Spectacular fail!Wrong on every count!
LOL thanks for the "enjoyment"!
Your blog must be a nonstop laughfest!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Motorola Over Multi-Touch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spectacular fail!Wrong on every count!
LOL thanks for the "enjoyment"!
Your blog must be a nonstop laughfest!
You are incredibly incorrect. There is no requirement that a patentee license a patent.
Seriously?
OK, using that logic, the Android project started before iOS, so Google should sue Apple for making a smartphone OS.
I doubt that. Apple probably started iOS much before they actually announced it, don't you think?
Android's originators certainly have worked on phones for much longer. Using currently known histories, the two phone OS origins seem to be:
Android:
2000 - Danger Inc created to make mobile phone OS.
2002 - fall. Sidekick phone comes out.
2003 - fall. Android Inc cofounded by Danger founder Andy Rubin.
2005 - summer. Android acquired by Google.
iOS
2005 - early. Jobs approaches Cingular about being an MVNO.
2005 - spring. Apple decides to do a phone instead.
2005 - summer. Apple approaches Verizon with a vague idea.
2005 - fall. Apple creates iPod wheel based phone UI prototypes.
2005 - winter. Jobs decides to use touchscreen (?)
2006 - Jan. Apple decides not to use Linux; starts OSX port.
Like the first iPod-iPhone prototypes, Android started more as a cursor-based UI. It switched to being much more touch oriented after the iPhone became successful.
Android:
2000 - Danger Inc created to make mobile phone OS.
2002 - fall. Sidekick phone comes out.
2003 - fall. Android Inc cofounded by Danger founder Andy Rubin.
2005 - summer. Android acquired by Google.
iOS
2005 - early. Jobs approaches Cingular about being an MVNO.
2005 - spring. Apple decides to do a phone instead.
2005 - summer. Apple approaches Verizon with a vague idea.
2005 - fall. Apple creates iPod wheel based phone UI prototypes.
2005 - winter. Jobs decides to use touchscreen (?)
2006 - Jan. Apple decides not to use Linux; starts OSX port.
Like the first iPod-iPhone prototypes, Android started more as a cursor-based UI. It switched to being much more touch oriented after the iPhone became successful.
Your facts are not quite right. According to this Bloomberg story Apple work with TPK to develop touch-panel screens.
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2qOFL1qm7DY
"Work with Apple to develop touch-panel screens began in 2004, culminating with the release of the iPhone three years later, said Chairman Michael Chiang, who was in the audience when Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs unveiled his companys smartphone in January 2007."
Could someone help me out here?
So let me get this straight: someone (or a company) owns the patent to a touch-based user interface? Am I wrong with that assumption?
Why are these types of patents allowed?
So let me get this straight: someone (or a company) owns the patent to a touch-based user interface? Am I wrong with that assumption?
Why are these types of patents allowed?
Could someone help me out here?
So let me get this straight: someone (or a company) owns the patent to a touch-based user interface? Am I wrong with that assumption?
Why are these types of patents allowed?
I think Apple's multi-touch patents refer to how you use your fingers to do what kind of actions. So if the Android OS allows user to do same kind of actions this is a violation of Apple's patents.
Why are these types of patents allowed?
to encourage people to invest in research and development on technologies that won't result in sufficient return on investment in the absence of a limited time monopoly on the fruits of that research, thereby ensuring the advancement of science while eliminating the danger of free riders who invest nothing but merely copy the hard work of others, therefore discouraging anyone from investing in anything that doesn't provide immediate payback.
PR comments like the one above do not mean that their touchscreens were originally meant for a phone. On the contrary...
Jobs has said that he didn't think of touch for a phone until he used a multi-touch tablet prototype. If that Apple demo tablet was using a TPK touchscreen, it would not have existed when they started collaborating in 2004.
In fact, they're really stretching with that piece of PR. TPK did not exist as a company until 2005, and did not commercially produce their first touchscreen sensor until the third quarter of 2006.
It would also be strange for Apple to be making iPod-wheel based phone UIs in the second half of 2005 if they had already decided on using touch.
Finally, the current iPhone project (codenamed "Purple 2") wasn't begun in earnest at Apple until late 2005.
So what fits the known histories is that Jobs must've decided to use touch sometime after the iPod prototypes. This makes the decision around late Fall 2005. (Thus the ? mark.)
Your facts are wrong again. According to this official TPK web site, May 2003 TPK Touch Solutions Inc. Taiwan established [TPKT]. I wonder what PR are you representing.
http://www.tpk-solutions.com/company_milestones.htm
Could someone help me out here?
So let me get this straight: someone (or a company) owns the patent to a touch-based user interface? Am I wrong with that assumption?
Why are these types of patents allowed?
Apple doesn't own a patent to *any* touch based user interface. They own a patent to a particular implementation of a touch based user interface.
People are sometimes confused by this because articles on patent infringement only quote the abstract of the patent (which is general) and not the patent itself, which is very specific.
Here's a very small part of Apple's multitouch patent. (There are hundreds of steps in the patent; this bit references Step 551):
Here's a link to where you can see the whole patent (one of several MT patents that Apple owns): http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,812,828.PN.&OS=PN/7,812,828&RS=PN/7,812,828
Of course, I have no idea whether Moto has infringed this patent or not.
Interesting, and thanks. Apparently there are multiple TPK origin dates. I was going by comments made in this article about Balda, who made the iPhone touchsreen using technology from TPK.
For the past thirty years online, I've been about cutting through myths and making sure true histories are not lost.
Again, the point is that it makes no sense that iPod-wheel UIs would've been prototyped in the latter half of 2005 if they had already decided on using touchscreens.
Cheers!
imagen if they change the rules that state if you patent gets declared invalid you would have to pay the court cost of the defendant. This is different than if you just lose the case because you would still have your patent but instead you loss your patent because it is not valid. It would kill the patent trolls because they would be suffering some huge bills and companies would be more willing to defend themselves against truly bogus patents.
Good idea. I fight patent trolls all day long. Though the problem is patents aren't invalid - claims are. It would have to be something like "if all asserted claims are invalidated, plaintiff pays costs.". But that would be a major change in the law, since patents are now entitled to a presumption of validity and this would essentially eliminate that - a person with a patent, which is presumed valid under the law, can't be penalized for trying to enforce it.
true but you would have to worry about companies like Apple would would have Zero issue fighting claims that might be valid and they would just bankrupt anyone who tried. Good for the smaller guys but the big guys would abuse stealing patents even more.
But I find that a lot of patent trolls have invalid patents to begin with that could be kill with prier art. At least those cases would go away.
See also 35 USC 288 which may mean that if you know your claims are invalid and you sue, you may have to pay the other side's costs (maybe. Some argue that's what this means, though).
Ya, that Windows Mobile touch screen I had in 2003 was SOOO amazing I had to use a stylus to input everything.
It is neither lame nor ridiculous.
I take it that you would consider it "lame and ridiculous" to defend yourself against an intruder who is burglarizing your house? After all, it is "lam and ridiculous" to defend the products of your labor and investments, right?
People who want to do not work, copy others, and free load think the American patent system is stupid, useless, and broke.
Those who understand how development works and have been driven to innovate and create their own products know that patent system is a wonderful thing.
Hell, even the founders thought it was so necessary they put it into the constitution.
God, people like you are the same people who feel entitled to everything on the internet from TV, music, and movies. ME ME ME, I WANT I WANT I WANT, FREE FREE FREE. Get over yourself.
are you kidding me? Samsung would still dominate profits without Apple. They have so many other companies. They built one of the Kuala Lampuur Petronas Towers and Battleships for gosh sake. You need to research companies before you make them dependent on Apple.
That Motorola calls a supposedly offending product "iTouch" should tell us something about the intelligence of this once great company. Motorola used to be the master of radio technology. It even built the CPUs for Macintoshes for years. Too bad it can no longer innovate.
Problem is proving it. But like you said it would require a major overhaul of the system and the blood sucking lawyers are never going to allow that to happen. And it goes double because most of our politians are lawyers or hold a law degree.
It any lawsuit there are always at least 2 winners. The lawyer for plaintif and the lawyer for the defendant. They always win