@nubbily Well, *if* Apple created it, and it really IS their IP, surely you can understand their position? If you(yourself) created anything(a phone theme, YouTube video, ect), and someone else took that, and claimed it as their own creation, wouldn't you be pissed? I'm sure this whole story is a hell of a lot more complex than that, but you get the drift(or maybe not).
@BergerFan problem 1: it was not their invention, it all existed long ago. problem 2: imagine EVERYONE forcing it's way of interface to be "their own". one car manufacturer has a steering weel. one a handlebar. one a joystick. one.. uhm.. a touchscreen? .. one .. buttons?
for usabilities sake, such patents should NEVER be allowed. i want to pick up a phone and know how to handle it to do a call in seconds. if each one has to handle input completely different because of fear of suing, it's a usability nightmare and hurts the customers massively.
i'm happy that a mouse works the same on a mac, on windows, on linux. as does a keyboard. as does a screen. as do buttons, textboxes, etc.
@BergerFan So you also think it's time for the original car maker to sue all vehicles with 4 wheels and a steering wheel into oblivion? You can patent anything, but don't be surprised when this "anything" patent turns out to be invalid.
@hq What did Jobs invent anyway since the days of the original apple computer? I mean, himself personally? And even that was mostly a design by The Woz and not steve-o.
You really expect me to go digging thru 363 pages of some random PDF file from the Univ of Delaware...
Umm yeah okay...I'll get back to you on that one.
Say YOU'RE RIGHT.
Lets say this random guy invented...umm again I ask why didn't he patent it?
And okay so he didn't patent it. That's his decision. Apple comes along and DOES patent it. Hence they have the legal right to do whatever the freak they want to do with it.
Especially if they developed it in a way that's significantly different to that man you're referring to.
Again this is my opinion. I'm just sick of you Apple haters raking Apple over the coals for simply suing another company. Apple is in the busines to MAKE MONEY. Not to foster goodwill from a bunch of tech geeks who hate them anyways will ALWAYS hate them.
My point is, that if IF Apple did invent it(feel free to add weight to any counter argument, to substantiate it), then they have a right to complain. Wether it was right or wrong to award a patent for it, is irrelevant. Fact is, that's was awarded. For the majority of you, pray that you never create anything, because it seems that until you do, you'll never understand the concept of IP.
Try searching for a few key words like...pinch or zoom. Try looking at the index and checking out basically every gesture that the iphone and macbook multitouch trackpads support.
Try earning your knowledge by doing even 5 minutes of research instead of being an imbecile.
Google seems be the next Sun microsystems. They kinda has the same philosophy about software and went about it the same way v. Msft then as google is going after Apple now...sun built the same sort of alliances around java and open source. Sun too had some great years, but they failed because business cannot run for free. In search google has a much stronger market than Sun, but people are missing the point that ALL of Apple's market share in the US comes from 1 carrier. They have a huge addressable market still. Google is mostly cashing in on windows mobile's failure. The best thing Apple can do in the US us to put the iPhone on Verizon and other networks.
@devScott you should have researched the author of the dissertation as well, wayne westerman. the company he created (fingerworks) out of his research was acquired by apple, and he became one of apple's senior engineers (linkedin). so, it seems to me that apple has the right, if wayne westerman really did invent it.
@BergerFan I don't understand why so many people need to defend the poor fruit company. It's not your loss if Android devices are sold with multitouch.
I don't give a damn about the billions of $ Apple invested in development, and neither about their stupid patent. Their iphone was first indeed, it still sells pretty well, that's enough. I don't care if it's their legal right to sue or not.
I care about my options when it's about purchasing a good quality smartphone. I want multitouch, but no sir, I don't want nothing that begins with an "i", for several reasons.
There's a saying: be careful what you wish for, because it might just come true!
The absolutely infruriating thing about you android fanboys/Apple haters is that you guys have claimed for years on end that "multitouch isn't important" and that it doesn't stack up to features like "cut and paste" or "multitasking" which you've also been bitching about for years on end with the iPhone and now the iPad.
Yet when an android device finally has it you guys are all of sudden making up nonsense about how others invented it and pointing to random obscure bullshit presentations that do NOTHING to change the fact that Apple was the FIRST to patent it.
Hence Apple has the legal right to defend themselves in this matter.
If the roles were reversed you guys would be championing Google. And you would have every right to do so. And I as an Apple supporter just want the law to be followed. If Apple doesn't own the patent then they should lose.
Plain and simple. I'm trying to be fair. It's you guys who are biased against Apple who are making it personal.
@davepermen i just remembered the scene in Men in Black (II?) where will smith drives a car with a playstation controller for a steering wheel. classic
@ani Indeed he did and his company was. There are many examples already in this comment section now showing other previous examples of multitouch tech in play. I guess the question remains as to the patentability of touch gestures, which I disagree with no matter which company does it. The strength of the product is on its execution not the patent. Clearly apple have a strong product with the iphone.
@AltairDusk Not really, Apple holds the Pantent for multitouch on a glass capacitive touch screen. The previous patent is for multitouch on a flexible surface. Small details I know, but they make a big difference.
@TheLionOfAzzalle That's one novel interpretation of patent law you have, there...
First to patent means virtually nothing if you can't back it up. I could file a patent tomorrow for "a system for making snarky comments on Internet message boards" and odds are I'd be the first to patent it, and it would be granted. However, defending it in court would be another matter.
Think Apple was first to do multitouch, pinch-to-zoom, etc? see: Microsoft Surface
@rederikus ahh another hater of apple. only makes them stronger. By the way any chance you can come up with something better than crapple? You're not very original...you're just another clown jumping on the bandwagon of other clowns.
It's good to copy. I own a patent. When i've made enough success out of it and someone copies it, I'll go ahead and invent something else... That's creativity... make them follow you, not crying over spilled milk. Apple move ahead and do something new, then we know you're creative.
This sounds a lot like the icon dispute years ago, cant remember the details but I think Apple or Mac (different back then i believe) wanted to sue Microsoft for using icons in the Windows software. Ruling was that icons were too vague and non-patenable or something, I reckon the same is the case with multitouch. Having multi-touch should not be patenable, only the way in which you try to achieve it maybe? IE the tech you use to register fingerpresses on the phone.
In my opinion they are all so big now they can afford to run loads of lawsuits all the time even if there is just a low prospect of winning.
Cactus is right. The U.S. patent system works on first to INVENT. No one cares in the slightest if you were the first to patent. Almost all U.S. patent cases try to prove prior art, meaning the invention was invented before the party that is attempting to patent it invented it. TheLionOfAzzelle actually thinks he knows what he is talking about though. It's cute.
You can patent it first but if it already existed you can't make your claim hard. Otherwise I could create something and make it open source and free for everyone to use. Then you could file a patent for my creation and say: "hey, it's all mine now and everyone must pay to use it".
Every Seen Tron? I'm sure Dillinger's touch screen keyboard had multitouch, and that was 1982. OMG! Maybe Encom holds the original patent, or maybe the MCP now works for apple and just transferred the patent to their company, that MCP sure is tricky.
Sounds like the bigger picture here is Googles' Schmidt sitting on apple's board, taking in viable Apple information and then behind Apple's back developing their own cloned phone OS at the same time. You wouldn't be pissed?
@BergerFan: the reason you're getting downranked is that examples of multitouch (including pressure sensitivity) have been widely known well before Apple brought it to the iPhone.
So you saying "*If* Apple created it" has no weight in the real world.
@TheLionOfAzzalle "Why would Apple have the patent then if they didn't invent it."
There's a very simple answer to this. The patent system in the USA is VERY broken. The simple fact that (At least some of Apple's) patents were issued in the first place is evidence of that. Not to mention Amazon's patent of a "one-click purchase". The fact that SOME courts still have a bit of sanity left does counter this effect, but the net of it all is that we do need SERIOUS patent reform, or innovation will move out to other countries...
As far as "Mr. Jobs angrily told Google executives that if they deployed a version of multitouch he would sue", couldn't that be considered extortion? I mean they don't hold the patent on multitouch (they do hold one for a particular kind of screen, but that screen is already in use, so they are threatening to sue for A unless B where A and B are unrelated)... So basically all that threat is saying, is "If you try to compete with us, we'll throw you so much legal trouble that you'll wish you never did", even though they don't have a legal base to do so (considering the exact wording of the threat). To me, that tells me two things. One, Jobs is scared. Not that Apple will die, but that he may be proven wrong IF (and that's a big if) Android overtakes the iPhone. Second, he's pissed that others are going to get credit for developing things. In Apple, every design decision gets credited to Jobs (Or at least that's how their PR works)... Sure, it makes for a more consistent environment, but it also lets the public think Jobs is really that important. Having an outside company pull off the same --if not better-- result would make him personally look bad (in his eyes at least)...
@BergerFan Jesus Berger, I'm an Apple fan and I hate you.
Well, we do know what an ass Steve is, but I'm not sure that you don't have to be to achieve the kind of success he has. Bill Gates was similar in a lot of ways with MS dealing with Netscape in the '90s; if you have the kind of vision that those two did you hav e to be fine with fucking whoever messes with you or gets in your way.
This is unfortunate as well, as two of my favorite tech companies are increasingly moving in directions I don't really like. Linux and a dumbphone may have to happen next for me.
@TheLionOfAzzalle: "making up nonsense about how others invented it and pointing to random obscure bullshit presentations that do NOTHING to change the fact that Apple was the FIRST to patent it....Hence Apple has the legal right to defend themselves in this matter."
And this is where you're completely wrong. It doesn't matter how 'obscure' or 'random' (dating back to the 70's & 80's) multitouch technologies are. The fact that prior art DOES exist means that any broad patents they have on the concept are invalid, and WON'T stand up in court.
@BergerFan Oh, is someone taking credit for INVENTING multi-touch? That's the argument? Well in that case: I invented it. Seriously, go ask you mom, she'll tell you.
Regardless of who did what when, patents are rarely about something (like a gesture) but a unique method of doing that something.
As for the sci-fi did it first claims, that isn't prior art, prior art would be someone making a glass capactive touch screen and a series of algorithims for determining input and a method for translating that into software responses. A patent could call another patent and then extend on that in unique ways, does Google have one of them even, anyone else, nada.
Surface doesn't do that it uses a camera. Star trek didn't do that it keyed in a computer graphic. Apple isn't suing for that anyway so all the arguments presented on this thread are null anyway.
fingerworks made it, Apple bought it. If someone made it prior using the METHOD then perhaps prior art, no one is speaking up though. Maybe I go swipe Google anything except search cause everything except search Google bought, yeah might get me a code rip of GEarth call it GWorld cause they didn't make it and there's prior earths and who could own an earth that spins anyway, been round for 1000 years yeah and I saw it on a show way before 3D graphics anyway, yeah, Google would be such ass if they sued me, I'd clean em up.
The lawsuit is over serious stuff not pinch and zoom anyway, low level OS stuff that came from NeXT and ol'mateys NeXT did invent and patent a bunch o stuff only the ongoing n00b land that is engadget barely demonstrates a knowledge of the industry pre xbox.
To the fine fellow who says screw them, I'd take it anyway it's dumb laws. Love the two sides of that coin, mind if I come over and take your car and burn your house, no probs eh, it's a dumb ass idea that you might own it.
Thing is, don't get me wrong, I think patents as a whole are crap, everything is invented by everyone. Anyone is this thread even with the obvious cluelessness will have thought up plenty novel things, talked about them, It's all one big mush. BUT if we are going to fight like infants over systems that are at best make believe anyway at least fight within them or just call it all for what it is.
In the big end of town Eric Scmidt is a n00b. Sure he's got some good techie cred but he invented nothing of note himself, just an engineer doing his bits in the big puzzle. Never even put his own money on the table to risk it over trying to make a go of it, just catching the coat tails of Google, Novell and Sun's founders who were the real cool people. Jobs with both Pixar (didn't start) and NeXT (did start) put down the risk and nearly lost it all to make it. Respect for him -as well- as an actual founder who put his money on the table. Gates as well, respect. Serg and Larry, respect, nice algorthims, thanks and what did they recently say, slowly selling out to go do their own things, no wonder their cool engine as been taken over by coat tail sniffer and nobody Mr. Schmidt who evidently is all emotional cause he was there the whole time while people actually DID stuff and he did nothing and got lucky.
Don't be evil is the most bleedingly obvious statement you could make to intend bad with. What has Google, or more so Eric done to create ANY fanbois with, heck the precious Android was made by someone else and bought, the phone made by someone else, this XML inventor, paid up to have script writers use his cred in the tech community to create "sides"
the whole thing is freAkin spin made up to give the ol' fanbois something to lather up over, make em think there is something to have allegience to. Brand loyalty 101 you bunch of pavlovian dogs, get a brain please.
All hail Scmhidt who wants to release an OS so he can spy on yer freakin keystrokes and sell more ads. He's tuned Google into the spam king of the world and everything they buy and release is geared to take your data to sell ads back at you. The Google DNS service, fer pete's sake people...
Apple's patent BS is sickening... Palm's webOS openly flaunts the use of multitouch because they know Apple is in violation of a dozen of their patents for handheld devices. Apple claims the moral high ground with android, when they're afraid of Palm's IP? Ugh. Jobs makes me sick.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Google : 1
Apple : -1
He doesn't want anyone else using multi touch? What an asshole!
@nubbily Well, *if* Apple created it, and it really IS their IP, surely you can understand their position?
If you(yourself) created anything(a phone theme, YouTube video, ect), and someone else took that, and claimed it as their own creation, wouldn't you be pissed?
I'm sure this whole story is a hell of a lot more complex than that, but you get the drift(or maybe not).
@nubbily Especially since he absolutely didn't invent it.
@BergerFan problem 1: it was not their invention, it all existed long ago.
problem 2: imagine EVERYONE forcing it's way of interface to be "their own". one car manufacturer has a steering weel. one a handlebar. one a joystick. one.. uhm.. a touchscreen? .. one .. buttons?
for usabilities sake, such patents should NEVER be allowed. i want to pick up a phone and know how to handle it to do a call in seconds. if each one has to handle input completely different because of fear of suing, it's a usability nightmare and hurts the customers massively.
i'm happy that a mouse works the same on a mac, on windows, on linux. as does a keyboard. as does a screen. as do buttons, textboxes, etc.
@nubbily
It looks more and more like history is just going to repeat itself for Apple. Good times!
@BergerFan I guess... but Apple definitely wasn't the first company to create multi-touch.
@davepermen
Maybe apple only did touch to avoid being sued by the guy that owns the patent on the number pad for normal phones :p
@BergerFan
So you also think it's time for the original car maker to sue all vehicles with 4 wheels and a steering wheel into oblivion? You can patent anything, but don't be surprised when this "anything" patent turns out to be invalid.
@nubbily
If one company ownz everything. It's bad for consumer. Fanboy however, don't agrees.
@BergerFan
There are many prior art examples of multitouch and associated gestures, the Microsoft Surface being one of them. Apple's multitouch patents are BS.
@nubbily
Microsoft: 50
Cause we all know that Microsoft is the real winner in all this
@hq What did Jobs invent anyway since the days of the original apple computer? I mean, himself personally? And even that was mostly a design by The Woz and not steve-o.
@nubbily
Why would Apple have the patent then if they didn't invent it.
People keep saying Apple didn't invent multitouch. Where's the freaking proof?
More importantly if whatever obscure company you point to did develop why didn't they go get a patent.
Bottom line is that steve jobs may be a douche but he's 100% right in this matter. And he has the law on his side when it comes to this matter.
The android fanboys and the Apple haters will just have to admit that Apple has won this round.
@TheLionOfAzzalle
Please read: http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf
There is plenty of info around the web in the edu arena if you want to look from back to the early 80s.
@devScott
You really expect me to go digging thru 363 pages of some random PDF file from the Univ of Delaware...
Umm yeah okay...I'll get back to you on that one.
Say YOU'RE RIGHT.
Lets say this random guy invented...umm again I ask why didn't he patent it?
And okay so he didn't patent it. That's his decision. Apple comes along and DOES patent it. Hence they have the legal right to do whatever the freak they want to do with it.
Especially if they developed it in a way that's significantly different to that man you're referring to.
Again this is my opinion. I'm just sick of you Apple haters raking Apple over the coals for simply suing another company. Apple is in the busines to MAKE MONEY. Not to foster goodwill from a bunch of tech geeks who hate them anyways will ALWAYS hate them.
@hq
Anyone that hates CrApple is all right by me.
My point is, that if IF Apple did invent it(feel free to add weight to any counter argument, to substantiate it), then they have a right to complain.
Wether it was right or wrong to award a patent for it, is irrelevant. Fact is, that's was awarded.
For the majority of you, pray that you never create anything, because it seems that until you do, you'll never understand the concept of IP.
@TheLionOfAzzalle
Is there any room for me in this fantasy land you've created?
@TheLionOfAzzalle
Hating?
Try searching for a few key words like...pinch or zoom. Try looking at the index and checking out basically every gesture that the iphone and macbook multitouch trackpads support.
Try earning your knowledge by doing even 5 minutes of research instead of being an imbecile.
@TheLionOfAzzalle
Proof? what about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY public display of multi touch and gestures long before Apple came up with the iPhone and filed the patent.
BTW Apple knows this (they didn´t include any multitouch patent in the lawsuit against HTC as they were sure it would be invalidated)
@TheLionOfAzzalle freaking proof?
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html
got presented around 1.5 years before the iphone. sure was "inspiring" for the ui.
oh, and, ever seen startrek (next generation especially)?
@fpad77
Google seems be the next Sun microsystems. They kinda has the same philosophy about software and went about it the same way v. Msft then as google is going after Apple now...sun built the same sort of alliances around java and open source. Sun too had some great years, but they failed because business cannot run for free. In search google has a much stronger market than Sun, but people are missing the point that ALL of Apple's market share in the US comes from 1 carrier. They have a huge addressable market still. Google is mostly cashing in on windows mobile's failure. The best thing Apple can do in the US us to put the iPhone on Verizon and other networks.
@devScott you should have researched the author of the dissertation as well, wayne westerman. the company he created (fingerworks) out of his research was acquired by apple, and he became one of apple's senior engineers (linkedin). so, it seems to me that apple has the right, if wayne westerman really did invent it.
@BergerFan
I don't understand why so many people need to defend the poor fruit company. It's not your loss if Android devices are sold with multitouch.
I don't give a damn about the billions of $ Apple invested in development, and neither about their stupid patent. Their iphone was first indeed, it still sells pretty well, that's enough.
I don't care if it's their legal right to sue or not.
I care about my options when it's about purchasing a good quality smartphone.
I want multitouch, but no sir, I don't want nothing that begins with an "i", for several reasons.
There's a saying: be careful what you wish for, because it might just come true!
@ceteras
The absolutely infruriating thing about you android fanboys/Apple haters is that you guys have claimed for years on end that "multitouch isn't important" and that it doesn't stack up to features like "cut and paste" or "multitasking" which you've also been bitching about for years on end with the iPhone and now the iPad.
Yet when an android device finally has it you guys are all of sudden making up nonsense about how others invented it and pointing to random obscure bullshit presentations that do NOTHING to change the fact that Apple was the FIRST to patent it.
Hence Apple has the legal right to defend themselves in this matter.
If the roles were reversed you guys would be championing Google. And you would have every right to do so. And I as an Apple supporter just want the law to be followed. If Apple doesn't own the patent then they should lose.
Plain and simple. I'm trying to be fair. It's you guys who are biased against Apple who are making it personal.
@davepermen
i just remembered the scene in Men in Black (II?) where will smith drives a car with a playstation controller for a steering wheel. classic
FU.
Steve
-Sent from my iPhone
@ani
Indeed he did and his company was. There are many examples already in this comment section now showing other previous examples of multitouch tech in play. I guess the question remains as to the patentability of touch gestures, which I disagree with no matter which company does it. The strength of the product is on its execution not the patent. Clearly apple have a strong product with the iphone.
@AltairDusk Not really, Apple holds the Pantent for multitouch on a glass capacitive touch screen. The previous patent is for multitouch on a flexible surface. Small details I know, but they make a big difference.
@TheLionOfAzzalle
That's one novel interpretation of patent law you have, there...
First to patent means virtually nothing if you can't back it up. I could file a patent tomorrow for "a system for making snarky comments on Internet message boards" and odds are I'd be the first to patent it, and it would be granted. However, defending it in court would be another matter.
Think Apple was first to do multitouch, pinch-to-zoom, etc? see: Microsoft Surface
@rederikus ahh another hater of apple. only makes them stronger. By the way any chance you can come up with something better than crapple? You're not very original...you're just another clown jumping on the bandwagon of other clowns.
@nubbily
It's good to copy. I own a patent. When i've made enough success out of it and someone copies it, I'll go ahead and invent something else... That's creativity... make them follow you, not crying over spilled milk. Apple move ahead and do something new, then we know you're creative.
This sounds a lot like the icon dispute years ago, cant remember the details but I think Apple or Mac (different back then i believe) wanted to sue Microsoft for using icons in the Windows software. Ruling was that icons were too vague and non-patenable or something, I reckon the same is the case with multitouch. Having multi-touch should not be patenable, only the way in which you try to achieve it maybe? IE the tech you use to register fingerpresses on the phone.
In my opinion they are all so big now they can afford to run loads of lawsuits all the time even if there is just a low prospect of winning.
@Cactus
Cactus is right. The U.S. patent system works on first to INVENT. No one cares in the slightest if you were the first to patent. Almost all U.S. patent cases try to prove prior art, meaning the invention was invented before the party that is attempting to patent it invented it. TheLionOfAzzelle actually thinks he knows what he is talking about though. It's cute.
@TheLionOfAzzalle Ever heard of prior art?
You can patent it first but if it already existed you can't make your claim hard. Otherwise I could create something and make it open source and free for everyone to use. Then you could file a patent for my creation and say: "hey, it's all mine now and everyone must pay to use it".
@rederikus
Amen
@TheLionOfAzzalle
//Geek Speak
Every Seen Tron? I'm sure Dillinger's touch screen keyboard had multitouch, and that was 1982. OMG! Maybe Encom holds the original patent, or maybe the MCP now works for apple and just transferred the patent to their company, that MCP sure is tricky.
//Geek Speak is now over.
Sounds like the bigger picture here is Googles' Schmidt sitting on apple's board, taking in viable Apple information and then behind Apple's back developing their own cloned phone OS at the same time. You wouldn't be pissed?
Don't be evil....
@darkazure Damn, sorry for all the typos in my post :-/ Sure wish there was an edit button. GET ON IT JOSH! ;)
@BergerFan: the reason you're getting downranked is that examples of multitouch (including pressure sensitivity) have been widely known well before Apple brought it to the iPhone.
So you saying "*If* Apple created it" has no weight in the real world.
@TheLionOfAzzalle "Why would Apple have the patent then if they didn't invent it."
There's a very simple answer to this. The patent system in the USA is VERY broken. The simple fact that (At least some of Apple's) patents were issued in the first place is evidence of that. Not to mention Amazon's patent of a "one-click purchase". The fact that SOME courts still have a bit of sanity left does counter this effect, but the net of it all is that we do need SERIOUS patent reform, or innovation will move out to other countries...
As far as "Mr. Jobs angrily told Google executives that if they deployed a version of multitouch he would sue", couldn't that be considered extortion? I mean they don't hold the patent on multitouch (they do hold one for a particular kind of screen, but that screen is already in use, so they are threatening to sue for A unless B where A and B are unrelated)... So basically all that threat is saying, is "If you try to compete with us, we'll throw you so much legal trouble that you'll wish you never did", even though they don't have a legal base to do so (considering the exact wording of the threat). To me, that tells me two things. One, Jobs is scared. Not that Apple will die, but that he may be proven wrong IF (and that's a big if) Android overtakes the iPhone. Second, he's pissed that others are going to get credit for developing things. In Apple, every design decision gets credited to Jobs (Or at least that's how their PR works)... Sure, it makes for a more consistent environment, but it also lets the public think Jobs is really that important. Having an outside company pull off the same --if not better-- result would make him personally look bad (in his eyes at least)...
@BergerFan Jesus Berger, I'm an Apple fan and I hate you.
Well, we do know what an ass Steve is, but I'm not sure that you don't have to be to achieve the kind of success he has. Bill Gates was similar in a lot of ways with MS dealing with Netscape in the '90s; if you have the kind of vision that those two did you hav e to be fine with fucking whoever messes with you or gets in your way.
This is unfortunate as well, as two of my favorite tech companies are increasingly moving in directions I don't really like. Linux and a dumbphone may have to happen next for me.
@TheLionOfAzzalle: "making up nonsense about how others invented it and pointing to random obscure bullshit presentations that do NOTHING to change the fact that Apple was the FIRST to patent it....Hence Apple has the legal right to defend themselves in this matter."
And this is where you're completely wrong. It doesn't matter how 'obscure' or 'random' (dating back to the 70's & 80's) multitouch technologies are. The fact that prior art DOES exist means that any broad patents they have on the concept are invalid, and WON'T stand up in court.
@nubbily
PC Fanboys -1
Apple Fanboys 1
@nubbily:
Steve Jobs is such an unbelieveable douchey cry baby. My next phone will not be an iPhone just because of him.
@BergerFan
Oh, is someone taking credit for INVENTING multi-touch? That's the argument? Well in that case: I invented it. Seriously, go ask you mom, she'll tell you.
@nubbily *take out the caramel popcorn*. This is gonna be fun to read.
@whole thread
@dave95
Regardless of who did what when, patents are rarely about something (like a gesture) but a unique method of doing that something.
As for the sci-fi did it first claims, that isn't prior art, prior art would be someone making a glass capactive touch screen and a series of algorithims for determining input and a method for translating that into software responses. A patent could call another patent and then extend on that in unique ways, does Google have one of them even, anyone else, nada.
Surface doesn't do that it uses a camera. Star trek didn't do that it keyed in a computer graphic. Apple isn't suing for that anyway so all the arguments presented on this thread are null anyway.
fingerworks made it, Apple bought it. If someone made it prior using the METHOD then perhaps prior art, no one is speaking up though. Maybe I go swipe Google anything except search cause everything except search Google bought, yeah might get me a code rip of GEarth call it GWorld cause they didn't make it and there's prior earths and who could own an earth that spins anyway, been round for 1000 years yeah and I saw it on a show way before 3D graphics anyway, yeah, Google would be such ass if they sued me, I'd clean em up.
The lawsuit is over serious stuff not pinch and zoom anyway, low level OS stuff that came from NeXT and ol'mateys NeXT did invent and patent a bunch o stuff only the ongoing n00b land that is engadget barely demonstrates a knowledge of the industry pre xbox.
To the fine fellow who says screw them, I'd take it anyway it's dumb laws. Love the two sides of that coin, mind if I come over and take your car and burn your house, no probs eh, it's a dumb ass idea that you might own it.
Thing is, don't get me wrong, I think patents as a whole are crap, everything is invented by everyone. Anyone is this thread even with the obvious cluelessness will have thought up plenty novel things, talked about them, It's all one big mush. BUT if we are going to fight like infants over systems that are at best make believe anyway at least fight within them or just call it all for what it is.
In the big end of town Eric Scmidt is a n00b. Sure he's got some good techie cred but he invented nothing of note himself, just an engineer doing his bits in the big puzzle. Never even put his own money on the table to risk it over trying to make a go of it, just catching the coat tails of Google, Novell and Sun's founders who were the real cool people. Jobs with both Pixar (didn't start) and NeXT (did start) put down the risk and nearly lost it all to make it. Respect for him -as well- as an actual founder who put his money on the table. Gates as well, respect. Serg and Larry, respect, nice algorthims, thanks and what did they recently say, slowly selling out to go do their own things, no wonder their cool engine as been taken over by coat tail sniffer and nobody Mr. Schmidt who evidently is all emotional cause he was there the whole time while people actually DID stuff and he did nothing and got lucky.
Don't be evil is the most bleedingly obvious statement you could make to intend bad with. What has Google, or more so Eric done to create ANY fanbois with, heck the precious Android was made by someone else and bought, the phone made by someone else, this XML inventor, paid up to have script writers use his cred in the tech community to create "sides"
the whole thing is freAkin spin made up to give the ol' fanbois something to lather up over, make em think there is something to have allegience to. Brand loyalty 101 you bunch of pavlovian dogs, get a brain please.
All hail Scmhidt who wants to release an OS so he can spy on yer freakin keystrokes and sell more ads. He's tuned Google into the spam king of the world and everything they buy and release is geared to take your data to sell ads back at you. The Google DNS service, fer pete's sake people...
/end pointless yet poignant rant
@BergerFan Any pro Apple comments get downranked, any pro Android comments get praised, you people are so predictable.
@nubbily
Apple's patent BS is sickening... Palm's webOS openly flaunts the use of multitouch because they know Apple is in violation of a dozen of their patents for handheld devices. Apple claims the moral high ground with android, when they're afraid of Palm's IP? Ugh. Jobs makes me sick.