Apple DOES NOT own multi-touch. Legal impossibility.

P

Poopoo

New member
With all the talks about how Apple owns multi-touch, I decided to look into the matter and clarify the situation once and for all.

Apple does not and cannot possible own multi-touch.

Multi-touch was patented on August 22, 2000 by Michael Ure and Menlo Park of Culpertino, CA. The application was filed in 1996, and a PCT was filed soon after. The patent number is 6,107,997 and can be retrieved here: http://www.google.com/patents?id=dB4EAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4

Although they are from the same town as Apple, the patent was never assigned to Apple. In fact, it was never assigned to anyone. I found this intriguing, so I dug deeper. It turned out that the inventors failed to pay the necessary maintenance fee, and the patent EXPIRED in 2004.

So there you have it, two-fingered multi-touch is now public information and no one can own it anymore. That also explains why Apple's patents are all on 4 or more fingered configurations and extremely narrow.
 
Well, the other side of the equation is possible IPs on the hardware itself. I will looking into the patent ownership over the hardware tomorrow and see if Synaptic owns it. If it does, it can potentially have an exclusive licensing contract with Apple for the use of the multi-sensing API. I don't know why they would want to do that, but we'll see tomorrow.
 
They may not own patents to multi-touch but i've read in several places that they did file patents for multi-touch on laptops/trackpads. So, maybe this is where people just assume they have patents on all multi-touch devices?
 
They have two issued patents on multi-touch involving 4 and 7 fingers all at the same time. They have a number of applications on various aspects of multi-touch, but only on the software interpretation side. All the applications are extremely narrow. You would have to try pretty hard to infringe any of them. Keep in mind that newer patents cannot be broader than older patents in the same area of technology. So by the time these applications get issued, if ever, the resulting patents will be much narrower than what's out there now.
 
Maybe Google hasn't implement the API into the Android OS yet, cause you can see that the OS is still work in progress, even the onscreen keyboard won't happen until Q1 2009.
 
From my understanding, while Apple doesn't own multi-touch it has filed patents for specific multi-touch gestures, i.e. the two fingered pinch. If Apple owns a specific gesture, it would make it difficult to implement any sort of multi-touch, as you'd have to make sure users can't "pinch" or whatever else has been patented on the Android OS.

Helpfule wired article discussing Apple's pinch patents: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2008/02/multitouch_patents
 
I certainly hope so. I really want to see multi-touch on the G1. Let's just hope there aren't other legal barriers to that.
 
I'd guess this is the answer as well. I think Google simply ran out of time working features into Android and knew they needed to jump into this market sooner rather than later if they wanted any chance at keeping the iPhone from becoming the iPod of the phone world (near monopoly status). This follows Google's MO anyway, release early/simple/stable (and in beta) and improve over time.

Anyway, thanks for investigating this. Great information. Also explains why Microsoft is using multi-touch in their surface applications. I always thought it was highly unlikely they were paying Apple licensing fees.
 
Apple is unlikely to be able to patent the pinch gesture. The original patent that I started this thread with already covered over 36 gestures, one of which is the pinch. Even if the PTO issues a pinch patent to Apple, that patent will not be valid and enforceable.

It usually takes 3 to 5 years for an application to go from filed to issued. During this time, a lot of things would change. Rarely do an application ever get issued as filed.

If you look at all the applications filed by Apple on point, they are very narrow and can be easily circumvented. Companies apply for patents to protect their ideas OR to gain leverage for bargaining. I believe Apple is trying to do the latter in this instance.
 
Apple can't own all multi-touch technology, it is legally impossible. You can have patents for physical hardware and you can have patents for specific software (like the multi-sensing API Stanovoy mentioned) but thats it. As far as hardware goes, it isn't too difficult to re-invent the wheel. Patenting software is a tricky and kind of fuzzy subject because while you can patent specific code you can not patent the concept in general. You are only in any legal danger if your solution is pretty much the exact same as the patented one. Even then, you are only in violation of a software patent if it can be proven that you built software directly based on theirs; if you come to the same conclusion on your own you have just as much right to it as they do.

My guess is that either:
a) google didn't want to bother with the possible legal hassles brough about by Apple (even though Google would not be doing anything wrong I bet Apple would attempt to sue)
b) Android is designed to be used on a wide variety of devices; while the G1 may be capable of multi-touch, it is not directly enabled and catered to the G1 but will be possible with new software
c) seeing as google is still working on a touch-screen enabled keyboard, multi-touch may still be a little ways down their to-do list
 
I agree, and just would like to clarify a few things for others. Software must be patented as business methods. To circumvent a 101 objection, the elements of the method must not be something a human would do naturally. For example:

A method to convey information to a user, comprising:
letting the user see a plurality of information; and
causing the user to interpret the plurality of information.

would not be patentable. However, it gets murky and allowable under 101 when you change it to:

A method to convey information to a user, comprising:
displaying a plurality of information to a user;
wherein the plurality of information contains words in an arrangement that is comprehensive to the user.

Of course, the above claim is not patentable for obvious reasons. I'm just trying to make a point.

As for the "arriving at the same result" part, the result is irrelevant to an infringement claim under law. So what sullitf was saying is that even if the results might be the same, as long as your software does not do each and every element of a patented claim, you will not be in infringement.
 
Yeah, I will look into Synaptics' patent status tomorrow. Steve Jobs likes to talk. Unfortunately, this time, it's not backed by anything substantial, it seems.

As for that video, it's hard to tell whether that's multi-touch or basic center of mass calculation. A touch sensitive surface can sense an area of differing resistance or some other change. Based on that information, it calculates the approximate center of mass. That center of mass is then translated into the tip of a mouse pointer, or the equivalent thereof.

When multiple positions are touched, the area of change becomes bigger, and the center of mass shifts. That would cause the mouse to move to a point that is roughly in between the two fingers.

In a true multi-touch, the surface is lined with at least another set of sensors. Their only purpose is to detect breaks in changes. For example, two fingered configurations will probably trigger one of those detectors, and the system will see that the giant blob of change is not continuous across the plane. From there, it can estimate where each finger actually is. This is the reason why when you keep your fingers super close on the iPhone and move only a tiny bit, the system does not respond to it; but when you keep your fingers apart and move a tiny bit, the system instantly reacts to it.
 
Back
Top