Apple Denied Trademark for Multi-Touch

[Mr. Gates]

this is good for everyone.

Really, can you explain why that is?

I can !

Because Apple is the worst kind of company and hinders the development of others by trying to assimilate other companies and their patents, then cry foul play.

This is good because if apple got the patent it would be like a car company getting a patent on the "Round" wheel.

 

[apolloa]

That may very well be, but what commercial product was actually using it en masse before Apple? We're talking about just a trademark here. Rights to a name.

In this context, Apple's attempt to trademark it is perfectly understandable, as bold (and after a certain point, as doomed) as it was.

I'm pretty sure the Palm Pre and HTC G1 also highlighted it to the world, not to mention applications of multi touch you and I most likely never heard of in industry, military... long before Apple. Although it was more critical to the iPhone due to it's on screen only keyboard.

people. This is your brain on drugs..

Last time . Apple had been trying to TRADEMARK the word MULTI-TOUCH since early 2007 . Apple was NOT trying to PATENT multi-touch.

OK ?

Yeah, talking about those 'multitouch' patents Apple brought:

http://www.emc.com.tw/eng/news_1_1.asp?id=96

Not that Apple has a habit of buying patents and other technology or using trademarks it doesn't own then bodily stating IT invented it all or anything

And I know the difference between a patent and trademark thanks very much.

 

[HiRez]

Was anyone using multitouch on smartphones before Apple? IIRC they all required stylus until the iPhone came out!

The ruling is for a trademark on the word "multitouch", not patents related to the use of the technology.

 

[Peace]

I can !

Because Apple is the worst kind of company and hinders the development of others by trying to assimilate other companies and their patents, then cry foul play.

This is good because if apple got the patent it would be like a car company getting a patent on the "Round" wheel.

IT'S NOT A FRIGGIN PATENT !!!

Scheesch...

I thought I was dumb.

Nothing personal mind you.

 

[ChrisTX]

It was a university project far before Apple bought it. I remember watching the demos on YouTube. Apple owns the IP now but they didn't invent it.

It was called Fingerworks. They came up with the majority of gestures we use today. Apple bought them in April 05.

I'm actually very well aware of this, but the idea is that it never saw the light of day in consumer products until Apple started using it. Either way like others have said, if Microsoft can patent "Windows" I don't see what the big deal is here.

 

[BC2009]

While I agree that "Multi-Touch" shouldn't be trademarkable, they cited the broad scope of use as a reason why. Was the term in broad use before the iPhone came around? I don't recall.

No it was not generic before the iPhone (except maybe in some circles, but generally well known). Unlike "App Store", Apple has not leveraged the term "Multi Touch" heavily in their marketing either and thus has failed to tie the term to Apple devices. I think they have done a pretty good job with the equally-descriptive "App Store" since its inception and thus I think they have a chance with that trademark. That is, "App Store" was not heavily used before the iPhone, but Apple has marketed heavily around the term "App Store" -- thus creating some distinctive meaning around it. The term "Multi Touch" was basically left to go to generic meaning. I don't know if Apple has done much pursuit of defending the term "Multi Touch" as a trademark.

 

[benmrii]

To be honest. I don't understand your point but I can state one thing.

Had Apple not come out with the iPhone in 2007 the state of "smartphones " would be dismal today. Bash Apple all you want but it was Apple that started this craze and they deserve some credit for it. Period.

Apple did not invent a named, proprietary technology called "multi-touch". They stood on the shoulders of their predecessors and made an absolutely incredible device, but they did not invent multi-touch. "Multi-touch" describes a generic style of user interaction that was around a long time before them and, although used even more so than ever before, is still a generic description of user interaction with a myriad of devices (many more than smartphones).

They do get credit for the craze you argue they started: millions in profit. Put down the koolaid.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Multitouch, coming from "multiple touch" - a touch screen that supports multiple touches of input.

Multi-touch ≠ multiple touch. There are plenty of cute short terms for phrases like that that are trademarked.

Note: As others seem to assume a lot around here, I'm not arguing for or against Apple getting denied.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

IT'S NOT A FRIGGIN PATENT !!!

Scheesch...

I thought I was dumb.

Nothing personal mind you.

true but more there were other devices before 2007 that used the term "multi touch" to describe how it is used.

Apple could of apple for it sooner and by now it could of easy be loss. Even more so with Apple rather poor ways of failing to keep "App Store" from being generic. It is never a good case when your own CEO describe competitors applications stores as "App Stores" in a public keynote. It is safe to bet Apple would of done the same here and I believe they have before hand so bieng denied the trademark was a good thing.

 

[QuarterSwede]

I'm actually very well aware of this, but the idea is that it never saw the light of day in consumer products until Apple started using it.

I can't argue that because you're absolutely correct.

 

[unlinked]

I'm actually very well aware of this, but the idea is that it never saw the light of day in consumer products until Apple started using it. Either way like others have said, if Microsoft can patent "Windows" I don't see what the big deal is here.

If you can not tell the difference between a patent and a trademark I'm not sure you have much worth saying in the discussion. Even I know the difference.

 

[CWT1965]

I think they are trying to test Tim's resolve really.

They think that with Steve giving up day to day control that they can clip Apple's wings and try and bully them.

Prove them wrong Tim

 

[benmrii]

I'm actually very well aware of this, but the idea is that it never saw the light of day in consumer products until Apple started using it. Either way like others have said, if Microsoft can patent "Windows" I don't see what the big deal is here.

What you're suggesting is true. What you're suggesting is also not why the decision was made.

Thus, from the foregoing, we find that “multi-touch” not only identifies the technology, but also describes how a user of the goods operates the device.

It is not that other products are using the term "multi-touch" as a description of their product or whether or not it is popular because of Apple, it is that "multi-touch" is a generic descriptive term regarding how a myriad of devices - yes, many since the iPhone, but also yes, many before - are interacted with by their user. The term is a mainstream description more than a named proprietary technology. You're arguing something that has nothing to do with the decision.

Windows does not describe an action. I don't "windows" something in my car, at work, or on my computer. "Windows" is a product, a trademarked name. You're comparing apples to oranges... if you'll pardon the horrific pun.

 

[aristotle]

MSFT should not have a trademark on "Windows" or "Word" either since they are generic words and MSFT was not even the first to market with a "windowing" GUI.

 

[kdarling]

While I agree that "Multi-Touch" shouldn't be trademarkable, they cited the broad scope of use as a reason why. Was the term in broad use before the iPhone came around? I don't recall.

A word doesn't have to be in "broad use" to be denied. That's just one possible reason to do so. What the USPTO ruled was that:

1) "Multi-touch" was a perfectly descriptive term and thus had to also be...
2) Associated with Apple due to their advertising expenditure on the word, etc.

However, Apple presented no evidence that they had used "Multi-Touch" on their boxes or stressed it in their advertising.

I can't recall any specific device before the original iPhone that was using multi touch. No one pinched to zoom, or double tapped to zoom until Apple came along.

I had a double tap zoom browser on my Windows Mobile phone before the iPhone. Multitouch and pinch-to-zoom on other devices date back decades.

As for their use on phones, a couple of months before the iPhone was shown off, a Linux based smartphone was announced with "multi-touch sensor" (that's the phrase they used) and pinch zooming:



(Some even think that Apple stole their idea, but of course that can't be possible since it all existed long before either one used it.)

It was a university project far before Apple bought it. I remember watching the demos on YouTube. Apple owns the IP now but they didn't invent it.

Right, Apple bought Fingerworks, but those patents have nothing to do with multitouch on a screen.

 

[milkyboy]

Credit

To be honest. I don't understand your point but I can state one thing.

Had Apple not come out with the iPhone in 2007 the state of "smartphones " would be dismal today. Bash Apple all you want but it was Apple that started this craze and they deserve some credit for it. Period.

Well, they did get credit for it. $403 a share isn't credit enough?

 

[rockrigo]

I'm gonna trademark "posting", you are all screwed

 

[Peace]

Well, they did get credit for it. $403 a share isn't credit enough?

There's more to life than money.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

love apple/glad they lost.

To me this is unpatentable. Im sure that they only tried to patent it because if it was able to be patented they would win (they were first, android fanboys with the knock-off buggy clone ). But this deserves to not be patentable, it is a gesture.

 

[milkyboy]

MSFT should not have a trademark on "Windows" or "Word" either since they are generic words and MSFT was not even the first to market with a "windowing" GUI.

Hmm, but that is the name of their software. It's not called the Apple Multitouch iPhone. It is simply a feature. It would be the same if Microsoft had patented "font" or "italic".

 

[Peace]

Hmm, but that is the name of their software. It's not called the Apple Multitouch iPhone. It is simply a feature. It would be the same if Microsoft had patented "font" or "italic".

I gather you weren't around when Apple V. Microsoft was going at it about "Windows"..

Back when DOS was around ?

 

[DESNOS]

I think we place a greater emphasis on when Apple is actually the first to do something meaningful with an idea.

Yes, there was a tablet market before but it was pathetic and nearly dead before Apple got into it. If the tablet market pre-2010 (and pre-2007) actually matters at this point it does so in the context of history and perhaps some interesting trivia (in terms of who came up with what idea, that eventually got wasted by poor implementation.) Beyond that, be happy that Apple changed the tablet game and actually made it matter (an understatement, since Apple did much more than that, having put it at the forefront of computing moving forward.)

So in terms of actual viability (which is rather important), Apple was indeed the first in terms of multi-touch, tablets, smartphones, etc. Tech tends to mean so much more and reach its true potential under Apple. This phenomenon is a salient feature of the industry today, like it or not.

This can be summed up with one term: Capacitive Multitouch. That didn't exist in mobile phones prior to Apple's introduction, and is by far the best form.

EDIT: I'm going to guess that the person who voted me down doesn't know what Capacitive Multitouch is. Here's an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing Here's another:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch . Its use in mobile phones was in fact pioneered by Apple. Multitouch in general, not so much, but that isn't what I said either.

 

[apolloa]

To be honest. I don't understand your point but I can state one thing.

Had Apple not come out with the iPhone in 2007 the state of "smartphones " would be dismal today. Bash Apple all you want but it was Apple that started this craze and they deserve some credit for it. Period.

When the iPhone was first launched, it's camera was pathetic, it was big and heavy, it lacked processing power, it's battery life was not as good as it's competitors, it lacked any form of video calling, it was 2G ONLY not 3G like it's competitors, it had no copy and paste, it's blue tooth didn't work with very many devices and it offered no multi tasking ability's.
You admired the original iPhone, but next to the competitors sat next to it, you were a fool to buy an iPhone at the time. And we cannot ignore the LG Prada as nothing is to say that would have lead the market in the same direction as it is now. And Palm no doubt knew exactly what Web OS was going to be like and do and we would have Android. And touch screen smartphones had been out long before the iPhone anyway.

I'm not going to state Apple haven't brought new ideas to the market, but to proclaim smartphones would be dismal today if it was not for Apple is to be in denial and ignoring of the facts, the Palm Pre at the time was better then the iPhone 3G, Web OS was clearly a fresh new OS that had nothing to do with iOS and would have on it's own taken the industry in a new path.

 

[subsonix]

Microsoft trademark is not for windows, a great difference

Yeah but here's another one, they have a trademark for SQL Server.

 

[Nyyark]

Well...

The very fact that some think that Apple filing for the Trademark ahead of time would tip their hand shows that Multi-Touch is probably to descriptive to be granted as a trademark.

At-least it's grey enough to let the board off the hook for it becoming so generically used after Apple called it that.