The iPhone Patent: Apple Awarded Multi-Touch Patent
The iPhone Patent: Apple Awarded Multi-Touch Patent
During the first-quarter earnings call, Apple's No. 2 and acting CEO, Tim Cook had warned competitors of legal battle if they try to rip off their intellectual property. Though Cook had not named any company, it was widely speculated that he was referring to Palm's Pre as it had features...
Comments
-
oh my god. multi-touch, really? who got the patent for touch screen then? maybe they should sue apple? this is ridiculous. As soon as touch screen was invented it was natural for multitouch to be released eventually, as well as vibro-touch, sting-touch, electrifying-touch and whatever. They all should go under the same patent like the processor etc. (processor for cars, mobile phone, car, motorcykle etc )
-
I fundamentally disagree with you kenshin. A company comes up with an idea, they have the right to protect that idea. The last thing we need is blanket copyrights like you're supporting.
-
so basically, lonewaffle, you're saying that the way someone TOUCHES a product can be patented? it only makes logical sense to touch and drag something if you want it to be moved to specific place, and all apple did was utilize a program that, basically, uses common sense. will the person who invented pointing at things to get someone to direct their focus on that specific object or thing please stand up...you got some money coming your way.
-
Apple patented multi-touch because it DOES use a different set of physical devices to compute multi-touch, versus old school touchscreens that really can't detect more than one touch at a time. Apple also patented the "pinch/spread/twirl" set of commands for multi-touch, which they definitely deserve the patent for since it presented an innovative way to zoom in and zoom out and rotate objects on a screen. Palm was trying to capitalize on the success of the iPhone with the Storm, but came up short like EVERY other touch screen phone because only the iPhone has multi-touch, and that really does make all the difference. Since the Storm was a POS they came up with the Pre, which was basically the iPhone using a different look. They were trying to copy Apple because they couldn't figure out something new on their own, and that's why Apple deserves this patent and everything they gain from having it.
-
well a company should have the right to patent any product that is made. because it is different (or would not have been invented), or has improved on something existing. lets say you wrote a paper for high school english class and someone next year copied it. maybe not word for word but was obviously a copy? how would that make you feel? like someone ripped off all the hard work you put into something? jsut for the ones that are bashing the patent process
-
I don't think the rationale in defending patents has to do with how much work it took to create it. For instance, what if it took me a lot of hard work to un-encrypt your high school paper in order to copy it? The fact that it was a copy is still relevant. What the current patent system does not handle well is the idea that society as a whole needs to move forward. That often happens when a better idea comes along but if an idea belongs solely to one person then they can, for a variety of reasons, stifle the progress attainable with their idea. Often the value of a better idea is only as good as how well it is implemented. I personally don't want an iphone because it's on the "budabump budabump budabump network" (it makes noises in audio equipment). I'm frustrated because it has other innovations that don't have anything to do with its downfalls. But it appears that other companies are being kept from making progress with these innovations so I'll have to live with it. :(
