The computer mouse? In which way? The function is pretty much the same, but certain companies have made it a lot more complex.
As a means of human computer interaction - we've established that you don't feel using a finger to initiate a pull to refresh interaction should be patentable. The mouse is also a finger driven mechanism to move, or "refresh" the position of a cursor or data stream, so it does the same thing essentially. Is the mouse therefore patentable, or not, following the decision you've made about pull to refresh, which you said shouldn't be.
So the inventor of the mouse shouldn't have been allowed to patent it is what you are saying?
Oh, now you're talking about the original inventor. Yes, he should have been able to patent the idea of what the mouse does.
But Microsoft, Apple, Razer or any other companies patenting THEIR version of the mouse? Absolutely not.
Which is exactly my point. Apple didn't 'invent' those 3 things you were talking about. They were merely the first company to use it on a successful product.
Oh, now you're talking about the original inventor. Yes, he should have been able to patent the idea of what the mouse does.
But Microsoft, Apple, Razer or any other companies patenting THEIR version of the mouse? Absolutely not.
Which is exactly my point. Apple didn't 'invent' those 3 things you were talking about. They were merely the first company to use it on a successful product.
So which other mobile, multi-touch devices utilized pinch and tap to zoom, and bouncy content borders?
“The court is going to be busy with this post-trial discussion and various motions for weeks, maybe longer,” Shaver said. Samsung then gets 30 days to file an appeal, and it will probably use all of that time. “Appellate courts work slowly… Just to hear from the Federal Circuit could take a year and a half. This is a case it would not surprise me if the Supreme Court takes, so there may not be a truly final decision for years.”
Does it matter who utilized them? Apple didn't 'invent' the idea, therefore they shouldn't have been to 'patent' the idea.
Englebart invented the mouse. Not Microsoft, Logitech, Razer or Apple. Therefore Englebart should have been able to patent the mouse.
They both invented new interfaces and interface conventions to existing devices. There was no mouse interface to computers prior to Englebart, and there was no multi-touch interface to phones prior to Apple. This is why both were able to obtain patents on their designs.
Except that it isn't about multi-touch relating to the 'phone.' And it shouldn't be. It is how multiple inputs interact with any touch screen.
Quote:
Apple was denied the trademark simply because it is too broad, and lacks distinctiveness to Apple alone. As a reference, NYU’s Jeff Han has multiple mentions of Multi-Touch as a generic term in papers from 2005 and before. Here’s his multi-touch video demonstration more than a year before Apple filed for ‘Multi-Touch’ or released the iPhone.
When they finally got granted the patent, a lot of people didn't like it. I wonder how much money they spent convincing the patent office to grant it for them. Only took 3 some years.
So no they didn't invent it. Didn't even come close. They just took it and applied it to the first phone that became really popular with consumers.
I find it hilarious when people say Apple came up with these ideas.
When they finally got granted the patent, a lot of people didn't like it. I wonder how much money they spent convincing the patent office to grant it for them. Only took 3 some years.
So no they didn't invent it. Didn't even come close. They just took it and applied it to the first phone that became really popular with consumers.
I find it hilarious when people say Apple came up with these ideas.
Oh wow...dude, that's for the trademark on the term "multi-touch". It has nothing to do with patents.
For everyone in this thread, you must truly watch this documentary if you want to truly see the harm in this ruling, its not a fanboy vs fanboy outcome, its another dangerous precedent in the patent madness in software.
The patent system is the US is incredibly flawed - instead of promoting advancements, it allows companies to hide behind patents and prevent other companies from entering the market.
I hope the Motorola/Apple lawsuits show how Apple infringes on other products as well. I'd like to see the patent system revamped even more.
The purpose of a patent is exactly that to help protect the company who gets the patent to prevent others from using that technology.
The question of whether Apple should have been granted the patents when some of this was prior art is a separate issue, but I believe this case would have invalidated the patents if it was felt that is the case.
Absolutely ridiculous, now you sue over shapes and smooth rounded corners?
Maybe it's time for Bell telephone to sue everyone for stealing their design of push button dialing.
That was patented in 1960, and so was expired in 1980. The first products to use push button styled dialing were introduced around 1962, and were almost certainly licensed if not produced by Bell, since Bell is an enthusiastic participant in the patent space.
