Weren't a lot of those interactions developed in academia before the iPhone came out? e.g. Jeff Han's TED talk, 2006: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_

Weren't a lot of those interactions developed in academia before the iPhone came out? e.g. Jeff Han's TED talk, 2006: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou... It's kind of bs that Apple can sue for people copying their gestures when they clearly were inspired by previous research on the topic.. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/if-android-is-a-s... By they have "patents," so what should Universities do, should Universities spend all their time and resources patenting every little idea they come up with just in case some company decides to come along and copy them? Or maybe, just maybe, patent law juries should be required to actually properly review prior art, as the jurists in this case have admitted to ignoring?* * http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-appl... "It was bogging us down." I mean, honestly, if juries won't consider prior art because there is TOO MUCH OF IT, how can we expect to take patent law seriously?