Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Denied Trademark for Multi-Touch

benmrii said:
You, and most here, have misunderstood the reasoning behind the denial. It is not that other products are using the term "multi-touch" as a description of their product, 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.

This isn't about whether or not Apple made it popular or not, it's that the term is a mainstream description more than a named proprietary technology. Saying that Apple should be able to trademark it is akin to saying that Toyota can trademark the term "driving" because they are one of the most successful automakers right now.
Click to expand...

I heard Steve say he was driven once, do you think he'll sue Toyota too?

CQd44 said:
Reading through this thread makes me question the literacy level of some of you.

Let's say I make skipping super popular. Everyone does it and associates me with it. Everyone starts skipping everywhere. Would that give me the right to trademark the word, even though it existed and was it in use before?

Just the word mind you, not the process.
Click to expand...

It makes me question the mentality of some too.

Peace said:
There wouldn't even be android devices had it not been for Apple.

Ask Eric Schmidt ;)
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be an Apple without Microsoft. Ask Steve.

Mr. Gates said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well isn't Apple suing someone because they made a rectangular phone or tablet? :D

DrJohnnyN said:
Sex.
Click to expand...

With money, you can have more sex than you will ever want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mentholiptus said:
The USPTO should consider how commonplace "Multi-Touch" was when the application was filed.
Click to expand...

Considering that this decision was originally made in 2007 (and what we are talking about now is in the midst of an article about an 2011 appeal), I believe they did.
 
I think the issue here is not so much the generic nature of the term (although these days that does play a part), but more the descriptive nature of the term. Multi-touch refers to the ability to use multiple inputs (in this case fingers) on the device (ie, iPhone). Had they named it something a little different I have no doubt that apple would have taken a trademark, but they didn't.

Think about the term "Retina Display." When you think about that you think the hi-resolution screen on the iPhone (and now iPod). The name isn't Hi-Res Display, it's Retina Display, which doesn't describe the resolution of the screen, it names it.

When looking at phones if I were to say "multi-touch" to the assistant at a shop (assuming they actually knew something... Bit of a stretch, I know) they'd point me to a number of phones. If I say "Something with high resolution," again, they could point me to several phones. If I say "Retina Display," they'll point me to the iPhone.
 
rjohnstone said:
I don't know which is more cute. That you think Apple developed Multi touch, or that you think everyone else is "less effective" at implementing it.

Multi touch phones existed before the iPhone. ;)
Making an existing technology popular doesn't mean you can claim ownership of it.
Click to expand...

i don't know which is more cute, a person who thinks who knows the story, but only knows half of it... or the person making himself look foolish by actually saying the half truth...

Apple bought the company who did invent the type of capacitance multi touch screen that we are talking about, so yes Apple has a right to it.

however Apple should not get a trademark for such a term because the term has been used in similar fields before...

but this idiot reviewer using Android as a reason is just plain clueless, it took Google nearly two years to put out an Android phone that had multitouch capabilities, however even then IT STILL DIDN"T HAVE It enabled, because they rushed it out the door and it didn't work well...

it was well over two years before Android could find enough iPhones to copy :0) you know even if you are google you still have to stand in line...

(actually Eric schmidt was on Apple's board, (big mistake by Apple for trusting that guy) and he copied everything from there) even then it took them 2 years to update android to a touch screen interface after seeing the iPhone... (actually longer because Eric was on the board long before the iphone was finally put on sale)
 
QuarterSwede said:
Honestly, I'd like to know what they were because as far as I'm aware the only multi-touch devices (not the same as single touch capacitive screens) around before the iPhone were table top or large screen ones.
Click to expand...

Here is one example from a previous post: FIC’s Linux-based Smartphone

The most informative, detailed post so far about predecessors (beyond the larger screens most of us have mentioned) is one by kdarling, and is where I got the above link from: post
 
Common sense prevails here. Next do App Store, even Steve Jobs uses that one as a generic descriptive term!

Peace said:
Not at all . Had the trademark office done it properly Apple would have received the trademark in 2007 when the terminology was not in general usage but was used by Apple.
Click to expand...

No, you did not read the decision if you truly believe this. In 2007, it was impossible for the USPTO to grant this trademark to Apple. The term was a descriptive term and Apple needed to have it acquire secondary meaning, which is not something that is done overnight.

So in 2007, a grant would have been quite premature. The problem is Apple did not manage to give the term sufficient secondary meaning by the time it was in widespread use to describe the technology hence why the mark was denied to them.

Come on people, read the decision. There are 2 components to it :

- Apple tried to register a descriptive term that is a generic description of the technology used
- Apple failed to have the "Multi-Touch" mark achieve secondary meaning (ie, have people associate "Multi-Touch" with Apple's implementation of the technology rather than the technology itself.

And anyone still claiming "Windows" is quite oblivious here. Windows is non-descriptive in its use by Microsoft. The comparison is invalid.
 
Leaping Tortois said:
When looking at phones if I were to say "multi-touch" to the assistant at a shop.
Click to expand...

and if the iPhone never existed the shop assistant would look at you and question what in the world you are talking about... because the Android phones that he would see wouldn't look anything like they do today without the iPhone.. nor would they have multi-touch capability, (nor much more than a feature phone did have at the time)

since Apple acquired the company who invented the capacitance multi touch screen we are talking about... no one would know what you are talking about. there was only one company who invented it.

Apple will have a much better time in court with it's multi touch PATENTS... that it acquired. (it's so called crown jewels)...

all these suits you are hearing about... Apple hasn't even brought out the big guns yet... it's crown jewels....

Samsung is going to have a very very very hard time... HTC is already sunk.
 
Oletros said:
Microsoft trademark is not for windows, a great difference
Click to expand...


geez people do you have any sense of what is coming out of your mouth?

this is from Microsoft below... a great difference is like telling us a false statement, rather than a true statement... that is a "great difference"...

Microsoft, Encarta, MSN, and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries

----------
AustinJamMan said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VfpVYYQzHs

I remember watching this before the first iPhone was released. So yeah, no patent on "multi touch" naming convention.
Click to expand...

you do realize you put up a video that at no time does the video mention the word "multi-touch" Hello... are you awake in there????

, Microsofts tech which they bought is based on a camera projector system, (that is actually completely impractical, and will/never and did/never amount to a product that would sell to the general public. (the video cameras take pictures of the position of your hand from below)

Apple's tech, which they bought, is based on a multi touch capacitance screen.
and by the way, they actually used the word "multi-touch" to describe their system and actually had it in the product name..........

geeze you people amaze me....
 
honkj said:
geez people do you have any sense of what is coming out of your mouth?
Click to expand...

Read again his post : "Microsoft's trademark is not for windows". Think about it slowly. "Microsoft's Windows® trademark is not for windows".

Microsoft does not use their Windows® trademark to talk about the object known as a window, in its plural form. Hence it's not a descriptive term. Just like "Apple Inc." is not an incorporated fruit, it's a company that deals in consumer electronics.

I thought his post was pretty darn clear.
 
benmrii said:
You, and most here, have misunderstood the reasoning behind the denial. It is not that other products are using the term "multi-touch" as a description of their product, 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.

This isn't about whether or not Apple made it popular or not, it's that the term is a mainstream description more than a named proprietary technology. Saying that Apple should be able to trademark it is akin to saying that Toyota can trademark the term "driving" because they are one of the most successful automakers right now.
Click to expand...


Thats a terrible example. People today only think of "Multi-touch" as being descriptive because its been used so frequently over the last three or four years. Same old story has 'app store'. Sure it sounds super common now, and sounds like a simple description of what the product or service is (in this case an online application storefront). But if Apple had never came up with the name, I think 'app store' would have never caught on, and people wouldn't understand what it means.

Likening this case to you Toyota example, its like a car company coming up with a new transmission system and calling it "shifttran", "quickshift" or "autotran" (Obviously naming things isn't my speciality).

The same argument would say you can't call your new system "shifttran", because it describes the shifting of a transmission. This isn't a great example, but I don't have all night to dream up a perfect one.

Multi-touch could have been called all sorts of things that sound stupid now because we are so used to that name.
 
honkj said:
and if the iPhone never existed the shop assistant would look at you and question what in the world you are talking about... because the Android phones that he would see wouldn't look anything like they do today without the iPhone.. nor would they have multi-touch capability, (nor much more than a feature phone did have at the time)

since Apple acquired the company who invented the capacitance multi touch screen we are talking about... no one would know what you are talking about. there was only one company who invented it.
Click to expand...

If Apple had not acquired that company you could be damned sure that another company would have and that company would then include the multi-touch technology in their product lines.

HOWEVER, this has absolutely nothing to do with this article, which is about trademarks. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that another company could have (I say could, not would) come up with the name multi-touch, being descriptive in its nature. To take from my earlier example, it's unlikely that another company would come up with "Retina Display" as easily were it the first to popularize such screens.

Now if you'd like to argue who should and shouldn't use the technology based on patents then that's a different matter, but this is simply in regards to use of a name, not use of a technology.
 
honkj said:
uh, no apple didn't invent the process, THEY BOUGHT THE COMPANY WHO DID INVENT MULTITOUCH CAPACITANCE screens though....
Click to expand...

They bought 'a' company with 'patents' in this area. That keyboard company that slips my mind. I highly doubt the keyboard group invented it.

rjohnstone said:
Really? When did Apple buy Bell Labs?
Click to expand...

Johnstone, you have the right idea calling BS on Honkj, but you should really cite a reference when you beat someone down like that. :) Besides, I'd like to see what you find. Fascinating stuff.
 
apolloa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple created the modern cell phone. There was NO OTHER device that was even near the same ballpark as iPhone 1. The Palm Pre was the first decent competitor. Android is only just getting reliable enough to compete on the technology. Android is getting marketshare because it is freely available....not because it is great. Apple is right where they want to be: They have the best product and are most profitable....they do not care about market share.
 
jhende7 said:
Likening this case to you Toyota example, its like a car company coming up with a new transmission system and calling it "shifttran", "quickshift" or "autotran" (Obviously naming things isn't my speciality).

The same argument would say you can't call your new system "shifttran", because it describes the shifting of a transmission. This isn't a great example, but I don't have all night to dream up a perfect one.

Multi-touch could have been called all sorts of things that sound stupid now because we are so used to that name.
Click to expand...

IF Toyota developed such a transmission which operated on the "Shiftran" (Supposing that that describes the way it operates) and then started advertising the car as having "Shiftran technology" they would not get the trademark. If, on the other hand, they called it "Omnitran" which utilises "Shiftran" technology, they would get the trademark for Omnitran.
 
Peace said:
There's more to life than money.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. But for a publicly traded company, I'd say that the stock price is a good way for the market to show their appreciation, as well as the huge earnings Apple makes from their product line. Undoubtedly a large portion of the market knows that the Apple iPhone's multitouch as well as the phone's other features are better than the competitors.
 
jdawgnoonan said:
Apple created the modern cell phone. There was NO OTHER device that was even near the same ballpark as iPhone 1. The Palm Pre was the first decent competitor. Android is only just getting reliable enough to compete on the technology. Android is getting marketshare because it is freely available....not because it is great. Apple is right where they want to be: They have the best product and are most profitable....they do not care about market share.
Click to expand...

I will not dispute apples contributions to the current mobile phone market (Sorry, we call them mobile's here in Australia), but a lot of what you said is actually subjective. Android is getting market share, but it's peoples guess as to why. Personally, I prefer the freedom to make my homepages look like I want them. I like the widgets. I like the notifications and I like how I can drag and drop my media without having to deal with software.

I find that these days apple (Like many companies), is not so much an inventor as it is an integrator. Similar to Boeing, Toyota, and many others. The thing is that Apple is brilliant at knowing what to integrate and where, and making it fashionable and a must have device.
 
honkj said:
you do realize you put up a video that at no time does the video mention the word "multi-touch" Hello... are you awake in there????

, Microsofts tech which they bought is based on a camera projector system, (that is actually completely impractical, and will/never and did/never amount to a product that would sell to the general public. (the video cameras take pictures of the position of your hand from below)

Apple's tech, which they bought, is based on a multi touch capacitance screen.
and by the way, they actually used the word "multi-touch" to describe their system and actually had it in the product name..........

geeze you people amaze me....
Click to expand...

Where to begin... First, Microsoft Surface devices exist commercially.
It is an actual product you can buy... not cheap.

Your understanding of how it works is inaccurate at best.
The micro cameras are on the side, not underneath and they do more than figure out where a person's hand is.
They identify objects placed on the screen and can also interpret gestures.

And for the last time, Apple bought Fingerworks that invented a few multi touch gestures and concepts.
Fingerworks did not invent multi touch and they most certainly did not invent the multi touch capacitive display.
Bell Labs made the first functioning capacitive multi touch display in 1984 (with finger tracking) and CERN came up with the working concept of fixed point multi touch capacitive displays in 1977 (no gesture support).

I mean really dude... Google is your friend. ;)


FakeWozniak said:
Johnstone, you have the right idea calling BS on Honkj, but you should really cite a reference when you beat someone down like that. :) Besides, I'd like to see what you find. Fascinating stuff.
Click to expand...

I'll even throw in the obligatory Wiki article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

Here you go...
http://www.touchuserinterface.com/2010/02/touch-technology-history.html
1972

Touch screen was used on PLATO by the University of Illinois

1974

Dr. Hurst designed the first transparent touchscreen

1977

Elographics invented and patented the 5-wire resistive technical method

1979

3M patented surface capacitive technology

1981

Tactile Array Sensor for Robotics

1982

Elo Touch Systems invented the resistive touch sensing technology
Flexible Machine Interface, the first multi touch input system, was published (Mehta, Nimish, A Flexible Machine Interface, M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto, 1982)

1984

Bob Boie at Bell Labs invented the first multi touch screen

1985

Zenith patented the Surface Acoustic Touch Panel System
Input Research Group at University of Toronto developed multi-touch tablet

1987

Elo Touch Systems puchased SAW technology from Zenith

1990

Nissha developed the FineTouch touch panel

1993

Apple’s Original Newton Message Pad H1000 was introduced

1995

MicroTouch launched the first projected capacitive touch sensor

1996

Palm introduced Palm Pilot 1000, the first commercially successful PDA with the resistive touch screen

2000

3M acquired MicroTouch

2001

Zytronic developed ZyTouch projected capacitive touch sensor and applied it to the first Tablet PC prototype
Microsoft demonstrated the first public prototype of Tablet PC
MERL developed Diamond Touch multitouch system using projected capacitive touch technology

2002

Sony published a paper about SmartSkin multitouch system. SmartSkin adopted mutual capacitive sensing that is also used in iPhone.

2003

NextWindow and Smart Technologies started producing optical touch panels
FingerWorks developed input peripherals based on the multi touch technology

2004

Nintendo launched Nintendo DS, a handheld gaming device with dual screen and a touch display

2005

TMD start mass production of touch-embedded TFT using optical sensors
Jeff Han demonstrated the first FTIR multi touch
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back