Apple scores broad patent on touch screens

CNet News ^ | June 23, 2011 | by Don Reisinger

[PastorBooks]

“Touch screen is, not so multi-touch, especially on a portable device with gestures to do different things dependent on the motion. That is what the patent is for. “
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would argue that this points out a critical flaw in patents for such things. Many “next developments” are obvious to a smart person who sits down and thinks about the same subject. They will be obvious to *any* smart person.

Name a thing, any thing, and have a group of smart people think about the “next development” of that thing. The next-generation ideas they come up with with be similar, and even the same.

A true invention is something out-of-the-blue. The “E-Cat” energy invention people are starting to talk about, if it works that would be a true innovation.

Having gestures on a touch pad is not invention. Any one of hundreds of technology thinkers could have taken out a patent on it.

[Cboldt]

-- I wonder if those touch pads where made transparent and placed over a screen, would that be considered a violation of the Apple patent? --

Not the pads, in isolation. The claim is a combination of technology and user interaction.

I wonder if the Synaptics technology was raised as prior art, with the examiner arguing that putting the gesture "on the screen" is an obvious combination of touch screen (in general), and multi-fingertip gesture technology on a touchpad.

[benjibrowder]

I don't think Apple owns the patent on top down notifications, but Apple's going full sail into that arena. If Apple went after Google for multitouch, I could only imagine Google would go after Apple for notifications.

In terms of the OS, you're really stretching. That's nothing but a bunch of widgets running on the home screen. Apple furthermore doesn't own patents on square icons at the bottom nor does it own patents on grid layouts.

And how the hell are you going to design a candy bar cell phone without there being similarities? The backs of the phone look absolutely nothing (the back has Samsung stamped all over it) alike and there's two tactile buttons at the bottom next to the home screen button. Hell, the first Samsung Galaxy S not pictured has a gigantic stamp of SAMSUNG at the very top.

And yes, I suspect Apple would go after the manufacturers rather than Google. Which is what is happening as can be seen by such copyright infringement cells such as:

[Myrddin]

I purchased a WiFi Galaxy 10.1 Tab. No interest in having the 3g inside. My wife has the Galaxy Tab 7" with Verizon 3g. We had "data service" for about 3 months. Dropped back to WiFi only. I use a MiFi2200 3g Verizon device for my connectivity. It currently has the unlimited data plan. Works fine with my 2 Linux laptops, 1 Windows XP netbook and the new Samsung Galaxy 10.1 Tab. I hope to move to the Samsung LTE version of the MiFi device in September. The down side is that Verizon will be dropping unlimited data plans on July 1st from what I'm seeing in the trade rags. My wife runs off the 802.11abgn wireless at the house. That is connected to a WiMax service in Pocatello.

[Outlaw Woman]

I’m sorry....I’m just a layperson and that really means nothing to me. All I want to know is if my phone and service are jeopardized. But thank you for your ‘in-depth’ perspective.

[Melas]

No, that’s not what the patent covers. What the patent would cover would be the two finger gesture to enlarge a picture or the two finger pinch to reduce it.

[RobRoy]

gotcha

That doesn’t make sense, though. It is like patenting a volume knob.

[Swordmaker]

Hell, the first Samsung Galaxy S not pictured has a gigantic stamp of SAMSUNG at the very top.

Apple is not suing Samsung on the appearance of any of the phones you so nicely cut and pasted in your comment... they are suing Samsung for the one I cut and paste in my original comment, the Galaxy SII, and others... as well as the Galaxy Tablet line. Here is another view of the Galaxy SII:

And whether the Galaxy S has Samsung emblazoned on it or not is irrelevant in a Tradedress lawsuit. Here is photo of the Galaxy S, right next to the iPhone 3Gs it was copied from:

And the VP of Samsung, in an oft quoted comment, which is being used against them in court, said, after seeing the iPad 2, "we are going to have to redesign" the Galaxy Tab 10... and they DID, recalling their already shipped to distribution heavier and thicker model, to make their's match the iPad 2's look... here's a side by side photo of the two:

So your, non sequitur photos of non-copied Samsung phones are irrelevant to the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit in Federal Court. These are... and are being litigated.

[Swordmaker]

That doesn’t make sense, though. It is like patenting a volume knob.

What you fail to understand is that when the volume knob was new, it WAS patented... and those who used it paid a royalty to the inventor of the volume knob, because he thought it up, not them. Perhaps, they had to use a volume slider instead.

Now, the volume knob IS obvious.

Did you know that Alexander Graham Bell (my great, great, great grandfather, incidentally) only beat Elisha Root to the patent office by a few hours with his application for the patent for the telephone... and that within a month over ten other working telephone patents were submitted to the patent office? It was an idea that was ripe... an idea who's time was ready, to personify it... so one could say it was "obvious," since twelve inventors were working on the basic idea, yet it was patentable... and my ancestor was granted the patent by being first in line. (Family lore says he may have also been the one who greased the palms the best!)

It's said that the only non-obvious invention was the phonograph. . . that no one else was working on anything similar when Thomas Edison pulled the idea out of a dream.

In this instance, no one thought of a way to implement the multi-touch gestures within a sub-window on a screen without affecting the entire window display (and that is REALLY what this invention is all about!) that worked before Apple did it on the iPhone. That means they get to patent their method, and control what's done with that technology for a time. Sure it's obvious now... but those who use it are going to have to pay the inventor (Apple) for the license to do it... if Apple will allow it to be licensed.

[Swordmaker]

"beat Elisha Root"... Elisha Gray, not Root... Root was an employee of Colt Firearms and was the designer of the Root Side Hammer Revolvers. Damn my memory. I once owned a cased Root.

Gray was the inventor of the telephone... and may actually have beat Bell to the patent office...

[Fresh Wind]

I tried to patent the question mark.

Big mistake. You should have patented the patent first.

[ReignOfError]

That doesn’t make sense, though. It is like patenting a volume knob.

You mean a method for using a variable rotary potentiometer to adjust amplitude of sound output? There are several such patents (some, I'd imagine, expired by now). There isn't a patent on the concept of "make it louder," but radio manufacturers can't just copy someone else's circuits. They have to either develop their own or buy their potentiometers from the patent holder or a licensee.

[RobRoy]

>>You mean a method for using a variable rotary potentiometer to adjust amplitude of sound output?<<

Yes, but although different volume knobs work in different ways, the way the human interacts with it is the same. Some volume knobs click at each step and use a completely different signal path for each “click” of the knob. It’s like a steering wheel on a car. You can have rack and pinion, recirculating ball, or even “drive by wire”, all patentable, but the driver is just using the same ol’ steering wheel.

[ReignOfError]

Yes, but although different volume knobs work in different ways, the way the human interacts with it is the same. Some volume knobs click at each step and use a completely different signal path for each “click” of the knob. It’s like a steering wheel on a car. You can have rack and pinion, recirculating ball, or even “drive by wire”, all patentable, but the driver is just using the same ol’ steering wheel.

Google patent search turns up 20,000 patents for "steering wheel" between 1880 and 1920 alone.

[Swordmaker]

driver is just using the same ol’ steering wheel.

And the steering wheel was patented also... and licensed for use to the other makers while that patent was in effect. The steering tiller, however, was not because of the prior art from ships, wagons, and other uses.

[Swordmaker]

driver is just using the same ol’ steering wheel.

And the steering wheel was patented also... and licensed for use to the other makers while that patent was in effect. The steering tiller, however, was not because of the prior art from ships, wagons, and other uses.

[TXnMA]

"This only highlights the fact that all software patents need to be done away with. Ditto for “business method” patents."

Pure anarchistic bravo sierra from someone who has, in all likelihood, never invented a single thing in his entire life.

[RobRoy]

>>And the steering wheel was patented also...<<

I wondered about that...

[benjibrowder]

Apple is not suing Samsung on the appearance of any of the phones you so nicely cut and pasted in your comment

Do some research before you post, Apple amended their complaint to include those phones.

The amended complaint accuses all of the above plus the Droid Charge, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Gravity, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Sidekick, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy S II (aka Galaxy S 2). It also specifies the accusation against "Showcase" products, naming the Showcase i500 and Showcase Galaxy S.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/apple-amends-complaint-against-samsung.html

Apple is basing their trade dress complaints on the following:

U.S. Application Serial No. 77/921,838 for the configuration of a digital electronic device with a screen on the front of the device, and a circle at the bottom center of the front [the iPad]

Fairly certain the Blackberry had a pushable round button on the front below the screen before Apple entered the market with the iPhone.

U.S. Application Serial No. 77/921,829 for a configuration of a digital electronic device, with a gray screen, a black border around the screen, a black concave circle at the bottom of the border, and silver sides [also the iPad] Because Apple was the first to use a black border around a screen? And silver sides, really? As far as gray screen, you seen an old early 2000's phone turned off?

U.S. Application Serial No. 77/921,869 for the overall design of the product, including a black screen and silver casing, with thirteen colorful square icons arranged in four rows on the face of the screen, and a concave black circle with the outline of a gray square in the center below the bottom row of icons [again, the iPad] Apple doesn't have the monopoly on square icons, furthermore if Apple gets a ruling in favor of this, I imagine they'll be back in court to deal with HP's lawyers.

U.S. Application Serial No. 85/299,118 for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with evenly rounded corners [the iPhone 4] This is the most absurd of them.

[Swordmaker]

Apple is basing their trade dress complaints on the following:

Read what Apple ALSO included with the addition of those models in the amended complaint... FIVE ADDITIONAL DESIGN PATENTS and THREE HARDWARE PATENTS... not just tradedress applications. All these models include the hardware patents that Apple owns that are being infringed. It helps to read the actual complaint, not just the news article. That's why the ones you cut and paste that don't look like an iPhone were added to the suit... they infringe one or more of these actual design and hardware patents without paying proper license royalties while other models were more examples of copying the trade dress registrations. That's a lot more serious. Apple upped the ante a lot. They are showing the court a pattern of infringement of Apple's IP and look.

Galaxy Ace

Galaxy Prevail

Galaxy S (i9000)

Samsung Infuse 4G

Samsung Nexus S4G

Galaxy Tab 10.1

iPhone 4 next to Samsung Showcase Galaxy S

So, were you saying that Samsung doesn't copy the look, feel, and even the hardware patents of Apple?