6 ms·

All of this suing goes to show how patents harm, rather than help innovation. Let the engineers decide which technology is best, not the lawyers.

wtallis 17y ago
I think it's clear from the wide differences in performance of multitouch devices that there's a lot of room for valid patents to muddy the waters. labs.moto.com has done some good testing of smartphone screens and found the iPhone to be far more accurate than the competition. My own experience with some non-phone multitouch devices has also shown Apple to be the only one to get it truly right. Even Wacom's Bamboo tablets can barely manage to recognize two-finger gestures, whereas a MacBook Pro can handle jitouch, and recognize those complex gestures well enough for me to consider jitouch indispensable. It's hard to believe that the differences could be due only to software or even relatively obvious improvements in Apple's hardware, so somebody deserves some patents, and it's probably Apple (unless they stole somebody else's technology). The ensuing litigation storm then is more a result of how lucrative the multitouch market is than it is a symptom of messy patent laws. Ultimately, I think it was probably Apple that did (or bought) the research necessary to make a multitouch sensor that is better than a gimmick, and for that they deserve a period of exclusivity to recoup their costs and give them some profits to invest into the next big thing. On the other hand, 20 years is a long time for those of us with lesser budgets to wait for such a cool technology. What we should be hoping for, then, is that somebody more inclined to license their technology can or has independently developed a multitouch sensor that is as good as or better than what Apple's been shipping, and that they can prove this in court if necessary. Reducing the term of these patents might be helpful, but I don't think that there's justification to eliminate hardware patents like these.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  "Ultimately, I think it was probably Apple that did (or bought) the research necessary to make a multitouch sensor that is better than a gimmick, and for that they deserve a period of exclusivity to recoup their costs and give them some profits to invest into the next big thing. " The only area that patent exclusivity should be granted are in those technologies, processes, and methods that would not have been developed (and divulged) otherwise. If superior Multi-Touch would have happened anyways, then there is no reason to grant Apple a patent on the process. Remember - the entire purpose of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." - if the progress is going to happen anyways, there is no need to issue a patent.
  - wtallis 17y ago
    The current lawsuits are about innovation that has already happened. Most of the players are mobile phone makers that are trying to compete with the iPhone by cloning its most distinctive features. If Apple can successfully use patents to thwart those efforts, it forces Nokia et al to one-up the iPhone instead of just making clones that they can sell to different carriers. (Where's the plethora of multitouch screens with haptic feedback that we ought to be seeing?) The fact that good multitouch was developed by Apple (really, FingerWorks, which Apple bought in 2005) instead of Synaptics or Cirque (who make pretty much everybody else's touchpads) suggests that there was significant innovation, rather than multitouch just being the logical next step.
    - bad_user 17y ago
      > Most of the players are mobile phone makers that are trying to compete with the iPhone by cloning its most distinctive features Such as the iPhone cloning distinctive features that have been developed / patented by Nokia and others. Double standards?
      - bruceboughton 17y ago
        Which distinctive features?
        gcb 17y ago
        the 5 or so apple was forced to pay up a time ago
      - Maktab 17y ago
        I was under the impression that those were all WLAN, GSM and UMTS patents relating to the radio equipment. Hardly 'distinctive features' on the same level as accurate multitouch on a glass screen.
        bad_user 17y ago
        Sure, if being able to actually call someone reliably isn't a distinctive feature. Every technology that's newly introduced into the mainstream is distinctive at first. I don't see LEMS or NMT phones around anymore. Yeah, multitouch on a glass screen, that's the killer feature that will make mobile phones popular.
travisp 17y ago
Why does this show how patents necessarily harm innovation? It would seem to show that our particular implementation can be harmful. There's a lot of literature that discusses many of the benefits to innovation from patents throughout their history, and it doesn't seem to follow from "lots of people are suing each other over patents [as currently implemented]" that "patents harm, rather than help innovation." I wouldn't disagree that there need to be major revisions in our practice (patents shouldn't take years to be granted, obvious patents need to be curtailed, etc. etc.).
- praptak 17y ago
  "There's a lot of literature that discusses many of the benefits to innovation from patents throughout their history" Care to enumerate? I have read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" and I'd really like to get a decent view on the opposite side of the argument.
  - travisp 17y ago
    Here are some interesting articles on patents I have found: "Rewarding Innovation Efficiently: The Case for Exclusive Rights" http://innovationforum.gmu.edu/2008/papers/reward.pdf http://innovationforum.gmu.edu/2008/papers/reward.pdf "Removing the Property from Intellectual Property and (Intended?) Pernicious Impacts on Innovation and Competition" http://papers.isnie.org/paper/150.html http://papers.isnie.org/paper/150.html "What's Wrong With Royalty Rates in High Technology Industries?" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1104315 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1104315 "A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 "Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=863925 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=863925

wtallis 17y ago

I think it's clear from the wide differences in performance of multitouch devices that there's a lot of room for valid patents to muddy the waters. labs.moto.com has done some good testing of smartphone screens and found the iPhone to be far more accurate than the competition. My own experience with some non-phone multitouch devices has also shown Apple to be the only one to get it truly right. Even Wacom's Bamboo tablets can barely manage to recognize two-finger gestures, whereas a MacBook Pro can handle jitouch, and recognize those complex gestures well enough for me to consider jitouch indispensable. It's hard to believe that the differences could be due only to software or even relatively obvious improvements in Apple's hardware, so somebody deserves some patents, and it's probably Apple (unless they stole somebody else's technology). The ensuing litigation storm then is more a result of how lucrative the multitouch market is than it is a symptom of messy patent laws. Ultimately, I think it was probably Apple that did (or bought) the research necessary to make a multitouch sensor that is better than a gimmick, and for that they deserve a period of exclusivity to recoup their costs and give them some profits to invest into the next big thing. On the other hand, 20 years is a long time for those of us with lesser budgets to wait for such a cool technology. What we should be hoping for, then, is that somebody more inclined to license their technology can or has independently developed a multitouch sensor that is as good as or better than what Apple's been shipping, and that they can prove this in court if necessary. Reducing the term of these patents might be helpful, but I don't think that there's justification to eliminate hardware patents like these.

ghshephard 17y ago
"Ultimately, I think it was probably Apple that did (or bought) the research necessary to make a multitouch sensor that is better than a gimmick, and for that they deserve a period of exclusivity to recoup their costs and give them some profits to invest into the next big thing. " The only area that patent exclusivity should be granted are in those technologies, processes, and methods that would not have been developed (and divulged) otherwise. If superior Multi-Touch would have happened anyways, then there is no reason to grant Apple a patent on the process. Remember - the entire purpose of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." - if the progress is going to happen anyways, there is no need to issue a patent.
- wtallis 17y ago
  The current lawsuits are about innovation that has already happened. Most of the players are mobile phone makers that are trying to compete with the iPhone by cloning its most distinctive features. If Apple can successfully use patents to thwart those efforts, it forces Nokia et al to one-up the iPhone instead of just making clones that they can sell to different carriers. (Where's the plethora of multitouch screens with haptic feedback that we ought to be seeing?) The fact that good multitouch was developed by Apple (really, FingerWorks, which Apple bought in 2005) instead of Synaptics or Cirque (who make pretty much everybody else's touchpads) suggests that there was significant innovation, rather than multitouch just being the logical next step.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    > Most of the players are mobile phone makers that are trying to compete with the iPhone by cloning its most distinctive features Such as the iPhone cloning distinctive features that have been developed / patented by Nokia and others. Double standards?
    - bruceboughton 17y ago
      Which distinctive features?
      - gcb 17y ago
        the 5 or so apple was forced to pay up a time ago
    - Maktab 17y ago
      I was under the impression that those were all WLAN, GSM and UMTS patents relating to the radio equipment. Hardly 'distinctive features' on the same level as accurate multitouch on a glass screen.
      - bad_user 17y ago
        Sure, if being able to actually call someone reliably isn't a distinctive feature. Every technology that's newly introduced into the mainstream is distinctive at first. I don't see LEMS or NMT phones around anymore. Yeah, multitouch on a glass screen, that's the killer feature that will make mobile phones popular.

travisp 17y ago

Why does this show how patents necessarily harm innovation? It would seem to show that our particular implementation can be harmful. There's a lot of literature that discusses many of the benefits to innovation from patents throughout their history, and it doesn't seem to follow from "lots of people are suing each other over patents [as currently implemented]" that "patents harm, rather than help innovation." I wouldn't disagree that there need to be major revisions in our practice (patents shouldn't take years to be granted, obvious patents need to be curtailed, etc. etc.).

praptak 17y ago
"There's a lot of literature that discusses many of the benefits to innovation from patents throughout their history" Care to enumerate? I have read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" and I'd really like to get a decent view on the opposite side of the argument.
- travisp 17y ago
  Here are some interesting articles on patents I have found: "Rewarding Innovation Efficiently: The Case for Exclusive Rights" http://innovationforum.gmu.edu/2008/papers/reward.pdf http://innovationforum.gmu.edu/2008/papers/reward.pdf "Removing the Property from Intellectual Property and (Intended?) Pernicious Impacts on Innovation and Competition" http://papers.isnie.org/paper/150.html http://papers.isnie.org/paper/150.html "What's Wrong With Royalty Rates in High Technology Industries?" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1104315 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1104315 "A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 "Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=863925 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=863925