Apple wins re-examination challenge to Multi-Touch patent
For Apple, the good news is that the USPTO now once again recognizes patent No. 7,479,949 after invalidating it in 2012. This happens to be one of the two patents that the ITC has determined was infringed on by Samsung, leading to a current import ban on some older Samsung models including the Samsung Galaxy S II. With the legal victory, Apple could force Android manufacturers into devising a workaround for Multi-Touch.
Apple has already rolled out this patent in court against HTC, Palm, and the aforementioned Samsung. This patent is also expected to be used by Apple in a suit against Google's wholly owned Motorola Mobility subsidiary. Apple has now managed to win re-examination challenges against all 20 claims to the so-called "Steve Jobs" patent. Other re-examination challenges won by Apple include one covering another Multi-Touch patent, and another one covering the bounceback scroll patent.
source: FOSSPatents, higaara via electronista
1. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Apple fan should be very happy that America is removing choices that people don't need.
iPhone for every American. Wow!
16. takeja (Posts: 35; Member since: 16 Aug 2013)
The fascistic USA attacking and bullying other nations contains just such the fascistic bribing companies like Apple and Microsoft = pure evil
2. emadshiny (Posts: 763; Member since: 05 Dec 2012)
And this is the time when i wholeheartedly ask every company including Samsung, Sony, LG, Sharp and whoever imports goods to Apple to boycott it and we'll see who is the winner of this filthy war.
P.S: This is the main reason iHate Apple so much and love companies like Sony.
Why should any company do such an ugly action?
31. vincelongman (Posts: 351; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)
Apple are becoming desperate, they know they are struggling to keep up with Android/Windows 8 OEMs, so they are trying to use their biased courts to ban their competition.
3. lnguyen7186 (Posts: 14; Member since: 30 May 2011)
Please, Please, and Please plastic mobile phones maker try not to copy again all you do is hurting your self . Sincerely, Apple = innovation.
5. Reality_Check (Posts: 140; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)
Innovation is an overrated term nowadays.
19. techaman (Posts: 148; Member since: 03 Jul 2011)
So lets have apple take off 3g connectivity because its samsungs and sonys and lets take the cards off because thats palms, lets take notification off and toggles because thats androids lets take the insides and screens off becauae they are samsungs lg and Toshiba. Whats left is a metal and plastic body remember apple was plastic for the first couple of years metal after the razor pho e and a few before that. This is why people around the world hate apple saying o that's mine but then it's not fair i want to do that as well
50. promise7 (Posts: 165; Member since: 03 Jul 2013)
3G is already a "Standard-essential patent." (3G/LTE/Wi-Fi, etc.) Anyone can use it without permission while paying a license fee.
54. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
but no one is seeing a dime coming from Apple as payment for the 3G license hold by Samsung and Sony.
all we are hearing from Apple is this should be banned and that should be banned and Obama administration has shown us they are all talk but a hypocrite in the end.
Personally, I am ready for a phone or tablet that has zero American influence.
59. Sniggly (Posts: 6200; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Actually some licensing fees are allowed. They just can't be above a fair limit. Seems the definition of "fair" is fairly fluid and depends on the judge though.
52. buccob (Posts: 731; Member since: 19 Jun 2012)
"plastic mobile phones"? like the iPhone 5C?
55. taikucing (Posts: 607; Member since: 18 Jan 2013)
You mean Apple innovation = steal other people ideas?
6. -box- (Posts: 3470; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
How much money and political gargling did they have to do to get it uninvalidated? What a load of crabapples.
9. JMartin22 (Posts: 400; Member since: 30 Apr 2013)
That's basically what it is, huge corporations intertwine with politics and influence certain legislative processes to create loopholes for themselves.
35. reckless562 (Posts: 173; Member since: 09 Sep 2013)
whish we actuallly could, it would do nothing as u know.
plus we have bigger fish to fry, like getting the tea party racist to stop pfhucking with obamas legacy
40. JMartin22 (Posts: 400; Member since: 30 Apr 2013)
I'd say the same to you, but I don't know what persona you're going to put on in a given day lol.
42. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
Handful of upset citizens vs. a lobbyist with a briefcase full of money. We all know how the system works and how campaigns get funded. Average citizens don't stand a chance.
63. darkkjedii (Posts: 7791; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Nope they'd come home with some $ though lol
7. PapaSmurf (Posts: 4208; Member since: 14 May 2012)
You got to be fu----g kidding me. A bogus patent that is only used to sue and cause import bans. The hell with Apple.
22. E.N. (Posts: 2216; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
This pinch-zoom patent (not so much multi-touch in general) is still one of the few patents I think Apple clearly deserves. If Apple hadn't specifically used pinch-zoom in mobile phones, we would not have it today in our smartphones. We would likely still have touchscreen smartphones, but we would have relied on scrolling bars to zoom in and out. Pinch-zoom (on a phone) was just too different..MAJOR props to Apple for thinking outside the box.
The fact that all the companies stayed far away from the feature at first just goes to show that pinching your mobile screen for websites, pictures, etc was respected as "the iPhone-way." I think these companies started taking risks because pinch-zoom was such an extreme advantage/selling point for the iPhone.
The reason why I think Apple will ultimately fail to regain possession of the patent is because 6 years later, pinch-zoom/multi-touch is such an integral part of today's smartphone experience that its just so natural, and that's a testament to Apple's unique and well-executed integration/implementation/invention (whatever you want to call it) of pinch-zoom.
I think this whole jumping on the anti-Apple bandwagon is pretty stupid. They didn't make the patent just to simply "sue and cause import bans." Apple clearly believes that pinch-zoom is rightfully theirs and they're doing all in their power to protect it from unauthorized use.
24. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 440; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
It's in the 2007 video. They sent out a warning about the patents used to make the original iPhone, and all competitors had to do was find another way to do things. I'm sure everyone on here who is tearing their hair out is a limping, scarred mess because they obviously don't understand *WARNING* signs.
33. darkkjedii (Posts: 7791; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Nope they don't. Apple patented it, it's theirs. Get permission or pay the price.
37. reckless562 (Posts: 173; Member since: 09 Sep 2013)
a company will have either paid up fron for the IP or will have to pay for the IP now in a judgement.
the companies who jacked apple are now pretty damn strong for doin so, so was it fair?? no. worth it Pfhucccckkkk YEEAAAA boi !!! lifes not fair isheep!!!!
46. jacko1977 (Posts: 335; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
apple then should pay who invented it and it sure wasnt crapple
32. darkkjedii (Posts: 7791; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Well said, if someone else had come out with it first they'd did the same thing. Protect your IP Apple.
44. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
The patent system is broken, simple as that. More importantly, Apple isn't saying they own pinch to zoom, only the method of which it is used. As with a lot of mobile patents, there's usually a work around so this really doesn't mean that OEM's are doomed.
36. darkkjedii (Posts: 7791; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
What do you think Samsung would do, if all of a sudden apple started using pop up video? They'd go after apple, and you know they would Smurf. That patent isn't there just to sue, if they brought it to mobile phones, it's their IP to protect
61. PapaSmurf (Posts: 4208; Member since: 14 May 2012)
$5 says Apple is going to use this patent in the Samsung case.
I hope this patent gets invalidated again.
66. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5177; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
and it's bad for the economy and they will be no COMPETITION
67. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5177; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
my fault i meant their will be no competition.
68. darkkjedii (Posts: 7791; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
You shoulda said my fault again, you used their when you shoulda used there. Lower case I also.
8. JMartin22 (Posts: 400; Member since: 30 Apr 2013)
Terrible and horrible company. Their lust for money and tandem with their ego that they deserve it all and I mean all; is what makes me never want to buy one of their overrated products. I'm thankful we have Android and the multitude of companies within that platform trying their hardest to appease their customers by trying to surpass each other.
Android will continue to be the new hardware and software standard that proliferates an example of leading because of these facts.
72. ardent1 (Posts: 1864; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
The sad fact is android is a commodity, so your argument about overrated products apply more to android devices than Apple devices.
Take a good look at Xioami devices -- the handsets are release with "cutting edge" specs but cost a fraction of what a comparable Samsung device would sell for.
Second, if you looked at the true cost of ownership as opposed to MSRP or OEC, Apple devices don't cost that much to own based on the resale values. In economics, the true cost of ownership is the amount of depreciation.
If you buy an Apple product for $650 and turn around to sell it for $500 in one year, your cost of ownership was only $150, not the $650 purchase price.
This is where android devices ARE EXPENSIVE -- with low resale values (practically zero for many of their mid-end or low-end devices), their depreciation costs are much higher than Apple devices, respectively. Additionally, high obsolesce risks hurt the resale value of existing android devices.
10. regkilla (Posts: 43; Member since: 13 Sep 2012)
Motorola Droid 1 my first Android. I remember those days :)
12. AndroidSHQIP (Posts: 6; Member since: 18 Oct 2013)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch < is this what they call pattented?
13. Sniggly (Posts: 6200; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Well, Google already figured out a different way to do multi touch anyway, and implemented it on Jelly Bean and above as I recall. So at this point Apple can keep their patent. Only stasis can stop Android now.
It is funny how twice in a row Apple's closed down approach has left it in second place in a computing market versus a much more open competitor. Once again Apple makes a device type cool, while their main competitor makes the device accessible.
When the next revolution gets off the ground (wearable tech) Apple won't even be able to claim cool status. Google will make wearable tech cool AND accessible at the same time.
15. PapaSmurf (Posts: 4208; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Multi-touch = Samsung case. This patent should have stayed invalidated.
14. ArtSim98 (Posts: 411; Member since: 21 Dec 2012)
Oh come on apple! Why do you patent stuff you didn't invent!
17. takeja (Posts: 35; Member since: 16 Aug 2013)
Jobs: "we are shameless about stealing great ideas"
25. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 440; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
Fingerworks is a wholly owned Apple subsidiary, so they own the company that did invent this.
18. spiderpig2894 (Posts: 329; Member since: 10 Jan 2012)
I thought this was settled because Android used a different way of multi-touch.
21. techaman (Posts: 148; Member since: 03 Jul 2011)
It is but apple is not making the money they hoped on phones so they upped the price in France to €917=$1254 for a 64gig iphone and upped the others as well they dont care about people just the amount they make of people. Everything apples has ever had came from others i wonder how much they payed the president to veto the iphone 4 BAN but ban samsungs
27. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 440; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
No, Android uses a different "bounce-back" effect ('381 patent), but every mobile device uses the same multitouch process ('949 patent). If this stands, every Android OEM, except HTC, will have to license the '949 patent or remove this from their code. It's no different than Apple paying to use 3G or UMTS technology.
29. shuaibhere (Posts: 593; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
Google implemented another way of multi touch in android 4.1...So aplle can't go after any android manufacturers....Stop dreaming..
41. aries.phills (Posts: 104; Member since: 17 May 2011)
Reading all the hateful comments about Apple, one must have a good laugh.
Well, other than the ipod, I've never ,used any other apple product. Currently, I'm a big fan of Samsung and Android as I've been using their products ever since the intro of the galaxy lines (and the downfall of Nokia).
However, as much as I dislike Apple products for their super-closed ecosystem and their ridiculous prices, I think I'll side with Apple on this one. Putting myself in Apple's shoes, if I innovate or create anything that is cool or wacky or patent-worthy and eventually succeeds with patenting it as my intellectual property, I'll surely sue anybody that uses it without prior licence from me.
49. silencer271 (Posts: 109; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
umm they didnt create it they just put it on a popular device. I bet if Brent stumpe ever sued everyone using touch screen devices he would be a rich man.
48. silencer271 (Posts: 109; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
Guess the patents before apple and samsungs dont mean anything?
58. Quezdagreat (Posts: 366; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)
Look up a company called fingerworks. There was no such multi touch patent
64. Googler (Posts: 813; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
“If we sold the company in a year, you’d be OK with that?” And they were. From Day 1, that was our goal." I really wonder if they understood how important their technology was when the offer to purchase the company was made by Apple? They saw the potential but I wonder if they saw the smart phone explosion.
53. Quezdagreat (Posts: 366; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)
I want to see you guys make up a technology and have it patented. Would you want companies to use your technology without paying you? I think not. Stop taking up for samsung, other brands pay to use apple technology, why shouldn't they? And don't say because they manufactured parts for iPhones they should be able to use it for free
60. PapaSmurf (Posts: 4208; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Yes, because if I have 3G and wifi patents, I'd expect Apple to pay to use them. Do they? Nope.
I'd also want to pay 1/20 of a cent per device on a patent I had infringed on if I had $450 billion in the bank.
69. Quezdagreat (Posts: 366; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)
If the court find them guilty, then they have to pay. That's how the game goes
65. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5177; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
So SICK of these B.S. patents wars