZboy]

ZUNE Phone anyone? NOT!

Palm may be able to make a quick software adjustment and fix their problems with this patent, but I think the biggest impact this will have will be on Microsoft.

Whatever Zune phone project Microsoft was working on probably got halted immediately because MS wouldn't be able to fit all those cameras in a hand-held phone to do hand gestures, hehe. And you can bet they were planning on copying the iPhone as much as possible thinking they were the only ones with hand gesture patents and hand and finger sensing technology. Now that's changed. The other shoe has dropped.

Microsoft will probably have to re-think whatever their photocopy department has been working on for the last year and a half with the rumored Zune phone, hehe.

 

[kdarling]

Another thing that kills me is when bloggers breathlessly exclaim "and it references 50 previous patents" ... as if that's an amazing thing. Yes, I know: big numbers must equal "ooh, shiny!"

Hint: all, or almost all, of the previous patents belong to other people whose ideas they're building upon and/or are very similar.

If you check out some of those references, you'll see that they include previous patents on touch phones, scrolling, and a Philips one for a browser that displays the entire web page before touching a spot to zoom. Even it had to reference six other patents.

It's not unusual to cite so much prior art, especially when trying to combine the efforts of so many previous inventors.

Cites are an admission that you didn't invent all the pieces. The claim is that you put them together in a new and (supposedly) unobvious way.

 

[Ironduke]

The best thing about the Pre is its OS, it looks like it works fantastic.

 

[numbersyx]

The best thing about the Pre is its OS, it looks like it works fantastic.

However, it is generating a load of hype before anyone has actually used it. Let's see what it's like when it comes out.

 

[Ironduke]

However, it is generating a load of hype before anyone has actually used it. Let's see what it's like when it comes out.

looked pretty great on the you tube video.

either way this will inspire apple to do better things

 

[jabingla2810]

Loud Noises!!!

 

[neonart]

I don't understand why people instantly go to the "This is a Monopoly!" camp. Wouldn't you like to make sure if you put tons of effort into something that you got some credit for it?

How would you like to spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars researching and developing one of the most desirable devices on earth, only to have it ripped off by a bunch of people who had THE LEAD in the industry but never did a darn thing until they realized you're doing well?

Where were the touch-interface phones before the iPhone?

Why where all these companies that have decades of "phone making experience" just doing the same darn thing? This includes Motorola, Samsung, Palm, all of them! What did they have? A 2.5" screen and a keyboard that sucked. Take a look now. They all have a full-screen, touch device. As if they received some kind of simultaneous revelation.

If you didn't have patents then very few people would want to innovate. Why bother?

 

[Ironduke]

I don't understand why people instantly go to the "This is a Monopoly!" camp. Wouldn't you like to make sure if you put tons of effort into something that you got some credit for it?

How would you like to spend hundreds of hours and millions of dollars researching and developing one of the most desirable devices on earth, only to have it ripped off by a bunch of people who had THE LEAD in the industry but never did a darn thing until they realized you're doing well?

Where were the touch-interface phones before the iPhone?

Why where all these companies that have decades of "phone making experience" just doing the same darn thing? This includes Motorola, Samsung, Palm, all of them! What did they have? A 2.5" screen and a keyboard that sucked. Take a look now. They all have a full-screen, touch device. As if they received some kind of simultaneous revelation.

If you didn't have patents then very few people would want to innovate. Why bother?

True.

Until Apple entered the Phone market, company's like HTC turned out the same wm5 shyte every year in a different case.

 

[=MuLti-CeLL=]

I'm enjoying that the most knowledgeable responses in this thread, those by kdarling, have gone largely ignored, while everyone is busy flinging sh*t and gleeful at the thought of lawsuits. I know this is the internet, but come on.

A couple days ago everyone was losing their mind that Apple agreed to pay out $25 million dollars for a poorly fabricated iPod. Most everyone was disgusted that anyone would take advantage of the offer, saying that the legal system was totally screwed up. Now we're popping champagne over Apple suing people out of the touchscreen phone business (which according to kdarling is quite the overreaction).

I've used Macs for my entire life and I've always enjoyed the Mac community, but the rabid defense of Apple has made me less and less interested in reading this message board.

Wasn't there some experiment where they put a bunch of people with really radical opinions in the same room and as a result of radicalism being the status quo, some people's opinions became even more radical? Someone point me in the right direction with this. It's really the feeling I get when reading this board anymore. Ten years ago Apple users seemed to be the happy go lucky people who truly enjoyed getting someone to switch, but now that all the bandwagon Apple users are aboard we've become even more rabidly pro Apple to the point where it's not odd to see someone get flamed over wanting something as simple as copy-paste on the iPhone or some random frustration they have with an Apple program.

I'd love it if everyone could discuss things in a decent manner, which is why I enjoyed this board years ago when I joined, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears to the people frothing at the mouth to tell me how wrong I am.

Make sure all frothing replies have plenty of outrage covered up with witty sarcasm and the "roll eyes" smiley attached.

Still one of my favorite post in this thread so far.