The touch screen of an Apple iPad in action.
(Credit: Apple )
Posted on 06/22/2011 2:17:08 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has awarded Apple a key patent for touch screen functionality on portable devices, such as the iPhone and iPad.
Apple's patent, which the company applied for in 2007, boils down to one simple focus: when a person uses their fingers to interact with the touch screen, the software reacts to that gesture. Images that Apple included with its patent application show that functionality being implemented across several different applications, including a Web browser and a home screen.
Here's the more technical description:
"A computer-implemented method, for use in conjunction with a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display, comprises displaying a portion of page content, including a frame displaying a portion of frame content and also including other content of the page, on the touch screen display," the patent abstract reads. "An N-finger translation gesture is detected on or near the touch screen display. In response, the page content, including the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page, is translated to display a new portion of page content on the touch screen display."
The patent win comes at a time when Apple is ensnared in several patent-related battles with other companies.
Nokia sued Apple in October 2009 for allegedly infringing patents related to smartphones being able to run on GSM, Wi-Fi, and 3G networks. The claims also mentioned patents Nokia owned related to mobile device security and encryption.
Apple responded with a countersuit in December 2009, alleging that Nokia violated 13 of its own patents. However, Nokia announced last week that Apple had called it quits and the companies had agreed to a patent-licensing deal. A subsequent analyst report on the matter suggested Apple's licensing costs to Nokia could reach $608 million. But Nokia is just one of Apple's problems.
In April, Samsung announced that it had filed a patent-infringement case against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose division, alleging that the iPhone maker violated 10 of its patents, including one that allows smartphone owners to use the Web while on a phone call. Apple alleged in its own lawsuit against Samsung in April that the company was violating patents on its user interface and mobile-device design.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company upped the ante last week in an amended complaint, saying that Samsung has been heavily "copying" its own products.
"[Samsung's] products...blatantly imitate the appearance of Apple's products to capitalize on Apple's success," Apple wrote in its complaint. "The copying has been widely observed in the industry and has been mentioned in multiple articles reviewing Samsung products." Exactly how Apple's touch-screen patent will play into its current litigation remains to be seen. But as noted, it's a far-reaching patent, and many portable-device makers have products that allow for multitouch gestures that control software on the display.
Apple has not immediately responded to request for comment on whether or not it will use the latest patent against competitors.
“Pure anarchistic bravo sierra from someone who has, in all likelihood, never invented a single thing in his entire life.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Patents have a proper role, but not software or business method patents. For the majority of US history we never needed method patents, and we don’t need them now.
Your rudeness was uncalled for.
By the way, I make by living by business, not ministry.
My other invention is a lawnmower for lesbians. It's called a carpet mulcher.
OTOH, my career consisted of creating, applying, protecting, and exploiting intellectual property. Whether physical invention or software innovation, all of my intellectual outputs were worthy of protection. Good software is just as inventive as the cleverest "gadget" -- and just as worthy of protection. I can justifiably lay claims to having created both.
For an educational experience, check the annual report of a little company like Texas Instruments. I believe you will be amazed at the real dollar value (revenue generated by) the intellectual property (including software) they have paid their employees to create.
I apologize for my rudeness. However, ministry, business, and invention are all honorable, necessary, and worthy endeavors; IMO, your disclaimer was unnecessary...
“Whether physical invention or software innovation, all of my intellectual outputs were worthy of protection.”
Thank you for your response. I do agree with you, in principle.
I just read yesterday that there is a new camera coming to market, the Lytro Light-Field Camera, that will let you shoot a photo and adjust the focus later. I took a look at their website and it’s an amazing piece of technology. Apparently all the photography websites are buzzing with the news.
How the Lytro Light-Field Camera Works
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387554,00.asp
This camera is very worthy of a patent, in my opinion, as well as the software that runs it.
My main caution against many patents is that the Patent Office has gone overboard in granting many of them. One man actually received a patent on a method of swinging on a swing. Once granted these patents are very difficult to overturn, even the ones that are obvious to anyone working in a field.
I probably overstated that I wanted *all* software patents done away with... in the case of the software of this camera, it is worthy of a patent. The problem is how to protect against obvious concepts in the industry from being snatched up by the first person with cash in his pocket. Many emerging software “next steps” are obvious, they only haven’t been patented yet.
True innovations should be patentable. But the issue is how to keep the Patent Office from overstepping, and in fact placing hindrances in the path of further innovation.
Patents were designed by the founders in order to promote inventions. If that goal is being hindered by those who would want to patent something for money, then not come out with a product but wait to sue the first company that comes along, I would argue that the system is broken.
I would suggest:
* Look at limiting the duration of software patents. Patents were designed to give an inventor a head-start in a market, but at some point the intellectual property would go the free market. Software evolves so rapidly that by the time a patented method goes into the public domain it is obsolete.
* Make it easier to challenge obvious patents in a neutral court.
* Make the Patent Office pay some kind of penalty if they award a patent that is later struck down. As of now, the Office makes money if they award a patent and less if they don’t... a conflict of interest. If there was a penalty if they mis-award a patent perhaps less frivolous patents would be granted.
* Business method patents are becoming a real hindrance to innovation, and they weren’t even patentable until recent decades, if I recall correctly.
* Disallow so many patent cases to be argued in East Texas, where the courts have been extra-generous to patent lawsuits. Most patent suits in the country are filed there.
* Forbid pure-IP organizations that do not produce products but exist only to sue productive companies that are trying to release products to the market.
One of the businesses that I am starting is in a field that has many patents (many frivolous). I have several inventions myself not yet patented because I can’t afford it. I keep a notebook of patentable ideas and will see about going through the process when the funds are there. So I can see the argument from both sides, both the patent-holders and businesses trying to produce products and getting sued for it.
I am also a programmer and am starting an open-source software project. I am wary of the patent minefield that I will have to avoid just to release software that is designed to help people further their education.
The purpose of patents was to promote innovation and reward inventors. I have some inventions coming, and I hope to gain from them. But when patents become an overall hindrance to the market, I would suggest that they have gone too far and the bar to obtaining them should be raised.
Advice based on experience: Make sure that your notes on patentable ideas are read by someone capable of understanding them — and then have them sign and date your notes as witness.
My nook does that.
I always thought Elisha should have called ahead.
I knew a guy who patented an improvement on a wheel-barrow handle. His handle made it easier to lift heavy loads. The guy discovered no one had ever patented the wheel-barrow itself. He filed for a patent, but they turned him down.
Good advice, thanks.
All android devices do that.
Samsung has had a wave of great new products. The Galaxy S II, not available yet in the States, is the best cell phone out there. And their new tablets are incredible. They are taking ‘thin’ to the next level.
Too late. Look here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.