Apple Awarded iPhone and Multi-Touch Patent

[farmboy]

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?

We have a patent application submitted in Canada that's taken 12 YEARS and it's still not approved. The USPTO, and the EPO took 18 months to 2 years. I'm thinking of resurrecting the Mackensie Brothers and sending them to visit the CIPO with a couple of keggers to loosen them up and restore blood flow.

(sigh...miss SCTV)

 

[dejo]

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?

Are you referring to something in particular?

 

[Manderby]

For all those thinking that this patent will cut all the other companies down with their devices, read the first few words of the very first claim of this patent:

"A computing device, comprising: a touch screen display..."

And all the following claims do reflect this very first statement. This means, the whole patent is only valid for one (all-in-one) device that clearly has a touch screen display INTEGRATED. Now, let's just think what happens, when you got a system and a separated touch screen display.

Continuing the claim, it says "comprising [...] one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs...". This means, that any device that is just hardware but not software is untouched by this patent. This means, that the device itself may actually been built without violating this patent.

You can continue to read the claims, this patent is a patent for the iPhone which seems to be pretty covered by this patent, but this does not mean, that ANY multi touch screen device is covered. But I'm sure, this is not the only patent about multi touch. Actually, it would be very surprising because a patent including everything invented for the iPhone would 1. be stupid and 2. it would be almost impossible to claim anything at all.

 

[Eso]

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

Do you have a problem with Palm paying a fee to Apple for utilizing multi-touch (which Apple has the patent on)...

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).

Apple would be suing, Palm, Google, Microsoft, LG, Samsung, Sharp, RIM, and many others.

Ok, apparently no-one reads, so there is no point in discussion.

 

[macrazee]

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

Let's see it happen, shall we?

No, no. You don't sue until someone decides to actually produce a product using your technology. And even then, you only sue if your patent portfolio is larger (and the prey's smaller) and a financial settlement can't be reached amicably.

This is somewhat shaky ground for Apple. It's a risk, whether Palm is violating any patent(s) or not. Can they afford to take another competitor out of the market especially with Obama at the helm now? Anti-Trust always has to be in the back of the mind...

 

[T-Will]

I don't think Apple ever rests on its laurels.

I wonder if this patent documents any aspect of the iPhone's home screen layout. I don't think there's a smart phone out there anymore that doesn't rip this off.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MMS, copy/paste, video recording, etc.

Yeah, Apple sure isn't resting on its laurels...

Why would Apple need to stifle competition by suing? Palm will already be struggling since it doesn't have the iTunes ecosystem, which is actually pretty good (minus the ****** iTunes performance on Windows). Plus Apple has the App Store and a massive number of developers. Palm is going to have a hard enough time.

 

[GodWhomIsMike]

I hope Apple doesn't go sue-happy now. What a defeat that would be in terms of competition, and pressure to advance their product to stay competitive. If there is no competition, why would they feel the need to improve their product?

 

[BaldiMac]

This is somewhat shaky ground for Apple. It's a risk, whether Palm is violating any patent(s) or not. Can they afford to take another competitor out of the market especially with Obama at the helm now? Anti-Trust always has to be in the back of the mind...

Anti-Trust laws only apply to trusts. Hence the name. Apple's marketshare in the mobile phone or even the smartphone markets is not high enough to qualify.

 

[bremb0]

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.

Amen. Go get em palm. Apple needs competition to improve their products.

 

[farmboy]

Um, the surface was first demonstrated May 29, 2007... the iPhone was released on June 29, 2007. I'm sure you could count from all sorts of dates, but in live demonstration, microsoft showed it first. And when you buy out a company, their products and innovation becomes yours. There is no difference.

You. know. nothing. Adamantly obtuse.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Actually you're wrong here, case law is in apples favor in this regard. Amazon's 1 click patent is exactly that

How can I be "wrong" about an opinion? Do you think Amazon should get money for a CONCEPT of one-click shopping? I think that's retarded. Why should they get a license for something so basic and obvious??? Because they got there first? Because they had the money to apply for a patent when the mom and pop shops don't? Screw the patent system. It isn't worth the time of day. The Linux and open source software community have the right ideas. They simply need a little more unity to make it all work smoothly.

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.

There's a difference between profiting from your idea and claiming you OWN every possible use for an idea. Owning a basic function (such as using more than one finger at a time) is absurd and should never have been granted.

Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if they probably just need to give it another name (like double-touch o tri-touch). Data East was forced to call "Multi-ball" on their pinball tables things like "Tri-ball" instead because Williams owned the term. Never mind everyone in pinball called the use of multiple balls on a table at once "Multi-ball"; Williams owned it, like it or not. So when you play Jurassic Park pinball, you have to put up with some retarded "Tri-ball" logo instead of "Multi-ball".

Don't worry, though. Capitalism is doomed to failure in the long term just as Communism was for differing, but fundamentally similar reasons. Both systems depend on there being a loser or losers (someone has to lose money; someone has to starve; someone has to be poor) and when a system pushes over 90% of the world's wealth into the hands of less than 5% of the world's population, it spells trouble in any century (in Communism's case this was the party that controlled all the money while the people waited hours in line to buy bread; in Capitalism's case it's the large corporations that own everything and control everything while the people are trodden over; in other words both share the same outcome).

This economic downturn is the just the tip of the iceberg. Things like housing can't keep going up forever. Bubbles burst. People lose sooner or later while a few get mega-rich. People out there work themselves to death to earn a pittance while people like Bill Gates collect billions on other people's ideas (look up CP/M some time) and through monopolistic and unscrupulous business practices and see how the system fails. There's a difference between being able to make a profit from your ideas and being able to control an entire market or an entire enterprise based on a monopoly of one idea. Ironically, a fundamental of Capitalism is supposed to be competition, but patents impede competition and thus rob the consumer of choice (just as the lack of hardware choices for the Mac operating system impedes consumer choices). So even Capitalism doesn't function as it's supposed to in reality any more than Communism was a socialistic system (it was not; the party was rich and the people were poor).

A true and balanced system is one which you can make money off your ideas, but also one in which no one person or small groups of people can control insanely large amounts of the world's wealth. NO ONE 'needs' be a billionaire and one could argue that any single person having too much power or too much wealth inevitably leads to corruption, which ultimately harms everyone. ANY world based system should be for the common good, not the good of the privileged few and that's where the world is failing miserably right now. Of course, the greedy out there won't like what I'm saying at all. They feel it's their right to be rich or even to try and rule the world. But that's why mankind is like a bunch of school children. Life on earth is not about control. Control is an illusion. Life here is about learning to get along and the methodology of greed in any form is not conducive to learning. Those with any religious background of any type should know what I'm talking about. Or do you think most people believe God is about greed? If not, then why are people striving for it? If they don't believe in God then what does any of it matter?

 

[goosnarrggh]

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

That statement is false due to a concept called prior art. Touch screens, in general, have been around for quite some time now.

Any touchscreen-related capabilities that were present in commercially sold devices prior to the filing date of this patent, cannot be covered by this patent. Any individual claims within the patent that are found to have been covered by prior art would be invalidated if the patent were ever litigated - leaving behind only the new capabilities which had never been invented before.

Any touchscreen-related capabilities that were commercially available in devices, and unencumbered by patents (or else freely licensed by existing patent owners) prior to the patent's filing, will still be fair game for incorporation in any new devices that have been released subsequent to the patent's filing.

 

[farmboy]

true, on paper. But in the real world companies try to make as much patents as possible (numbers first, innovation second). In my past job we had patent objectives and my group had to generate at least 4-5 patents per year which were used solely for cross-licensing with other companies. Companies like IBM can make around 2000 patents a year. Do you think all of them are genuinely earth-shattering ideas?. No.

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. I was shocked during my search as to the amount of crap in there, you know...things like "a method of using a mouse to select blah blah".

The patent system "used to" be good. But not anymore. It is now used to crush small companies and make deals between bigger ones. I am not saying this Apple patent is like that, but I wanted to put this whole "protecting peoples hard work" thing into perspective

Ninja Edit: for more information onto why software patents can (and usually are) a bad thing you can read this Wikipedia debate article.

I disagree with most of your last couple of posts. The patent system here in the US is as good as anywhere else, and better than a lot. We're a small biotech and we have 26 patents, all based on work in our own lab, all patents written and submitted by ourselves, held in the US AND EUROPE--including Germany. Depending on your classification, getting patents may or may not be difficult. And what's "crap" to you may represent a lot of money and time to the patent holder. Patents granted are by definition innovative, by the standards and requirements of the patent office, even if you think otherwise. If it's all so easy, why don't you guys get some patents on all things "obvious"?

And you're referencing Wikipedia as a source? Seriously? It's a democratic web site to be sure, but not in the least definitive.

 

[powers74]

History

Nope, no thesis. Just LOTS of related jobs and 17 years of touchscreens. I did page-flipping code on a touchpad in 1982 or so. Later I graduated to using capacitive touchscreens in 1992 in gaming systems (you might have used some of my stuff, if you've been in a casino). I've been programming touchscreen handhelds since 1998. Tens of thousands of field workers use my apps.


I'll take the easy way out and (once again) post this nice history of multi-touch, recommended by one of the great Apple UI gurus:

Multi-touch systems I've known

Wow! Thanks! See how easy that was? And you were almost nice about it!

 

[Eso]

There's a difference between profiting from your idea and claiming you OWN every possible use for an idea. Owning a basic function (such as using more than one finger at a time) is absurd and should never have been granted.

You need to actually read the patent if you want to comment on it - take the link in the article and scroll down to the "Claims" section. I promise you that out of the 300 some-odd pages, it's the only part that really matters and is it's a meager 2-3 pages. The only thing that is absurd is you assuming this patent is for any type of multi-touch. "Should never have been granted"... it never has been.

 

[farmboy]

Magnus, listen up

I'm endlessly amazed at how patent offices can issue 'patents' over 'ideas' instead of implementations.

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.

A patentable invention MUST BE REDUCED TO PRACTICE to get a patent. In other words, you must prove that it works in the real world.

 

[farmboy]

Please stop. You guys are giving me a headache.

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.

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.

Patent threads bring out the absolute goofiest in posters, I swear.

"All the credit"? That's pretty funny--Apple got the patent just...because they were the prettiest? Had the nicest logo? What?

Apple has received a patent on their invention because the claims were unique and not obvious, based on an extensive review of their claims and ALL the prior art by people smarter, better educated, and more experienced in patent review than the people who post here--and that includes me. It is not something invented 20 years ago or they would not have been issued a patent, even tho this alleged patent would have expired by now, it would be prior art. If your father had indeed had any of these now-patented ideas (IF) he should have patented them. Otherwise it's just talk and wasted opportunity.

I invented a process that turns straw into gold. Really, I did. It was my idea way before that Rumpelstiltskin guy. I showed it to all my friends and everything. I just forgot how to get to Planet Get Serious where the laws of nature make it work, so I didn't get the patent.

Nokia, Sony Ericcson and others hold lots of phone patents--LOTS. Did THAT fact stop the innovation from Apple? Evidently not. So your claim (and those of numerous others in this thread) that it cripples innovation is/are just nonsense.

Further, very few patents are overturned (as a percentage of patents granted). Patent lawsuits may be won, lost or settled on lots of different merits, but the patents almost always stand. These outcomes support the decisions of patent examiners, who are routinely bashed around here, undeservedly for the most part--it's an exceedingly difficult job. Not saying the system is flawless, just not nearly as broken as many posters claim here.

What I don't understand is why you and other posters won't take an hour or two and learn how the patent systems work (here and elsewhere) and what it means in the real world. Then go and invent something, write a patent, and get out of your crummy job.

 

[farmboy]

If it was not for patent protection...

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.

You would still be using two tin cans and a string to communicate. The consumers WIN with products protected by patents, and this has been proven thousands of times. Apple receives patents from all over the globe--so you are saying every patent examiner in every country is duped by Apple claiming "old news" as new news? How silly on its face.

And please prove, systematically, in a vast majority of cases, that competition is curtailed by these patents.

 

[ccuk]

While these numbers sounds impressive, are they really? How many people are living in the UK, about 60 million right? I guess the above figure averages at about one MMS per person per month. Hardly sounds like it's essential to most people, does it?


I appreciate this, and I don't really have a problem whit people wanting to use MMS. Hey, I would probably download a free MMS-app from Apple myself!

I'm just saying that there are good reasons not to include it as well. At some point someone has to say: "Hey, this is ancient technology, we already have something better". Otherwise we'll be stuck with legacy-stuff forever.

Now, for Nokia, Motorola, Sony Ericsson this is hard. They sell loads of different models and excluding any functionallity would be commercial suicide. In reality Apple is proably the only company that could do this and get away with it. Hopefully this will work as a signal to other manufacturers (as well as service-providers) forcing email to become an integral part of any mobile-phone a few years from now.

I guess my point wasn't so much about the number of MMS users being important, more so how many people were using MMS over mobile internet. Mobile internet users around that period were about 16 million, due to many limitations arising with the implementation, 3G coverage isn't going to expand so rapidly as to replace the exisiting 2G coverage in the next 3 years I would say. So there is, I feel a lot of room to still continue using the MMS system. The MMS system is easy to use, where as I believe sending pictures via email is somewhat limited at the current moment in time. Not everyone has an iPhone and as you said there are many Nokia and Sony Ericsson users for example who don't have a decent email experience, and would find it much easier to continue to use the MMS system. It clearly isn't impossible nor all that difficult to implement, so why Apple choose to seemingly ignore it is a little confusing.

 

[NT1440]

Not everyone has an iPhone and as you said there are many Nokia and Sony Ericsson users for example who don't have a decent email experience, and would find it much easier to continue to use the MMS system. It clearly isn't impossible nor all that difficult to implement, so why Apple choose to seemingly ignore it is a little confusing.

Apple is trying to push email to the forfront of mobile media sharing in the hopes that with the millions of iphone users email will finally be established as the standard.

 

[chewietobbacca]

Apple needs to tread carefully lest it gets into a patent war with companies like palm, rim, ms, etc. because they hold quite a few patents that can torpedo Apple as well

That said, just being awarded a patent means nothing. It still has to hold up in court, and Apple hasnt targetted anyone big yet, and probably won't unless it thinks it can win absolutely

 

[zombitronic]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MMS, copy/paste, video recording, etc.

Yeah, Apple sure isn't resting on its laurels...

What, are you four? Just because they haven't delivered the exact features you wish you had in a product does not mean that they're sitting around eating frogurt all day.

I would bet you that not a day goes by where Apple doesn't have hundreds of smart employees working hard on the next awesome piece of software or hardware to hit the market. If they weren't, you'd still be bragging about your dull RAZR.

 

[oban14]

It's threads like this that make me want to vomit. All the fanbois out in force, probably erect at the thought of Apple suing people. Why do you root for so much litigation?

Here is the truth: Palm will come out with the Pre anyway. Apple will sue. Palm and Apple will fight in a court for 2-3 years while the Pre sells hundreds of thousands if not millions of units.

Then when it's all said and done, some settlement or judgment will be reached, and there will be all kinds of new phones on the market.

 

[farmboy]

Apple needs to tread carefully lest it gets into a patent war with companies like palm, rim, ms, etc. because they hold quite a few patents that can torpedo Apple as well

That said, just being awarded a patent means nothing. It still has to hold up in court, and Apple hasnt targetted anyone big yet, and probably won't unless it thinks it can win absolutely

Maybe they have patents upon which Apple is infringing, maybe not. Most of the time it's not the concept but the implementation. The devil is in the details (claims) so to speak.

Actually, being awarded a patent is a powerful tool. It does not have to be challenged and upheld in a court to be valid and useful. And as with all patents, the patent holder is obligated to defend the patent. This may involve cease-and-desist letters, license agreements, non-interference pacts, assignments, other settlements, or lawsuits. It usually does not involve ignoring the infringement, so contact among the lawyers will be made.

 

[Bruce Oksol]

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

Most fun you can have is go to YouTube and search Ballmer's comments on the $500 iPhone.