Example: the Fingerworks patents have a lot of code and math behind them. They researched hard to figure out how to mathematically recognize gestures across the tops of capacitive keys. Real work and cleverness, and not something that a layman could figure out in two seconds..
I really don't see how Fingerworks supports your argument here.
Apple bought Fingerworks' patents, (for some $14 million) and hired some of the company founders, back in 2005. Westerman continues to be named in numerous Apple patent applications.
You may certainly argue that the original idea wasn't developed in-house at Apple. But by buying the IP, surely Apple is rewarding the hard work and innovation of the people who created it? And surely you can't be suggesting that, having invested millions of dollars in an as-then commercially unproven technology, Apple should simply give away the rights to all and sundry?
As far as Jeff Han and Perceptive Pixel, I'm not aware that there are any on-going disputes between Perceptive Pixel and Apple.
Personally I see Apple's actions in all this as being for the good of innovations (and innovators.) It can cost tens of millions of dollars to bring new technologies to market. Far better than innovators such as the guys at Fingerworks sell their IP to a firm like Apple - than to quietly go bankrupt and have their patents bought up by a Patent Troll that has no plan on ever bringing the technology to market.
Its worth noting that Apple didn't make the so-called '949 Patent (which covers very basic touchscreen zooming and scrolling behavior) part of its case in the US (or I believe germany or Holland.) Why they omitted this is open to speculation.
The '949 Patent is probably the broadest (and potentially most valuable) of those Apple acquired from Fingerworks. It certainly could face some potential challenges on various grounds, although it has survived at least one challenge when the PTO
refused to grant re-examination back in July of 2010.
It may very well turn out that many, if not all, of Apple's Patents on touchscreen and other technologies are ultimately overturned or denied. That is up to the lawyers and the courts to decide.
But I think the important question people need to ask themselves is this: Is the "bad guy" here Apple, which paid the inventors of that technology millions of dollars. Or Samsung - which paid them nothing, and just took the work other people had done for nothing?
What company is going to inspire and motivate the next scientist or engineer work on tomorrows breakthroughs? Apple - which comes calling with its checkbook open. Or Samsung, which plasters the Internet with pictures from Sci-Fi movies.
: Please NO more copyCats!
