The problem is Apple didn't really INVENT[1][2][3] the concept and technology for multi-touch. They just implemented the first realized product (in a phone). So what if they filed a patent for that product? It doesn't mean it wasn't an obvious technological concept.<p>1) <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/49738/2006/03/interface.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.macworld.com/article/49738/2006/03/interface.html</a><p>2) <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...</a><p>2) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface</a>
Paul Graham wrote an essay on software patents in 2006. I found it helpful to get an overview of the wider issue:<p><a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html</a><p>I wonder whether this part is relevant:<p>"When you read of big companies filing patent suits against smaller ones, it's usually a big company on the way down, grasping at straws. For example, Unisys's attempts to enforce their patent on LZW compression. When you see a big company threatening patent suits, sell. When a company starts fighting over IP, it's a sign they've lost the real battle, for users."
Among the more absurd patent claims being litigated: "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image"<p>Seriously? I'm not sure if it's a step above or a step below one-click, but it sure as hell ain't far from it.
Looks like a straight forward patent money grab. Apple just has to win on a few of these patents to negotiate a license fee with HTC. With one win under their belt they can extend it to other handset makers without too much trouble. All the sudden Apple is making some money off every cell phone sold as dumb phones disappear and get replaced by SmartPhones (or they just get smarter and infringe) Obviously Apple would never license iPhone OS to third parties so this seems like an attempt to simply license some of the technologies instead. I don't know the math but just based on the huge volume of cell phone sales alone it's gotta be worth a ton of money. If Apple loses in court other handset makers just continue to use these technologies and nothing changes. Unfortunately that's how the system works. Apple share holders were probably not too happy about the prospect of leaving all that money on the table.
My curiosity is who declared war on who in the Google v. Apple nonsense.<p>Just a little over a months ago, Steve Jobs took some jabs at Google, calling them out on their motto ("Don't be evil") and saying they want to kill the iPhone with Android.[1] Now we have Apple suing HTC over Android devices - glancing over the documents[2] "HTC Android Products" is mentioned over and over and over, though WinMo phones are cited as well.<p>In the past, Google has intentionally removed features from Android in respect to Apple's patents, even at Apple's request[3]. This isn't exactly the case now, which is why I'm asking the question... did Google start adding in these patent infringing features first, or did Apple feel threatened first?<p>I don't think it's a coincidence that HTC is the largest manufacturer of Android handsets. Is it possible that Apple foresees a significant loss in market share over the coming years and wants to stem the flow?<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-...</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://documents.nytimes.com/apple-patent-lawsuit-against-htc#p=1" rel="nofollow">http://documents.nytimes.com/apple-patent-lawsuit-against-ht...</a><p>[3]: <a href="http://digital.venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android-and-google-complied/" rel="nofollow">http://digital.venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google...</a>
I don't understand this patent world. From everything I've read, it is obvious to me that I could get about 5 patents out of every casual conversation I have with my fellow grad students each day. Is everyone in the judicial system completely oblivious to this insanity?
It seems to be more of an attempt to attract attention.<p>Synaptic were working on Multitouch sensors before Apple Patented, and researchers have been for years before Apple too.<p>And looking at the patents, they are obvious. Hopefully Apple don't win this.
Nobody wins in these things except the lawyers. Also, at this point Apple is starting to look like a 5 year old baby throwing a temper tantrum. The negative publicity with the app store combined with taking jabs at google just makes them look really bad.
Earlier conversation on this topic: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161467" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161467</a>
Reminds of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...</a>