a rebuttal...
i didn't see any patents for gestures by palm or multi-touch gestures (which Fingerworks owned a lot of the patents for) which is the main part of the argument between apple and palm. by the way a lot of those patents were for displays that were not capacitive which can be the difference of night and day in patents.
you can surely say that there is a few things that apple seems to have taken from palm patents but it seems most of those patents dates back to 1992. i am not sure if the lifespan on a technological patent is less than compared to others but it's ridiculous for you to say that the iphone is a rip off of a device that hasn't even come out yet.
you also have to wonder how many things were used by palm from the newton which apple had patents over considering palm bought over apple employees who worked on the newton then also.
Oh, you mean the iPhone.....
Because the idea of an App store for mobile phones and other devices was done by Palm and Windows Mobile YEARS ago.
Same thing with the full touch screen display and gestures.
So, you're right, the iPhone does look like a Chinese rip off of the Pre doesn't it?
i didn't see any patents for gestures by palm or multi-touch gestures (which Fingerworks owned a lot of the patents for) which is the main part of the argument between apple and palm. by the way a lot of those patents were for displays that were not capacitive which can be the difference of night and day in patents.
you can surely say that there is a few things that apple seems to have taken from palm patents but it seems most of those patents dates back to 1992. i am not sure if the lifespan on a technological patent is less than compared to others but it's ridiculous for you to say that the iphone is a rip off of a device that hasn't even come out yet.
you also have to wonder how many things were used by palm from the newton which apple had patents over considering palm bought over apple employees who worked on the newton then also.