Source: SBNation [The Verge] [PDF]
quote: Its legal because Fingerworks 'invented' multitouch from 1999 to 2005 (patents files in 2001 to 2005). Apple bought the company and all associated patents.
quote: Phase 2 – 1995 - 1996 (Bob Marshall, CEO) - Partnership with CIDCO systems and the introduction of the first iPhone (CIDCO iPhone)
quote: Apple and Cisco settled their dispute on February 20, 2007. Both companies will be allowed to use the "iPhone" name in exchange for "exploring interoperability" between Apple's products and Cisco's services and other unspecified terms.
quote: Its legal because Fingerworks 'invented' multitouch from 1999 to 2005 (patents files in 2001 to 2005). Apple bought the company and all associated patents.Simpy stated, other companies are using this technology without paying Apple, who had to pay to gain the patents to implement this in the iPhone/iPad in the first place.
quote: These other companies will now start paying Apple a small royalty; its really not that big of a situation.
quote: How is this legal?Where is the FTC?
quote: I find the degradation of language in these debates pretty tedious.
quote: The validation of the patent -- which Apple affectionately refers to as "the Steve Jobs multitouch patent" is dire news for top Android phonemakers and tablet makers like Samsung, LG Electronics Inc. (KSC:066570), and the Lenovo Group, Ltd. (HKG:0992), which could be faced with the choice of having their flagship products banned from sale, or crippled by Apple.
quote: 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.
quote: Since Apple secured virtually all of the early stock capacitive multitouch screens, which it used in the original iPhone, it was the first phonemaker to release a device with capacitive multitouch.
quote: However, the worst part of the validation for Android OEMs is the validated claims regarding single-finger ("one or more fingers") scrolls/swipes. Because of that, Android would be required to make it such that their devices would not respond to swipes or scrolls unless users made the swipe in precisely a straight, unbroken line.
quote: On the other hand the verdict may have an unexpected side effect. Android OEMs do have one clear escape route -- abandon Android for Windows Phone, a third party platform that's sheltered by Apple's licensing pact with Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). Given that Samsung is already paying licensing fees on non-Windows Phone devices to Microsoft, such a move could also make financial sense.
quote: Android OEMs -- even HTC -- also face a second threat from Nokia Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V) who is threatening to ban Android products if Android OEMs don't pay even higher licensing fees for currently unlicensed Nokia patents.
quote: So Android OEMs now will either have to pay licensing payments to Microsoft and Nokia on every device sold, plus face possible bans from Apple -- or they must drop Android and switch to Windows Phone. That's likely not the outcome Apple -- or its late cofounder Steve Jobs wanted. But it's more or less the outcome I predicted when I wrote "Can Microsoft and Apple Kill Google's Android with Lawsuits?" back in 2011.
quote: It will likely be a year or two before this all shakes down, as Samsung will likely have to be smacked with major bans on new product before it begrudgingly would decide to drop Android for Windows Phone. But I'm warning you to prepare yourself now, Samsung fans -- and Android fans in general -- unfair or not, the legal recourses for keeping a modern, useable Android device on the U.S. market are dwindling fast, thanks to Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia.
quote: Nope. Samsung already worked around this patent. This was noted in the ITC ban, and is why no new phones will be banned.
quote: True. Which is why perhaps they should have used different evidence to invalidate it. This patent is an insult to those who use heuristics in software every day.
quote: Technically true. But the first demo of a multi touch phone was the FIC openmoko phone, which touted pinch to zoom google maps, back in Dec of 2006 IIRC. It was released though some days after the original iphone.
quote: No, it could just follow the finger exactly. Or do whatever Samsung already does.
quote: Not when Nokia has 90% of the market already, and they are going to exit it.Fun rumor, even Nokia was evaulating to go Android as of this year. Why else would MS deem it necessary to purchase them?
quote: Nope and hopelessly false. Currently as an example, Motorola has a license to Nokia's patents. It seems only HTC refuses to license them. And Nokia is banning ALL their phones, including their WP.
quote: Partially true. The ITC noted this, but the ITC did not evaluate that workaround in depth. The ITC simply deals in LIKELY guilt. It's perfectly possible that Apple will still manage to troll Samsung in court where you're dealing with a jury, not professional judges. It will be up to Samsung to convince a jury in Apple's backyard (San Francisco) to accept Samsung's "workaround" and reject Apple's claim that it is invalid and still infringes. What are the chances of that, you think?
quote: Wrong. Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia's phone division included a license for Windows Phone devices. That should protect Windows Phone OEMs on all NEW products from suits from Nokia Oyj. (not to be confused with its now-Microsoft device division).
quote: Samsung is forbidden from suing back, for the most part, as most of its smartphone intellectual property are part of standards -- deep hardware inventions. But in today's patent climate, such innovations are considered diminuitive in value, compared to patenting abstract, ambiguous interface ideas.
quote: Also, Apple was willing to enter into a licensing agreement with HTC,
quote: After they sued them and had thier phones banned from being sold.
quote: There's no feasible technological alternative at present given that resistive touch would feel remarkably unresponsive by multitouch standards.
quote: Can anyone give any concrete example of a device of any sort made by anyone that they personally were prevented from buying because of any sort of restrictions caused by any sort of IP or patent legal action?
quote: Then there are those who seem to fret excessively about who pays who amongst very large corporations whose shares they don't own.
quote: People gave you some. You were wrong, now just shut up and go away. Everyone knows your agenda here!
quote: So far we only have two examples of actual product restraint that affected end users caused by IP have offered up. Neither seem to refer to the experience of inconvenience of the writers themselves.
quote: One, astonishingly, refers to a case involving film camera technology dating back to 1981! Was the writer of the comment even born then?
quote: And dear old 'sprockets' that king of rational discourse , with a story gleaned from the media but even he cannot give an example based on his own personal experience. He mentions a 'Feature removed from all devices' but fails to mention what it was and does not show that any end user even noticed it's omission.
quote: Then there are those who seem to fret excessively about who pays who amongst very large corporations whose shares they don't own. My argument is simple. This is a storm in a tea cup. Porn for those with strongly partisan tech company or platform affiliations but of little consequence in the wider real world. I repeat - all the patents and IP legal actions around mobile device technology in the last five years has had close to zero impact on end users. Across the globe customers can freely buy a wide range of devices such as phones, tablets and media players, from a wide range of companies and none of those buyers of devices are in any way restricted for choice by IP or patent law. If all IP and patent law was abolished tomorrow the price of those devices would not change by a cent. For consumers IP legal action and patent law are non-issues. Other than for the lawyers who make a living from it IP law only really matters for partisan obsessives in whom it seems to generate an unhealthy amount of passion and angst.
quote: Inconvenience of the writers? WTF?
quote: Neither of my cases refer to a camera patent so again WTF are you talking about.
quote: Apple made Samsung remove universal search so that the Google search bar in their phones couldn't do local searches anymore
quote: And how many customers, other than the IP law obsessed, actually noticed? My guess would be none.
quote: So you state the number of users who don't notice universal search isn't available is "zero". First off I would like to know how you arrived at that one-sided prediction. Secondly just because the average user doesn't KNOW a feature was forcibly removed from their devices because of IP conflict, doesn't mean they wouldn't have benefited from it!
quote: Apple phobics addicted to high blood pressure lap this crap up, crap that DT will continue to serve to all covered in a lovely sauce of cheap journalism, but really you should just move on for the sake of your mental health (what's left of it).
quote: Can you read? And I don't mean recognize letters, can you follow a text?
quote: I made no claims in my post.
quote: A couple of examples have already been posted.
quote: Stupid me, how could I think this is about stifling competition when it is in fact a harmless case of extortion
quote: If that was true then your post was absolutely devoid of content and wasn't worth posting.
quote: And as it seems you yourself are 'unable to follow a text'
quote: He was asking for an example of how the 'stifled competition' you claim actually affected what you were able to buy.
quote: Do you have one?
quote: That's a false narrative. It requires a crystal ball to answer, and he knows it.
quote: It's impossible to quantify how much consumer choice and competition has been harmed
quote: For almost a month people couldn't purchase an HTC One X
quote: Do yourself a favor; if you want to have any credibility left here, shut up and concede that this was a major blow to an Apple competitor, and competition was momentarily stifled.
quote: Did YOU want to buy an HTC One X during that month?
quote: My point was simply that nobody was answering Tony's question.
quote: the actual impact of this is minimal.
quote: Okay if you want to play that game, yes, I sure did. Now what have you got to say to that?
quote: Give me a break, how childish is this argument? It's myopic in the extreme. There's a lot more to this than some cheery picked sample of personal experiences.
quote: Nice try, your real purpose is far more transparent.
quote: That's speculation, the ruling just came down. It *probably* will be, but nobody can truly say what the impact will be yet.