Apple Awarded iPhone and Multi-Touch Patent

[kdarling]

Actually, other phone makers were heading towards finger-friendly UIs. (They already had touchscreen dialers etc for years.)

In 2006, concept phones were being shown using multi-touch and/or finger-friendly UIs. Apple knew they had to rush theirs out or risk being called a follower.

So-called technical leaps require a couple of main ingredients:

1) Conditions have to be ripe.

That includes production of large touchscreens, LCDs, CPUs, radio chips, batteries and all the other hardware R&D that was done for other companies.

It also includes, in this case, a growing smartphone market with less expensive data plans and far reaching data communications.

2) The ability to leave behind all previous work. Apple had no legacy handsets to worry about. And they never intended to support non-touch phones. That helps simplify the OS worries enormously.

Kudos to Apple for bringing it all together quickly, and giving the public some of what's been in R&D for years.

 

[GenNovE]

Just another case of apple once again getting all the credit for something THEY DID NOT INVENT. multi-point interaction models IS AS OLD AS 20 YEARS. Apple is simply the first company to mass appeal it. Back in 03 I remember my father working on a navigation system with similar multi-touch functionality.

And palm currently hold patents for synchronization over cradle, turning off radio via software (aka airplane mode). So palm can strike back with patents and in regards to apples patent they can go after palm or any other company but the companies can easily back up their case with piles of academic research.

What i truly dont understand is how SOME PEOPLE WOULD CHEER FOR THIS when stuff like this cripples innovation.
Apple like I EXPECTED A MIRROR IMAGE of the company it admires the most.

 

[Wolfie Scooter]

Apples "borrows" multitouch from Hollywood

If you recall the movie "Minority Report" (released June 21, 2002), Tom Cruise used multitouch, swiping, etc. to manipulate icons and applications. Granted it wasn't a mobile device, and he was wearing gloves, but the idea of directly manipulating an entity through heuristics didn't originate at Apple. The only thing Apple added to their patent was "...contacts with the touch screen display."

 

[Shasterball]

Care to elaborate?

For starters, it it difficult to figure out what a claim actually covers without looking at the prosecution history to see if any estoppel needs to be read in. Second, it is impossible to tell whether a gesture is actually infringing anything without knowing what is going on behind the scenes.

Infringement is a very complicated matter that hinges on a multitude of factors. This is why companies pay millions to attorneys to litigate for them...

 

[Bruce Oksol]

Your father: Al Gore?

Just another case of apple once again getting all the credit for something THEY DID NOT INVENT. multi-point interaction models IS AS OLD AS 20 YEARS. Apple is simply the first company to mass appeal it. Back in 03 I remember my father working on a navigation system with similar multi-touch functionality.

This sounds like something from Al Gore, who invented the internet.

 

[Cybbe]

It's ridiculous that people are actually cheering for this. From a consumer standpoint patent such as these are nothing but bad news. First of all is the Apple practice of presenting old news as their news. Second, and more importantly, why would any conscious consumer applaud news that competition is getting curtailed through dubious patent practices? This might be good news for Apple, but it sure isn't for any consumers, no matter what irrational love one might have for the company.

 

[mags631]

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.

Perhaps, this is related to confirmation bias?

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.

Nothing is perfect. In the end, we are bunch of defective communicators and thinkers trying our best. I think this group is probably no different than any other group, just a different topic of conversation.

 

[bigmistakestve]

Cisco and the iPhone

How much is Apple paying Cisco to be allowed to use the iPhone name?

 

[bigmistakestve]

If you recall the movie "Minority Report" (released June 21, 2002), Tom Cruise used multitouch, swiping, etc. to manipulate icons and applications. Granted it wasn't a mobile device, and he was wearing gloves, but the idea of directly manipulating an entity through heuristics didn't originate at Apple. The only thing Apple added to their patent was "...contacts with the touch screen display."

I seem to remember in the Aliens movie, the marines were looking at architectural schematics on a touch sensitive surface. And I'm pretty sure there is an episode of Star Trek or something similar where machines and devices get activated and controlled by waving a hand infront of it (a gesture). Hell, I seem to remember a magician using a gesture to control a deck of cards at my 8th birthday party.

iphone... Nothing new here.

 

[bruinsrme]

I'm guessing this is what steve meant when he said " And boy have we patented it!"

The mammoth 358 page patent application incorporates patent applications filed as far back as September 2006

Why did it take until 2009? I know the system isn't speedy, but three years?

I think that would be a strong argument for the Pre, the technology, though in development wasn't patented until Palm demonstrated the technology in a a public forum, that seems a little fishy.

 

[chequepoint]

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, exactly my point. You can patent a warp drive, people have patented anti-gravity devices and time travel devices as well. As long as no one else's patent is too similar to yours, they will award you the patent. The patent office is not a judicial arm. They are simply a registration service.

Patents are completely worthless until tested in court. Everything in apple's patent could be taken from them the first time it's tested.

Palm will do whatever they want to make their device in the way they want it to be, Apple will sue them, they will counter sue. In the meantime the palm device will either achieve the market penetration necessary to make the continued time in court worthwhile, it will be ruled that apples patent is worthless, they will reach a license agreement, etc. OR the palm phone will tank and it won't be pursued. If its not palm, it will be someone else.

Without judicial rulings to back up a patent, it's just a piece of worthless paper.

 

[mags631]

Without judicial rulings to back up a patent, it's just a piece of worthless paper.

A bit of an overstatement.

 

[dsp81]

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....

Are you suggesting that once the USPTO grants a patent, that we should just roll with their decision? How would you suggest we solve conflicts of inventorship? Fisticuffs? Hugs? Your argument against the system assumes that the first filer is always the inventor. That's not always the case. You, like the previous poster, criticize a system that you simply don't understand.

Apple has a right to exclude others, so long as their patent is valid. And a patent's validity is tested through litigation in the American system. Any way you slice it, you need an adversarial proceeding to sort out problems. But I guess it is easier to blame it all on lawyers.

 

[iN8]

Pardon the duplicate if someone else has mentioned this.

Just a thought regarding the whole patent infringement/stifling innovation idea.

Imagine what would have happened if Apple had won its case against Microsoft over Windows 95. Would MS have had been forced to innovate and come up with something totally different than the windowed GUI? Or would they have just licensed the technology from Apple (or tried to buy Apple, more likely given Microsoft's history).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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.

Wow. You mean I have to SKETCH a picture of a POSSIBLE implementation to get my warp drive patent approved??? Wow!!! You've so convinced me I was wrong man! How could I be so stupid to think patents are based on nothing but human GREED when I have to include a possible sketch of a basic idea like using more than one finger to input data! Yeah, Apple has such a unique idea here! Imagine using more than one finger at a time to do something!!! It's so UNOBVIOUS an idea that they deserve that patent! What WAS I thinking?!

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.

What? You mean a BS patent was issued and they actually acknowledged it? Wonders never cease! The whole point is patents should NEVER be issued in the first place without a precise detailed schematic, circuit or style of program. You shouldn't just be able to think up some basic concept of a user interface and patent it. It should have to contain a UNIQUE technology like a specific method of inputting multiple inputs, NOT JUST the IDEA of inputting something with multiple inputs. That is FAR too basic and broad to say that multi-touch is Apple only. And I don't care how stupid you think I am that doesn't make it right to stifle all products out there to ONE finger just because Apple made a device first that lets you use more than one finger.

So now I can't have touch screens in the car that make my life easier because Apple is anti-competition (as usual). What a farce. The whole system is a farce. Like everything else in this country, it's based on GREED and the granting of GREED. It's why this country is falling apart because people put their greed ahead of the country itself. And I'm well aware that I will NEVER be able to convince capitalists that greed is wrong. I'm just stupid that way to believe open innovation and sharing is the way forward in human evolution, not greed and profit for the few. This world is going to hell in a hand basket because greed eventually leads to suffering and misery for all. Yeah yeah, I'm an idiot. No need to tell me.

 

[kurosov]

The whole point is patents should NEVER be issued in the first place without a precise detailed schematic, circuit or style of program. You shouldn't just be able to think up some basic concept of a user interface and patent it.

But that is pretty much what a patent is. Patent and copyright are not the same.

 

[chequepoint]

What? You mean a BS patent was issued and they actually acknowledged it? Wonders never cease! The whole point is patents should NEVER be issued in the first place without a precise detailed schematic, circuit or style of program. You shouldn't just be able to think up some basic concept of a user interface and patent it.

Actually you're wrong here, case law is in apples favor in this regard. Amazon's 1 click patent is exactly that, a simple, basic concept of user interface that allows a customer to use saved credit card and shipping information to purchase an item using only 1 click. I'll be extremely clear here, amazon holds the patent on a "Buy Now" button that does not take you to a shopping cart. The reason most websites require you to go through multiple pages to complete a transaction is to comply with this patent.

Apple has to license this "Technology" from amazon for its itunes store.

The 1 click patent is currently under investigation and review, but has previously held up in court. They are working on a mandated rewording of some of the items, but essentially, it is currently acceptable to patent a user interface concept.

 

[DopeyFish]

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=89sz8ExZndc

here's a youtube of jeff hans multi touch screen being demoed... with pinching and what not... video was posted to youtube in FEBRUARY of 2006

 

[HyperZboy]

Yes, exactly my point. You can patent a warp drive, people have patented anti-gravity devices and time travel devices as well. As long as no one else's patent is too similar to yours, they will award you the patent. The patent office is not a judicial arm. They are simply a registration service.

Patents are completely worthless until tested in court. Everything in apple's patent could be taken from them the first time it's tested.

Palm will do whatever they want to make their device in the way they want it to be, Apple will sue them, they will counter sue. In the meantime the palm device will either achieve the market penetration necessary to make the continued time in court worthwhile, it will be ruled that apples patent is worthless, they will reach a license agreement, etc. OR the palm phone will tank and it won't be pursued. If its not palm, it will be someone else.

Without judicial rulings to back up a patent, it's just a piece of worthless paper.

You make some very good points here but missed just ONE IMPORTANT THING...

Apple, even in a struggling economy is one of the FEW companies left with DEEP POCKETS of CASH to potentially sue competitors literally out of business.

In our screwed up legal system, it's not always whether you're right or not, its about how much money you can afford to spend to defend yourself and for how long. Even if Palm has the better case, the question is how long could they last in a protracted dispute?

I think if Apple has even a half-ass case against Palm, honestly, Apple has the cash and time to take such a company down if they wanted to. I seriously doubt Palm has much cash in the bank.

And from recent statements from Tim Cook and Steve Jobs, it appears this might be a new Apple business plan to protect iPhone market share.

 

[Mr Maui]

To all the Pre-Haters: Are you scared of a phone being better than the iPhone?

...

I agree that Apple created a winner with the iPhone. But creating a huge buffer zone where no one can even create something that would compete with it defies the spirit of competition. With the Pre, Palm has created the closest iPhone competitor yet (It could arguably be better than the iPhone in some regards). ... I'm looking forward to the Palm Pre so that people on other networks (Sprint at the time of release) can have a good phone and I hope that it will drive Apple to create an even better iPhone.

Do you have a problem with Palm paying a fee to Apple for utilizing multi-touch (which Apple now has the patent on) on their new products (such as the Pre) to make it competitive with Apple, especially when many aspects of the Pre appear to be direct copies of the iPhone interface. If you don't believe this patent covers multi-touch, and if you think that Palm and others have a right to "copy" Apple's design and patented style / features to make Apple work harder, then what is the point of Apple working harder.

Patents / copyrights are designed to protect creativity of writers, artists, designers, etc. If they did not, I could take the music, note for note, from any song, and just apply a change of words to it and make millions of dollars for writing a "new" song. Even an artist like "Weird Al Yankovic" and his record label, pay royalties to the writers of the music they use in Weird Al songs, for the privilege of using the other artists music for the advancement of his career.

 

[farmboy]

This is bad news. Competition is good and makes for better products.

Right...so Apple's competitors have to stop waiting for Apple to do R&D for them and invent their own "next great thing". If you think this is the end of creative phone design you're greatly mistaken.

 

[Daniel0418]

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

Let's see it happen, shall we?

Apple would be suing, Palm, Google, Microsoft, LG, Samsung, Sharp, RIM, and many others. Which is exactly why this patent is not going to work like you all think it is. Palm will release the pre and it will be a success and iPhone owners such as myself will be pissed we are stuck in an AT&T contract. We still love in a world where the monopoly is not allowed thus there will be others allowed to use the technology in this patent. Have we no memory of the past?

 

[Mr Maui]

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).

...

This patent does not cover "touchscreen phones" ... it covers the use of "multi-touch" (i.e. - two fingers used on the screen to scroll, etc).

 

[Tallest Skil]

We still love in a world where the monopoly is not allowed thus there will be others allowed to use the technology in this patent.

And therefore to do so they'll be paying Apple. Apple wins either way.

 

[Eso]

Wow. You mean I have to SKETCH a picture of a POSSIBLE implementation to get my warp drive patent approved???

No. Go browse the USPO website and some approved patents and figure it out for yourself. Your idea must be based on actual technology. It must also comply with the laws of thermodynamics (1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...and 0th) or it won't even be considered. Sorry, but a box labeled "warp drive" with the claim: "Device that allows a craft to travel faster than the speed of light" would be down right insulting to the patent officer.

That is FAR too basic and broad to say that multi-touch is Apple only. And I don't care how stupid you think I am that doesn't make it right to stifle all products out there to ONE finger just because Apple made a device first that lets you use more than one finger.

So now I can't have touch screens in the car that make my life easier because Apple is anti-competition (as usual).

If you actually read, you will realize the patent isn't even about multi-touch. All the claims are for "one or more finger" gesture for a very specific function. It is worth noting that only one finger is used on the iPhone for all the gestures implemented from the claims of this patent. And... just LOL @ not having touch screen in your car - that has 0% relevance to this patent.

The whole system is a farce. Like everything else in this country, it's based on GREED and the granting of GREED. It's why this country is falling apart because people put their greed ahead of the country itself. And I'm well aware that I will NEVER be able to convince capitalists that greed is wrong. I'm just stupid that way to believe open innovation and sharing is the way forward in human evolution, not greed and profit for the few. This world is going to hell in a hand basket because greed eventually leads to suffering and misery for all. Yeah yeah, I'm an idiot. No need to tell me.

Why don't you do some research about how many products were invented in Soviet Russia between 1924 and 1983 to get an idea how much innovation occurs when inventors can't profit from their ideas.