3 ms·
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. That section he is referring to in Apple's patent is just the part where Apple describes possible ways their invention might
by greatreorx 18y ago
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. That section he is referring to in Apple's patent is just the part where Apple describes possible ways their invention might be used. In fact, if you read the intro to that section in the patent, it says "However, it will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details." The patent claims are what's important and most of them don't hinge on whether or not the gesture area displays a visual output.
- dominik 18y agoYou're correct that the claims are what matter. The article, unfortunately, sensationalizes a bit and looks to the specifications to show how Palm designed around Apple's patents. But Palm didn't need to design around the specification. Palm only needed to design around the claims. They did this as well, it turns out, but the article doesn't highlight that.
- jgfoot 18y agoYes -- it is a common rookie mistake to confuse the specification with the claims. The claims define the invention and the scope of the patent; the specification helps interpret the claims. Saying this, I have no opinion on whether Palm might be infringing this patent or not. From Palm's public statements--that they are just practicing the prior art, and multitouch has been around for decades--they are probably going to argue Apple's patent claims are invalid.