“The US Patent and Trademark Office officially published a series of 20 newly granted patents for Apple Inc. today which includes three design wins which our report covers this morning,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.
“In addition, our report covers granted patents for iPhoto in relation to photo albums and books and another relating to a construction technique for an iOS device windowing system along with links to many other patents,” Purcher reports. “Yet the major patent of the day definitely goes to one relating to key attributes of Apple’s multi-touch technology and methodologies.”
Advertisement: Limited Time: Students, Parents and Faculty save up to $200 on a new Mac. Ends Sept. 20th.
“Apple’s competitors should definitely review this patent in detail should it ever be used against them in court,” Purcher reports. “While their multi-touch patent primarily relates to the original 2007 iPhone in a plethora of ways including its virtual keyboard, it also covers touch technologies as they relate to the iPod’s clickwheel and beyond. Additonally, the invention covers how to accurately translate a 2-D finger contact area on the touch screen information into a unique 1-D cursor position.”
Purcher reports, “The multi-touch patent also covers touch in relation with a number of known applications, such as: a telephone application, a video conferencing application, an e-mail application, an instant messaging application, a blogging application, a photo management application, a digital camera application, a digital video camera application, a web browsing application, a digital music player application, and/or a digital video player application.”
Much more in the full article, which includes Apple’s patent application illustrations, here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]
Release the hounds and the sharks.
If patent infringement is deliberate, the damages are tripled. Therefore it is best for companies not to read each other’s patents so that any infringement is demonstrably accidental.
Suppose a company reads but misunderstands a patent, so they end up infringing on it despite their best efforts. The fact that they read the patent can be used as evidence that the infringement is deliberate, and that results in triple damages. It’s cheaper and wiser and incurs less risk if they don’t read the patent in the first place.
Willful is the word, willful infringement OS the term.
Fucked is the culprit.
Well said, young Padawan. May the Schwartz be with you!
Ignorance of the law is not a binding defense, and since this area is more volatile then most I am sure that a company or those that run such company will be looked at as inept and incompetent due to past litigation that have surfaced in the Last years.
Breakdown: if you and or a firm represents a company, it it’s your responsibility to be aware and to notify such persons of the ever changing laws that may effect such company and or it’s shareholders. “this includes patents and anything that can effect a entity as being legally binding as to effect stock or other assets”
Claiming one is not aware of such patent or anything that is binding in that company or users field of business etc… is not a legal defense, and has been used to show contempt for the court system if used in such a way as a defense.
Please forgive the context of this post, I am typing this out as I hit those famous stop lights we are all so fond of.
We are going to see a shift of how courts deal with tease things very soon, it is happening now, unfortunately we are all dealing with ” Horse and buggy Laws ” and such thease laws need a complete Re-write, & until then we suffer through dark age attempts to taylor such laws in a new century.
Sadly this patent will be declared invalid by some East Texas judge because some other person has a patent for “touching your computer and making things happen” type patent.
Just saying…… Its a crazy world. 🙁
Do your homework before you talk shit.
Wow. Angry much?
Kinda feels like Apple is sick of being everybody’s free R&D department.
Apple had acquired the GUI-mouse idea from Xerox Park and had done extensive research to implement it on the Mac. When Microsoft came out with Windows, Apple was furious, but someone at Apple had entered into a badly worded licensing agreement with Microsoft. The purpose was to let Microsoft develop applications for the Mac, but it inadvertently gave Microsoft permission to copy the GUI. Apple lost tons of business over the next 15 years as a result and nearly passed out of existence. Apple learned its lesson and became one of the most zealous guardians of its intellectual property. The first lock on the door is to patent things. The second lock on the door is to withhold information about future plans. Even if a competitor infringes on their intellectual property, they are building a clone of version 1 while Apple is working on version 2. This guarantees that Apple will stay ahead, because you can’t pass someone by following them.
“Apple had acquired the GUI-mouse idea from Xerox Park”
The pointing device, called a “mouse”, they saw at Xerox PARC was a completely different device than what Apple’s mouse became.
“but it inadvertently gave Microsoft permission to copy the GUI”
Not exactly, Apple ported their Macintosh Toolbox API to DOS/Intel so that Microsoft could build GUI applications for both platforms. Unfortunately the contract was poorly worded and Microsoft was able to use the API set to build a better version of Windows; 3.0, since their previous attempts were utter crap.
And we might say the THIRD lock is Apple’s ability to make this stuff cheaper (!) than anyone else!
The days of ceding all profit to MS or anyone else are OVER.
Apple mown Multi- Touch, lock stock and barrel.
Well, you might have been righ the first time They’re likely to mown (moan), there Breeze, if they don’t start winning more lawsuits.
Lol
Please explain yourself, what are your talking about….?.
List links and information to back up Apple losing, I would love to see information that is current, “within the past 5 years.”
Since I am not aware of what your are inferring Mike.
Apple owns Multi -Touch, lock stock and barrel.
Sadly that may not be true. Several times now judges have commented that apple patents are invalid.
Really, like what… List all information and show any patents that have been invalidated…
None have been invalidated as you are claiming, maybe in the context of not being used for a case they can’t use a patent.
Show me and everyone else with proof and links that what you say is true. Facts are you can’t, Non of Apple patents have been found invalidated, only that they can’t use such patents as a defense.
Big difference then. What you suggest eldernorm.
Not what you implied at all.
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!
Some of Apple’s original iPhone patent applications are now becoming granted patents. Yet something tells me that over the next few years there’s likely to be a ton more and Google knows it. That’s why they’re top dog lawyer and Eric Schmidt are moaning and crying about Apple’s “Bogus Patents.” They know that Android could back in court over and over again with Apple. That’s why they ran out and over paid for the Motos patents to counter Apple’s key touch patents. Good luck Google.