10 ms·
Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids
- chatman 13y agoLets hear Eben Moglen now!?
- threeseed 13y agoI can't see Apple wasting its time with "most Androids". The only two companies that this would apply to are Samsung and Google/Motorola.
- jbogp 13y agoI swear every time I read one of those articles I die a little bit. I can't begin to apprehend the emptiness inside [insert patent trolling company] lawyers' souls after a day at work.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y agoNot sure this is much to do with companies patent trolling. Apple developed the tech and use it, that's pretty different. You can disagree with the specific patent (and I think in this case there's a pretty good case for that) or with patents in general, but this isn't, by my understanding of the term, patent trolling.
- jbogp 13y agoGranted that's not patent trolling just yet, but that would definitely be a good first step towards it. I mean given that this patent was granted on the basis that the tech already existed but on capacitor screens and not touch screen is laughable. Of course Apple didn't invent any of these things -- multitouch and heuristics for detected angular swipes were available on older resistive touch screens. However, modern phones don't use resistive touch. The current state of U.S. technology patents allows you to repatent virtually identical firmware on a new kind of hardware.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y agoI agree entirely that it's a suspect patent (even without the capacitive / resistive difference elements of it are hardly innovative) but that's still not trolling as Apple actively use the patent in their own products and registered the patent with that intention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll There are many reasons to dislike Apple but they're not patent trolls.
- venomsnake 13y agoThe patents are disclosure in exchange for state granted monopoly. Or they should be - you do something amazing. No one can figure out how to do it - you tell them and they cannot use the tech for X years. But right now people patent the end result. That is wrong.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- throwawaykf 13y agoUgh, no. Yes the patent was upheld. Yes, all the claims survived intact. No, the claims are not on "touch typing, multitouch"; they cover a very specific use of a heuristic to differentiate between scrolling and panning. No, it's very unlikely that it will allow "ban on most Android" devices. I think Samsung (and probably most Android vendors) have already worked around the claims. As with all tech media discussion about patents these days, this article talks about what the patent "covers" without so much as an idea of what claims are.
- camus2 13y agoUnlikely doesnt mean impossible. A Few month ago it was unlikely Apple's patents were upheld. This could be a huge issue for any os that runs on a phone that uses the same multi-touch tech as the iphone. MSFT striked a deal , Google screwed up big time.
- Oletros 13y agoExactly why screwed up big time?
- camus2 13y agoBecause it seems Android is becoming a risky "enterprise" for OEMs, after the MSFT tax on Android, OEMs are not willing to pay an Apple tax. Google should have cleared any potential issue, but they are too bold. They tried when they bought Motorola but this strategy is not working that well.
- Oletros 13y agoAnd how they can clear any potential issue?
- Tyrannosaurs 13y agoI think the implication is that they work around the patents or license them. There are obviously a load of problems with that - the later is problematic as Apple have shown little interest in licensing much of this stuff. The former because some of them cover genuinely useful stuff that compromises the product if you remove it. They may also have decided that Samsung make fortunes so perhaps they could deal with this themselves...
- Oletros 13y ago> Allows Ban on Most Androids Procog too much?
- baldfat 13y agoThe idea that a keyboard used with a finger is even Patentable???? How is this even close to being something that needs to be protected? So the visualization of anything is a patent worthy idea? There has to be prior art in the hundreds of touch typing? It is so frustrating knowing the Prior work of Microsoft Surface before the iPhone with multi-touch and pinch to zoom. I would love all Android phones to just stop being sold in protest immediately. Though this would never happen. The very idea that this was something invalid in September and now passed through smells of some outside pressure.
- threeseed 13y agoPlease understand what prior art means before talking about it again. And Apple acquired these patents from Fingerworks who predated Microsoft Surface by nearly a decade.
- Oletros 13y agoThat patents has nothing to do with Fingerworks.
- riskable 13y agoI highly doubt that. I have a FingerWorks Touchstream LP that (while I don't use it anymore) was performing the same exact gestures we all recognize as "swipes" on capacitive touchscreen phones/tablets. As evidence I point you to the founder's dissertation on the topic from 1999: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf The only difference between how it worked on a Touchstream LP and a modern capacitive touchscreen is that the trouchscreen has a "screen". Other than that they're absolutely identical. Actually, the Touchstream LP had capabilities that exceed today's capacitive touchscreens. For example, it supports ten-finger chording and could recognize which finger was which. So if I pressed my index and middle fingers (say, with both hands) in a certain region of the keyboard it would recognize that and send whatever pre-programmed sequence of keystrokes or mouse movements I wanted. It was awesome technology! It only had one (big) flaw though: No tactile feedback. You take it for granted but the "click" you feel when you press a key on your keyboard is very, very important to typing quickly and efficiently. Without it you have to constantly ensure your hands & fingers in properly positioned. This is why autocorrect is so important with software keyboards (if you're tapping instead of swiping). Without it--if you tried to type really quickly without thinking about what is actually being output from the IME--you'll end up with typos all over the place. Another thing we take for granted is the ability to "feel" a key as we press it. On a capacitive touch surface there's no way to do that without accidentally typing that key. This is why I have high hopes for that technology that produces little bubbles on top of touchscreens on-demand to provide tactile feedback as to key locations. So that is the reason why I eventually gave up on using the Touchstream LP. While it was the greatest mousing device I've ever used (and I've used HUNDREDS) it was not that great of a keyboard. I'd be happy to use it day-to-day for typing up English words and sentences but it was just too error-prone to use in a bash shell or for programming. Even with the "programmer pad" feature (which let you enter keys like braces, brackets, parens, etc using handy gestures) it still resulted in too many typing mistakes--even after training myself and using it regularly for a year.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- JulianMorrison 13y agoPatents shouldn't exist.
- Oletros 13y agoSoftware patents shouldn't exist
- JulianMorrison 13y agoHardware patents shouldn't exist. Business method patents shouldn't exist. Drug patents shouldn't exist. Gene patents shouldn't exist. All patents are bad.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ignostic 13y agoMy opinions on patents are still evolving, but I tend to see drug patents as a good thing that needs reform. I know it's a bit of a tangent, but would someone mind explaining a little? My main concern is that we can't expect anyone to invest m/billions in necessary drug research if they can be copied the instant the drug shows success. The R&D cost per new drug brought to market is often between 1-12 billion.[1] Even on the low end, that's more than the TOTAL US government's budget for health R&D.[2] Who is going to do this research? [1] http://lillypad.lilly.com/entry.php?id=1583 http://lillypad.lilly.com/entry.php?id=1583 [2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/research_infrastructure_fy14.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ost...
- belorn 13y agoThe R&D issue is indeed real. Even if the state already infuses the industry with $31 billions of tax payers money each year into research, patents add an other form of extra cost onto the product (a form of taxation) that also goes to the producers medicine, which a fraction gets into R&D. What I hear from people, is the question if this form of state supported industry is really the best way to produce superior speed in research. There are no research to support the claim that state support monopolies is the only choice, a choice with by itself is not even enough so the government has to funnel even more cash to keep things going. The current system also makes the government assessor to murder, by preventing people in producing medicine that saves lives. Its a sacrifice some for the greater good argument, but for a 2013 society it kind of bad. We really can't figure out a better way except forbidding people to heal themselves? Kind of odd system if one think of it.
- Prefinem 13y agoThis just shows how bad the state of the US Patent Industry is, were instead of making a better product, it's easier to hamstring a competing company. If the patent is upheld, and Apple, having the hate it does for Android tries and bans Android Phones, then in the end, all it does is hurt the users who want a decent alternative to Apple Products. People expect multi-touch on their phones, and non-physical keyboards. I can just see my mom asking me why her new android phone doesn't swipe to scroll because her last phone did. Such a shame.
- andmarios 13y agoSo in essence, Apple patented the "straight line" because I doubt in nature you'll find many straight lines as they are described in this patent. What you will find though, is the kind of lines that Apple patented. Great.
- Prefinem 13y agoThis just shows how bad the state of the US Patent Industry is, were instead of making a better product, it's easier to hamstring a competing company. If the patent is upheld, and Apple, having the hate it does for Android tries and bans Android Phones, then in the end, all it does is hurt the users who want a decent alternative to Apple Products. People expect multi-touch on their phones, and non-physical keyboards. I can just see my mom asking me why her new android phone doesn't swipe to scroll because her last phone did. Such a shame.
- ernesth 13y agoDoes this article really claim that apple's 2006 patent prevents android from using swype which was patented in 2003? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,098,896.PN.&OS=PN/7,098,896&RS=PN/7,098,896 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
- dicroce 13y agoSo, if Android products are banned in the US, that doesn't change the fact that they would continue to be sold elsewhere in the world, right? And if so, wouldn't it be likely that you could pay to have an Android imported (perhaps illegally)?
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoEverybody knew that went the patent standoff went nuclear things like this would happen. Patents were meant to leverage innovation, not to use it to litigate yourself into monopolistic control of a vertical market.
- acjohnson55 13y agoAs I type on my MacBook Pro, I also wonder at what point we as a community are going to start voting with our wallets against Apple and the extent to which they are abusing the broken US patent system. Of course it's only rational to expect that they will use any means at their disposal to get a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean that we must reserve moral judgment. For me, Apple has already moved into "prefer competitors' products" territory, but they keep pushing me closer to all-out boycott.
- kunai 13y agoPeople don't care about their despotic and toxic environment for the little guys or competitors because they have the best products. That seems to be changing as Android increases in marketshare every day, and Ultrabooks are taking off while Mac marketshare generally has remained stagnant over the past 8 quarters. So, it seems like we already are moving away from Apple. The only thing they can do is now rely on petty lawsuits that damage their reputation in the engineer/tech community, which will hurt them in the long run even more so. The best way to fight it is to fund startups that have a focus on open systems and a proven commitment to free open software. Currently, the the hardware market is controlled by a few very, very large OEMs. Slowly, though, PCB and fab is opening up to many more people besides Samsung, LG, et al. Especially with Kickstarter, I don't see it likely that we will still have a hardware oligopoly in the next 5 years. More boutique manufacturers will spring up, and like it has for desktops, mobile hardware will open up. The next step after that is to reform the broken US patent system so gorillas like Apple and Microsoft can't abuse it.
- gibwell 13y agoGorillas like Samsung, Google, Apple, and Microsoft, you mean. All of them are guilty. Moving away from Apple simply means intentionally creating a Samsung/Google duopoly, which is insane.
- josephlord 13y agoAnd where would you go if you were to boycott Apple over the actions you deem to be "abusing the broken US patent system". I think Google/Motorola and Samsung have behaved far worse when they attempted to obtain injuctions and excessive licensing fees over patents that they had committed to license on FRAND terms. Microsoft has a horrible history of anticompetive behavior. Maybe Blackberry phone and linux based computer would be an acceptable route although I'm not sure how long Blackberry will be making competitive products and there is a fairly limited choice of PCs shipping without Windows.
- mwfunk 13y ago"Androids". Ugh. At least they didn't just say "Droids" to mean all Android phones, but c'mon people. That's almost up there with "MAC" as far as being a flag indicating that the author isn't super clueful about the subject matter. On topic: software patents are usually freaking terrible, but (as others have pointed out) this article misrepresents the whole situation, presumably for clicks. Not saying that the patent holder is in the right here, just that the situation is vastly more complicated than how it's presented.
- kunai 13y agoWas the first point really relevant enough to include in your discussion?