Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OK, Nokia... It's Payback Time! :D

You bring an Excellent point, NOKIA.

Every single GSM phone maker, including Apple, has to pay Nokia for using its patented GSM technologies (which are a worldwide standard now), every single multi-touch manufacturer will now have to pay Apple.

Sidebar: CDMA (Verizon, Spring) is different. unlike GSM it has never been licensed, basically every single CDMA phone's chip is manufactured by one company, Qualcomm.
 
You bring an Excellent point, NOKIA.

Every single GSM phone maker, including Apple, has to pay Nokia for using its patented GSM technologies (which are a worldwide standard now), every single multi-touch manufacturer will now have to pay Apple.

Which manufacturers are infringing on this patent specifically?
 
Depending on how broad this patent really is... my concern is that it will stifle competitors... and that's a bad thing. Competition is necessary for truly forward progress and innovation... we'll see...
 
No one should be allowed to patent a damn gesture. How retarded is that? That's like microsoft patenting right clicking.

Hahaaa ... your example was pretty funny. I laughed. :)
I agree, but it looks like Apple got away with it.
competition = good.
 
Apple sues Android handset alliance members for multitouch.

Google sues Apple for notifications.

Millions of dollars flow between companies, lawyers make money, nothing of consequence happens to consumers.

But Android is "free" and "open". "Anyone can use it for free". Show us the patent on the notifications.
 
I'm not sure why anyone files a patent since the copycat products show up quickly and there is little or no punishment
 
Every single GSM phone maker, including Apple, has to pay Nokia for using its patented GSM technologies (which are a worldwide standard now), every single multi-touch manufacturer will now have to pay Apple.
Only if they implement the patent's specific claims. I doubt Apple got a patent on the concept of multi-touch itself since it's definately too broad and there are loads of prior art examples around. Usually news headlines about patents are very superficial and broad because they have to explain in a sentence what the patent is about, but the claims should be very specific. If they are not the patent is most likely going to be found at least partially invalid later on, if challenged.

Nokia's case was slightly different: they cannot refuse licensing under some regulated terms because their patents are part of the standard. The debate was only about the licensing terms, not the fact that the patents were valid, or that Apple did require to get a license.
 
Disclaimer: I despise our broken patent system and realize this will unfortunately likely be used to strongarm competitors.

That said, I really wonder what people like the folks at Samsung were thinking. Steve Jobs got on stage and ranted about how hard they'd patented it during the introduction presentation. This was Jobs' baby. I'm not surprised that he was willing to press the big red lawsuit button in the patent arms race, and they really are going to get what was coming to them.

However, sued competitors = less innovation all around. Hopefully this isn't broad enough to hurt the actually interesting competitors (especially WebOS/Windows Phone 7) and only hits designs like Samsung's.

True. People are forgetting Apple got ****ed real hard by Microsoft in the past. Steve Jobs got it the hardest.

That was why he smugly said "and Yes it is patented". It just will not happen to Steve Jobs twice.

...for as long as he lives. =/
 
Apple has been forced to learn from their past mistakes in patenting their intellectual property. I'm glad they have been awarded this patent.

At the same time I believe that patent law is broken. There should be a common sense exception to some of these broad patents. It's so sad that patent trolling has become the new growth industry.
 
What about imaginary tech that's appeared in films?
Minority Report clearly shows a two finger zoom out on a photo way back in 2002:

The patent is ONLY about SCROLLING a section WITHIN a page, and using a DIFFERENT NUMBER of fingers to SCROLL the whole page.

Example: a scrollable Google map inside a scrollable webpage.

Of course, if you allow one finger to do both, you do not infringe.

Interesting. I had never encountered such touch gestures before in any other context. It was always point and click and nothing else.

That's been pretty much true of mass consumer devices.

There are other touch fields, such as industrial control interfaces, which extensively use virtual knobs, sliders, and other touch objects. Touch gesture vocabulary was a major topic for us in those areas a decade or two ago.

So those other companies back in the '90s patented all these multi-touch gestures, right?

Years ago, everyone shared their ideas freely. Most developers would simply have thought that such easy-to-invent gestures were unpatentable.

Some did so, though. For instance, Apple's patent cites this patent predating theirs, which includes in its description, actions such as:

"If the user contacts the touch surface with a pair of fingers simultaneously over an application window displayed on the touch surface and the fingers are closely and generally horizontally spaced, the driver recognizes the simultaneous finger contacts as a scroll gesture and injects a scroll event into the application.

Pointer position data conveyed to the application by the driver in response to subsequent vertical movement of the fingers is interpreted by the application either as scroll up or scroll down commands."

Another older patent referenced in Apple's patent has a claim for using multiple fingers to cause scrolling when more than one touch is seen:

"... scrolling or panning is performed when the at least two unique identifiers move together in substantially the same direction"

So multitouch scrolling is well known, as is single scrolling cited in other patent references. In fact, the whole point of multitouch is give the user more gestures options.

I think someone at Apple noticed that no one had patented scrolling using a combination of single and multi for contained frames, and took advantage of past R&D friendliness and today's overburdened patent system, IMO.
 
Thanks.

Patent doesn't cover what everyone says. It covers only the use of one finger to move a web page while using two fingers to scroll a frame. (or m fingers and n fingers).

To infringe, you need to do both.

Patent is very narrow. Article is wrong.

Yes -- patent would still allow every competitor out there to scroll content via touch on their device. The only difference is that they could not use a certain number of fingers to scroll the overall content, while using a second number of fingers to translate scrollable content displayed within a frame (think a scrollable div, iframe, or frame in HTML, a selection list in a web page or an app, or piece of embedded content in a spread sheet).

However, the alternative to this is to provide scrolling controls (like scrollbars) for that framed content. Another alternative may be to track focus (i.e.: if you click in the framed map area, then touch scrolling effects that and then when you click on the overall page then touch scrolling effects that).

There is however a possible application here that is being missed. The patent says "translate" not "scroll". The term "translate" could be used for pinch-to-zoom as well. So you might be able to think of cases where pinch-to-zoom affecting an area of framed content within an app while single finger swipes affecting scrolling would be applicable. I can think of this on mobile web sites since typically you cannot zoom them (they are displayed full size), but a framed map may be zoomable via two-finger pinch.

Either way the patent requires that you have an primary piece of content which contains a framed area of sub-content and the number of fingers used determines which content area would be translated. Not nearly as broad as the fabled "multi-touch patent".
 
Yes -- patent would still allow every competitor out there to scroll content via touch on their device.

Correct, and you gave a nice list of alternative methods.

There is however a possible application here that is being missed. The patent says "translate" not "scroll". The term "translate" could be used for pinch-to-zoom as well.

Umm. Yes, the term could apply to the Z axis. However, the patent seems to be only about scrolling in the X and Y directions.
 
Just a quick reminder:

Apple filed for this in 2007. When nearly all the major players and a lot of shortsighted and unimaginative pundits said the iPhone will fail and to just ignore it, and that the way of doing smartphones at the time would continue unabated.
 
Woah, walked in on MacHaters, or is AndroidRumors?

Can anyone tell me where MacRumors is?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

U kidding? Apple patented the multitouch in the release of the original iPhone, and even stated in the keynote release stated "and we definitely patented it"
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
 
Last edited:
it's gone

Woah, walked in on MacHaters, or is AndroidRumors?

Can anyone tell me where MacRumors is?

MacRumours disappeared about the time that Apple Computer dropped "computer" from the name, and the membership demographic here shifted towards pre-teenagers with their first Ipod.
 
MacRumours disappeared about the time that Apple Computer dropped "computer" from the name, and the membership demographic here shifted towards pre-teenagers with their first Ipod.

I've been a mac user since long before iPod went mainstream and the general public sheep turned into retards clinging onto a brand.

But you bring a good point that apple dropped 'computer' from their name, since then they've stopped caring about their computers. Me being a power user, its been a kick in the teeth since it happened. Theyve put way too much focus onto iOS. I don't want any of my mac computers, current or future ones going through an iPadification process. The very idea disgusts me greatly.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.