Apple Wins Broad Patent on iPhone Multi-Touch User Interface

[cmaier]

Thank you. Those references are simply to other applications, at least one of which has been rejected once already.



Nice blog, but it used the wrong example with the zoom. Again, the patent is ONLY about scrolling in an embedded frame, not about zooming or 3D rotation or anything else. As the patent claims several times:

"...translating the frame content in the stationary application window, to display a new portion of frame content... "

In graphics speak, translating to display a new portion = XY scrolling.

It's a matter for the Markman hearing. If a zoom changes the effective origin of the view it might be a translation within the meaning of the patent - a patentee is entitled to be his own lexicographer. I'm not going to read the entire specification to figure out what the proper construction of "translate" is

BTW, as far as that patent application being "rejected" already, I wouldn't put much weight on that. A patent that issues without any rejections may be a worthless patent - it often means the patent examiner gave up too early and probably didn't find the best art. The best patents often get past lots of rejections - over time the claims are tailored to avoid the prior art, and end up pretty bulletproof by the time the patent issues. It's very rare for a patent to issue without at least one rejection along the way.

 

[lilo777]

So, company X invents something. Company Y steals that idea without blinking. You stand up and applaud?

By your post then I should understand that anyone who thinks that stealing Apple's IP is wrong is then a fanboy. Nice...

I don't care about the "competitors", I care about the outrageous constant copying without putting a minimal effort to create something good. If they get permission to use the IP or pay for it, fine by me, otherwise, you're just defending pirates and killing the inventors.

This is not "the iPhone" patent, this is just one amongst several others. IMHO, I hope Apple gets credit for the innovation it brought to the market, and those who want to use it should as well pay for it.

What exactly did Apple invent here? I am sure that if 3rd graders were told about multi-touch capabilities and asked to "invent" context-sensitive scrolling it would take them all 5 minutes (probably less). There is no invention here, period. It's just a "translation" of well known GUI techniques to multi-touch environment. All they patented is the ability of the device/application to do one thing when user uses one finger and something different when two fingers are involved (plus context analysis). But that's the basic principle of multi-touch in a first place. Are they trying to patent specifically "two-finger scroll"? Let's let them. And then another company will patent "two-finger zoom" and another one will invent (and patent) "three-finger" scroll. The rest of us will have to use ten fingers to do something in multi-touch interfaces. Does it make sense? Are there any precedents of similar application of patent law? I do not think so. This patent is clearly un-enforceable (just like most Apple patents are). This one will certainly go the way of their app store trademark and the rest of the crap they have been trying lately.

 

[cmaier]

This patent is clearly un-enforceable (just like most Apple patents are). This one will certainly go the way of their app store trademark and the rest of the crap they have been trying lately.

No it's not. All patents receive a presumption of validity. To show it's invalid, a challenger will have to find a substantial new question of patentability in the form of one or more printed publication the USPTO didn't already consider, or, in court, show that a single printed reference or U.S. sold product, or some combination of such prior art, teaches what's in the claim.

In short, to invalidate this, someone is going to have to find art that teaches what's in the claims - an attack based on "hey, this is obvious because what else are you going to do to scroll a frame?" is not going to work.

 

[Thex1138]

It is a big thing... as identified over at PatentlyApple..

The key inclusions do make this a far-reaching patent:
A touch-sensitive display in some embodiments of the touch screen may be as described in the following applications: (1) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/381,313, "Multipoint Touch Surface Controller," filed May 2, 2006; (2) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/840,862, "Multipoint Touchscreen," filed May 6, 2004; (3) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/903,964, "Gestures For Touch Sensitive Input Devices," filed Jul. 30, 2004; (4) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/048,264, "Gestures For Touch Sensitive Input Devices," filed Jan. 31, 2005; (5) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/038,590, "Mode-Based Graphical User Interfaces For Touch Sensitive Input Devices," filed Jan. 18, 2005; (6) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,758, "Virtual Input Device Placement On A Touch Screen User Interface," filed Sep. 16, 2005; (7) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,700, "Operation Of A Computer With A Touch Screen Interface," filed Sep. 16, 2005; (8) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,737, "Activating Virtual Keys Of A Touch-Screen Virtual Keyboard," filed Sep. 16, 2005; and (9) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/367,749, "Multi-Functional Hand-Held Device," filed Mar. 3, 2006. All of these applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

 

[cmaier]

The key inclusions do make this a far-reaching patent:
A touch-sensitive display in some embodiments of the touch screen may be as described in the following applications: (1) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/381,313, "Multipoint Touch Surface Controller," filed May 2, 2006; (2) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/840,862, "Multipoint Touchscreen," filed May 6, 2004; (3) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/903,964, "Gestures For Touch Sensitive Input Devices," filed Jul. 30, 2004; (4) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/048,264, "Gestures For Touch Sensitive Input Devices," filed Jan. 31, 2005; (5) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/038,590, "Mode-Based Graphical User Interfaces For Touch Sensitive Input Devices," filed Jan. 18, 2005; (6) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,758, "Virtual Input Device Placement On A Touch Screen User Interface," filed Sep. 16, 2005; (7) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,700, "Operation Of A Computer With A Touch Screen Interface," filed Sep. 16, 2005; (8) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/228,737, "Activating Virtual Keys Of A Touch-Screen Virtual Keyboard," filed Sep. 16, 2005; and (9) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/367,749, "Multi-Functional Hand-Held Device," filed Mar. 3, 2006. All of these applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

Sigh. No these "inclusions" are irrelevant. When evaluating a patent, read the CLAIMS. It doesn't matter what is "included."

 

[KingCrimson]

Bottom line, Apple owns multi-touch in any implementation on a mobile device and they will sue Google/HTC/Samsung out of existence. Steve Jobs feels aggrieved and he will do this just to make a point.

 

[cmaier]

Bottom line, Apple owns multi-touch in any implementation on a mobile device and they will sue Google/HTC/Samsung out of existence. Steve Jobs feels aggrieved and he will do this just to make a point.

Yes. That's the bottom line in the same sense that one plus one is three.

Meaning it's wrong.

 

[KingCrimson]

Yes. That's the bottom line in the same sense that one plus one is three.

Meaning it's wrong.

Apple destroys all.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think Apple has to be VERY careful about this patent.

The reason is simple: Apple has a huge marketshare of the "smart" cellphone market and is effectively the most dominant player in the tablet computer market. As such, they could face intense scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission in the USA and the European Commission antitrust authorities if Apple tries to use this patent to stamp out competitive "smart" cellphone and tablet computer models.

 

[KingCrimson]

I think Apple has to be VERY careful about this patent.

The reason is simple: Apple has a huge marketshare of the "smart" cellphone market and is effectively the most dominant player in the tablet computer market. As such, they could face intense scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission in the USA and the European Commission antitrust authorities if Apple tries to use this patent to stamp out competitive "smart" cellphone and tablet computer models.

Apple dominates markets via innovation, not coercion like MSFT. Natural monopoly due to innovation is not frowned upon by the DOJ. Remember MSFT is a convicted monopolist.

 

[cmaier]

I think Apple has to be VERY careful about this patent.

The reason is simple: Apple has a huge marketshare of the "smart" cellphone market and is effectively the most dominant player in the tablet computer market. As such, they could face intense scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission in the USA and the European Commission antitrust authorities if Apple tries to use this patent to stamp out competitive "smart" cellphone and tablet computer models.

Patents, by definition, are government-sanctioned limited-time monopolies. Absent certain circumstances, it's not illegal to use one's patents to prevent competitors from practicing the patent.

 

[Popeye206]

What exactly did Apple invent here? I am sure that if 3rd graders were told about multi-touch capabilities and asked to "invent" context-sensitive scrolling it would take them all 5 minutes (probably less). There is no invention here, period. It's just a "translation" of well known GUI techniques to multi-touch environment. All they patented is the ability of the device/application to do one thing when user uses one finger and something different when two fingers are involved (plus context analysis). But that's the basic principle of multi-touch in a first place. Are they trying to patent specifically "two-finger scroll"? Let's let them. And then another company will patent "two-finger zoom" and another one will invent (and patent) "three-finger" scroll. The rest of us will have to use ten fingers to do something in multi-touch interfaces. Does it make sense? Are there any precedents of similar application of patent law? I do not think so. This patent is clearly un-enforceable (just like most Apple patents are). This one will certainly go the way of their app store trademark and the rest of the crap they have been trying lately.

And it was so obvious in 2007 before the iphone?

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

I think Apple has to be VERY careful about this patent.

The reason is simple: Apple has a huge marketshare of the "smart" cellphone market and is effectively the most dominant player in the tablet computer market. As such, they could face intense scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission in the USA and the European Commission antitrust authorities if Apple tries to use this patent to stamp out competitive "smart" cellphone and tablet computer models.

So you are telling me that to enter the tablet market you *must* have multi touch?

Laughable, there are plenty of tablets w/o multi touch and they can compete on their own merits.

The funniest part of all of this is the fandroids claiming how such a "broad" and "obvious" patent would be bad. Hate to break it to them but Googles entire business rests on one certain patent granted to them by Stanford that could be equally "broad" and "obvious".

 

[benjo765]

all hail king steve. inventor and saviour of all things.

 

[benjo765]

And it was so obvious in 2007 before the iphone?

Yes. Besides mountains of comments, investigations, speculations and research, there is also this movie called Minority Report FIVE YEARS BEFORE THAT- its like a visual documentary on how apple aren't as revolutionarily inventive as you/they seem to think.

 

[boss.king]

Why do people think Apple will try stop other devices from using multitouch? All the other companies have to do is pay them a licensing fee for the use of multitouch = win win

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think you folks need to read up on the famous cases the Federal government brought against the United Shoe Manufacturing Company during the first half of the 20th Century--United Shoe was accused of its critical patents on shoemaking machinery to crush competitors.

Apple now stands in that very position with its critical patent on touchscreen interfaces for cellphones and tablet computers. One wrong move and all legal h*** could break loose against Apple, and that's something that the company with its highly-curated PR don't want. Why do you think Apple had to back down on development tools for iOS and the subscription model for digital magazines in the iOS App Store?

 

[Oletros]

Why do people think Apple will try stop other devices from using multitouch? All the other companies have to do is pay them a licensing fee for the use of multitouch = win win

Which patent about multitouch has to be paid to Apple?

 

[Oletros]

I think you folks need to read up on the famous cases the Federal government brought against the United Shoe Manufacturing Company during the first half of the 20th Century--United Shoe was accused of its critical patents on shoemaking machinery to crush competitors.

Apple now stands in that very position with its critical patent on touchscreen interfaces for cellphones and tablet computers. One wrong move and all legal h*** could break loose against Apple, and that's something that the company with its highly-curated PR don't want. Why do you think Apple had to back down on development tools for iOS and the subscription model for digital magazines in the iOS App Store?

This patent isn't critical

 

[cmaier]

I think you folks need to read up on the famous cases the Federal government brought against the United Shoe Manufacturing Company during the first half of the 20th Century--United Shoe was accused of its critical patents on shoemaking machinery to crush competitors.

Apple now stands in that very position with its critical patent on touchscreen interfaces for cellphones and tablet computers. One wrong move and all legal h*** could break loose against Apple, and that's something that the company with its highly-curated PR don't want. Why do you think Apple had to back down on development tools for iOS and the subscription model for digital magazines in the iOS App Store?

This patent isn't critical

And that case set the opposite precedent and would actually help Apple if anyone accused them of wrong doing for enforcing their patents.


It doesn't matter how "critical" your patents are - you can enforce them as long as you don't know them to be invalid an as long as you don't do things like product tying. In your cited case, the court rejected the very idea you are espousing.

If you are going to cite a case, you need to cite one where the court actually ruled in a way that supports your theory.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Yes. Besides mountains of comments, investigations, speculations and research, there is also this movie called Minority Report FIVE YEARS BEFORE THAT- its like a visual documentary on how apple aren't as revolutionarily inventive as you/they seem to think.

LOL - This is the real world, not CGI.

 

[ranReloaded]

Even if Apple end up in a position to enforce these patents, I don't think it will be that a bad influence for the industry as a whole. I mean, how much is Nokia already nickeling from practically every other player on the field with their mobile phone patents?

 

[rjohnstone]

LOL - This is the real world, not CGI.

Totally irrelevant.
You would be surprised how many patents exist only on paper and not as an actual "thing".
The fact that someone came up with a concept for interacting with objects on a screen via "Hollywood magic" instead of code is moot.

 

[cmaier]

Totally irrelevant.
You would be surprised how many patents exist only on paper and not as an actual "thing".
The fact that someone came up with a concept for interacting with objects on a screen via "Hollywood magic" instead of code is moot.

No, it's not entirely moot. If the idea (e.g. as shown in a movie) is insufficiently fleshed out to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice it, while the patent discloses with sufficient detail how to practice it and the claims of the patent address aspects of the idea beyond what was in the movie, the movie is unlikely to have invalidated the patent.

For example, a movie may depict a machine that converts water to gasoline, but not explained how it works. If I figure out how to actually do it, I can get a patent on the method and/or machine that does it.

 

[deellow]

Absolutely dumb question...

... so don't flame me. But didn't Steve Jobs announce that they had patented it during the original iPhone introduction? He said "and boy have we patented it."