What the Mobile Patent Fight Is All About 222
GMGruman writes "Nokia, Apple, and HTC are all suing each other over mobile patents. Google and Microsoft are also in the game. InfoWorld's Paul Krill explains what the fight is all about: control over multitouch, the technology that enables gesture interfaces on iPads, iPhones, and other smartphones. And he explains the chances that the companies will settle their dispute as they jockey for advantage, why Apple has been playing hardball, and why competitors are fighting back just as hard."
Novelty and nonobviousness (Score:4, Informative)
Idea should actually have to be novel and non-obvious.
Yes, that's the idea and that's what the law says, but every word gets a different meaning under patent law than it has from a common-sense perspective.
Large parts of what the average person would consider "obvious" is considered "inventive" under patent law. That's why different attempts on both sides of the Atlantic have failed to get those FAT patents revoked [blogspot.com]. People thought that maybe the courts would be more demanding in terms of the inventive step involved than the examiners at the patent offices, but the judges upheld the original decisions to grant.
Re:To promote the USEFUL arts (Score:4, Informative)
well that's my take on it anyway...
Re:Patent Armageddon (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the rotary phone dialing system was patented, but it was about a 100 years ago. The patent has expired.
Re:To promote the USEFUL arts (Score:5, Informative)
any idiot who has watched any sci-fi
Sigh. No need to bring that in to it and gloss over the real people involced. HCI researchers have been researching multitouch since the early 80s, or even before.
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html [billbuxton.com]
They did all the real hard grunt work making it actually work. Now a bunch of companies want to swoop in and claim the inventions as their own simply because they want to market it.
For what it's worth, I do not think that pinch zoom obvious. In 1984. When it was invented. By now, since multitouch is so old, to anyone versed in the HCI world, yeah, this stuff is a mix of pretty obvious and been done before.
Re:too much cool-aid (Score:3, Informative)
That's "kool-aid" you insensitive clod!
Re:To promote the USEFUL arts (Score:2, Informative)
True most inventions are created to solve a particular problem and not because of some monetary incentive. However, the reason YOU know that the invention exists is because the inventor saw a potential to make some money off of his idea, and acquired a patent to protect his investment.
This is how patents work.
Re:Cross-licensing only works with the willing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:To promote the USEFUL arts (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Useless shit (Score:5, Informative)
If multitouch sensors were that easy to create, don't you think we'd have had them in 1980, along with all the craze over touch screens way back when?
We did. Sorry if I don't read the rest of the post.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Informative)
Very succinct description of the state as I understand it too. Note that Nokia are simply suing for backdated licensing fees for their patents whilst Apple are suing to prevent their competitors using multitouch at all, reinforces the point that apple want it to themselves.
Uhm.. if you read the actual filings it is actually a complete misunderstanding of the case, almost the total opposite of what is actually being asked/sued for. As also noted by posters above and below this:
See, Nokia has sued for money only, not for licensing. I don't get this paranoia about multitouch patents: Nokia does not want them.
and..
It's getting tiresome to watch Apple fanboys distorting the facts. Go do the court filings in Nokia vs. Apple and read the statements of facts. Nokia stated they asked 'their standard rate' in cash for the essential patents Apple uses and Apple refused. Then they stated Apple offered some (non-essential, as they have nothing essential to GSM) patents in exchange, but when Nokia judged their value insufficient and asked for more, Apple again refused. Bottomline, Nokia never asked for anything multitouch in the first place. Show me a goddamn court filing where Apple disputes that, as they can twist any lies in their PR but lawyers tend to be much more careful with the truth towards a judge. Otherwise, kindly STFU. The signal-to-noise is bad enough already.
Re:Useless shit (Score:5, Informative)
How fucking hard is it to just look it up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitouch#History [wikipedia.org]
Re:no, you're completely wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Why did you link to an article about software patents there weren't granted?
Also the article isn't excxactly correct.
If I make a device the does A. You can not make the exact same device just because it does B. You can modify and patent the resulting thing.
If I patent a hammer, you can't patent the same thing and call it a 'glass breaker'
I think this article may be a better description of software patents and lays out why they are bad:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/resurrecting-the-supreme-courts-software-patent-ban-not-ready.ars/3 [arstechnica.com]
Re:too much cool-aid (Score:1, Informative)
That's "Flavor-Aid" you beastly lout!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid
Re:Useless shit (Score:4, Informative)
Xerox was the first commercial company to make a GUI. Both MS and Apple hired from the pool of people who worked at Xerox before the mac came out.
apple Market Cap: 229.19B
microsoft Market Cap: 253.10B
I wouldn't really call apple the little guy.