Docstoc

Patents Whitepaper Management

Document Sample
Patents Whitepaper Management Powered By Docstoc
					The Multi Touch User Interface IP for Multi touch
                 Applications




                   WhitePaper
              Product Application
                   Analysis
             Value Documentation
                        Prepared by
                   Linda Marroquin, CEO
                       FrogPad, Inc.
                         May, 2010
“People will increasingly interact with computers using speech or
  touch screens rather than keyboards. It's one of the big bets
                           we're making”
Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates. Pittsburgh, Feb. 21st, 2008

     Simply stated, when Multi Touch UI Inc. defined the
  specifications for a downloadable keyboard for multi touch
     applications using the Multi Touch UI user interface
methodology, we recognized the value of this patent for all multi
                        touch applications.
                        The Multi Touch UI IP and Market Review

   The Multi Touch UI algorithm, patented in 1998 has 4 particular modalities required for any
    and all multi touch applications. Sequential entry, non sequential entry, release entry and a
    modifier. This algorithm precedes many Multi Touch patents including ‘Fingerwork’s’, the IP that
    Apple acquired for their multi touch applications. Our opinion is that Fingerwork’s borrows
    without authorization all 4 of Multi Touch UI ’s modalities.


   Entering data by simultaneously releasing two keys is equivalent to entering data by releasing
    two "frames" or "spots" on a touch screen as it performs the same function (user interface) in
    the same way (one handed, two fingered, triggered upon release) yielding the same result (data
    entry) and multi touch is a new technology for which adequate vocabulary has not been fully
    developed.


   The reason for all these "controversies" over other multi-touch patents is that it's not clear if
    other patents actually cover simultaneous pressing of two or more keys, which is the heart of
    multi-touch system. And even if it does, it is vulnerable to attacks in case of litigation because of
    their somewhat unclear, complex and narrow patent claims. The fight will be long and expensive,
    and outcome is uncertain. Furthermore, other multi touch patents will most certainly face a
    number of counter suits.



           The Multi Touch UI patent is simple and clear.
   Multi Touch UI Algorithm data entry system that enters data under four sets of circumstances,
    and these four sets of data entries can be indisputably demonstrated on current multi touch
    mobiles. Leaving the only point needed to be explain is whether current mobiles are “A data
    entry system operated with one hand comprising; plurality of primary keys". There is no
    argument that current mobiles are a data entry system operated with one hand, as well as a
    phone and a display screen. And a multi-touch screen is comprising; plurality of primary keys
    because it's divided into a number of grid, and each grid is capable of sensing a touch and making
    an electrical contact - from a functional point, this is no different from a key senses a touch and
    making an electrical contact. And therefore current mobiles are able to enter data under four
    sets of circumstances described in Multi Touch UI patent.


The simplicity of this Multi Touch IP is the heart of this
                       argument.
Multi Touch UI Patent for Multi Touch Applications
   “  If you're asking yourself why Apple or Palm would develop a product that so obviously infringes on
 published patents, it's because somewhere along the line, each company made the decision that it could
   realistically convince a court that those patents were invalid -- most likely because they're "obvious,"
   which is a word loaded with legal meaning in the patent realm. For our purposes, we can just say that
      "obvious" means that you can't patent a combination of different existing things, you have to do
something new -- and while we're not going to judge Apple or Palm's patents on that standard, we will say
 that there's plenty of meat for the attorneys on both sides to chew on. All you really need to know is that
  by suing Palm, Apple's putting its iPhone patents at risk, and that's an awful big ante. Same for Palm if it
sues Apple and loses -- it stands the risk of losing its patents, and we'd bet it's making a tidy sum licensing
                              at least some of them out to other companies.   ”
                                                  Engadget




The Multi Touch UI patent number is 5793312. And the letter patent number is 6348878. Both are
accessible at USTPO site.

We are proposing that any data entry on all multi touch displays/screens requires the 4 modalities of the
Patented Multi Touch UI algorithm. This is a strong patent and it raises doubt in any other user interface
patent since 1998.

A multi-touch system is disclosed that compares finger arrangements at the beginning of multi-touch
gestures and discriminates between neutral- and spread-hand performances. Gestures by the neutral-
and spread-hand versions of each chord are then mapped to separate, but intuitively related cursor
functions or sets of commands. Less-frequently performed functions and commands are typically assigned
to the spread-hand chord, since spreading the hand from neutral takes deliberate effort. With these
neutral and spread distinctions, a two-handed gesture set can be packed into a one-handed touch
surface, or for two-handed touch surfaces, twice as many intuitively customizable gesture command sets
can be accommodated.

This document describes the data entry system that enters data under four sets of circumstances. And out
of the four sets, the release and sequential entry are not new; mouse and chording keyboard have been
using release entry for a long time, and sequential entry is essentially the same as pressing two regular
keys in sequence. But Multi Touch UI is the first to use non-sequential entry along with sequential entry
using one common key between non-sequential and sequential entry. In effect, giving every key an
additional way to enter a unique function. This non-sequential entry along with the ability to enter
sequentially too is at heart of Multi Touch UI and Multi-touch screens. And there is no way to achieve this
other than entering data under the four sets of circumstances described. Multi-touch screens do use all
four sets (and some more such as 3, 4, 5 fingers, but adding to a patented technology does not excuse
from infringement) of circumstances and therefore it infringes on the patent # 5793312

This uses the Multi Touch UI patent. With close scrutiny, it is not a chording but a multi-touch system
because it uses both slide (sequential) and simultaneous (non-sequential) two fingers (or more) functions.
It is mathematically impossible for a same key to get involved in the both ways without using the Multi
Touch UI IP. The rest of fancy functionalities are built "in addition" to the Multi Touch UI system, which
does not change the fact it is using the Multi Touch UI algorithm, and therefore they are using the this IP.

Current mobiles use Multi Touch UI Algorithm

Multi Touch UI is US patent # 5793312, Claim 1 (the definition used to determine infringement) states;
"A data entry system (includes but not necessarily a keyboard) operated with one hand, comprising:"
Almost anything that can be operated with one hand can be operated with two hands if one chooses to do
so. In another words, there is no such thing as it can only be operated with one hand. So a data entry
system operated with one hand means it can be operated with one hand. But the bigger touch screens use
one or two finger (of one hand) scroll or drawing functions. This can not be done without Multi Touch UI
algorithm. For sure, it also uses three or more fingers, and the second hand too, but there can not be a
third finger without the second being there first, and the second hand without the first one hand being
there first. As I said before, adding to an existing patent does not excuse from the infringement.)

US patent # 5793312, Claim 1
States;

 "A data entry system operated with one hand, comprising:"

    “A data entry system” means any data entry system, including Touch-Screen or
    traditional Keyboard. Almost anything that can be operated with one hand can be
    operated with two hands if one chooses to do so. So “operated with one hand”
    means it can be operated with one hand.

 “a plurality of primary keys;”

    For a Touch-Screen to be functional, the screen must be divided into graphically
    indicated different areas to be touched. This plurality of areas is identical to
    traditional plurality of keys in terms of its purpose and function as on and off
    electrical switches. The distinction of “primary” is in contrast to “secondary” key,
    which is described later.

   “each of said plurality of primary keys capable of being depressed and released;”

    “Being depressed and released;” is identical to touched and untouched of Touch-
    Screen in terms of its purpose and function as on and off electrical switches.

 “each of said plurality of primary keys generating a distinct primary code upon
  depression;”

    In order for each primary (in contrast to secondary) key to exist as a distinct key, it
    must generate a distinct primary code upon depression. This distinct primary code is
    not to be confused with output code, which is the actual function it executes. In
    Multi-Touch data entry, output code will not be generated until either the depressed
    key is released, or another key is depressed before the first key is released.

 “at least one secondary key;”

    In case of iPhone; under certain screens such as Map or Web-site, one can use two
    fingers to touch two different locations (keys) and enter an output code such as [get
    ready to expand or shrink the image]. But when a finger touches one of the same
    two keys described above and then by sliding, the finger touches a second key before
    the first key is released, then the image scrolls toward the direction of the second
    key. In another words, the same key generates two different output codes when
    combined with another key. And since the output codes are generated when a
    second key is pressed, the each key involved must have a “primary” or “secondary”
    designation in order for the data entry system to know when to generate one kind of
    output code, or another. In the case of iPhone, the first key touched is always the
   primary key, and the second key, based on its location (immediately next to the first
   key is a primary and some distance away is a secondary), is either a primary or a
   secondary.

 “each of said at least one secondary key capable of being depressed and released;”

   “being depressed and released;” is identical to touched and untouched of Touch-
   Screen in terms of its purpose and function as on and off electrical switches.

 “each of said at least one secondary key generating a distinct secondary code upon
  depression;”

   In order for each secondary (in contrast to primary) key to exist as a distinct key, it
   must generate a distinct secondary code upon depression. This distinct secondary
   code is not to be confused with output code, which is the actual function it executes.
   In Multi-Touch data entry, output code will not be generated until either the
   depressed key is released, or another key is depressed before the first key is
   released.

 “wherein the sum of each of said primary codes and each of said secondary codes
  is distinct from each such other sum and from each of said primary codes and
  each of said secondary codes;”

   Since each primary or secondary key generates distinct primary or secondary code, a
   “sum” (combination) of each primary and secondary code is distinct from each such
   other sum and from each of said primary codes and each of said secondary codes.
   This distinct sum of code is not to be confused with output code, which the
   programmer may assign any function he chooses.

 “wherein the sum of any two of said secondary codes is distinct from each such
  other sum and from each of said primary codes and each of said secondary
  codes;”

   Since each secondary key generates distinct secondary code, a “sum” (combination)
   of two primary codes is distinct from each such other sum and from each of said
   primary codes and each of said secondary codes. This distinct sum of code is not to
   be confused with output code, which the programmer may assign any function he
   chooses
 “a controller;”

   A Central Processing Unit

 “said controller in electrical communication with said keys;”

 “said output codes generated by said controller depending on which of said
  primary and secondary codes are generated by the depression of said keys;”

   Each combination is unique, so a programmer may assign a unique function to each
   combination, or a same function such as [get ready to expand or shrink the image]
   to each and every combination.
 “said controller transmitting characters or functions;
 “each of said output codes corresponding to one of said characters or functions so
  that the generation of one of said output codes results in the transmission of said
  corresponding character or function;”

 “said controller generating said output codes and transmitting said characters or
  functions under four sets of circumstances;”

 “said first set of circumstances occurring upon the release of a prior to depressed
  key, if no other said key is concurrently depressed;”

   In case of iPhone, under certain screens such as Web-site, one can select, for
   instance, a hyper-link by touching that key, and enter that link by releasing the key.
   Thereby generating an output code upon the release of the key.

 “wherein said output code generated by said controller is equivalent to said
  primary or secondary code generated by the depression of said released key;”
   Since each key has a prime or secondary designation, the output code generated by
   the release of that key must reflect the designation.

 “said second set of circumstances occurring upon the concurrent depression of one
  of said plurality of primary keys and one of said at least one secondary key,
  regardless of which of said keys is depressed first in time;”

   In case of iPhone, if two fingers press two keys that are some distance apart, an
   output code (get ready to shrink or expand the image) is generated in regardless to
   which of the two key is pressed first in time. The first key pressed is the primary key
   and second is the secondary.

 “wherein said output code generated by said controller is equivalent to the sum of
  said primary and secondary codes generated by said depressed primary and
  secondary keys;”

   An output code generated by a combination of a primary and a secondary key is the
   same regardless to the which of the two key is pressed first in time.

 “said third set of circumstances occurring upon the concurrent depression of two
  of said plurality of primary keys;”
   In case of iPhone, if one finger presses two keys by sliding the finger, an output code
   (scroll to the direction of the second key), that is based on the first primary code
   generated by the first primary key pressed, is generated. The first key pressed is the
   primary key and second is also a primary.

 “wherein said output code generated by said controller is equivalent to said
  primary code generated by said primary key depressed first in time;”

   An output code generated by a combination of a primary and a primary key is
   equivalent of the first Primary code generated by the primary key depressed first in
   time.
 “and said fourth set of circumstances occurring upon the concurrent depression of
  two of said at least one secondary keys;”
    In case of iPhone, when two fingers (primary and secondary) are down, by sliding
    those fingers simultaneously, one can shrink or expand the image. And sliding the
    secondary key is the concurrent depression of the secondary keys.

 “wherein said output code generated by said controller is equivalent to the sum of
  said secondary codes generated by said depressed secondary codes”


In the case of iPhone, under certain screens such as a Web-site, it clearly enters data under the four sets
of circumstances described herein. And therefore, it is using the Multi Touch UI patent # 5793312.
"To touch does nothing until you release.” is correct in describing a "release entry" in a sense that "to
touch" does not generate an "intended function". But as release could not occur without first being
touched, if nothing else, "to touch" turns on a logic circuit. It's up to the programmer what function or no
function it generates. In case of sequential or non-sequential entry, an intended function is generated at
the moment the second key is touched.

Apple’s latest patent #7,479,949:
“A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen
display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or
more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and
processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one
or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic
for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation
command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command
to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of
items.”

Multi Touch UI ’s response:
The key word here is "one or more” finger contacts. In order to detect one or more finger contacts, the
system must "wait" if a second finger makes contact after the first one makes contact. It means while the
first key is down, it has options to determine what command to perform (or not perform) depending on
the next course of actions; one is releasing the key, in which case it can enter a predetermined command
associated with the press of the first key and subsequent release (a release entry); the second is the finger
holding the first key down slide up or down (or in angle), thus momentarily pressing the first and the
second key simultaneously, in which case it can enter a predetermined up or down one-dimensional
vertical scrolling command (or two-dimensional command) associated with the press of the first (primary)
key and subsequent up or down wise (or certain angle wise) sequentially pressed second (primary) key (a
sequential entry); the third is if a second (secondary) key (finger), that is some distance away from the
first (primary) key is pressed, in which case it can enter a predetermined none-sequentially
oriented command (a same command regardless to the press sequence) such as transition to next sets of
command associated with the press of the first key and subsequent none-sequential press of the second
key (a none-sequential entry); the fourth is when the two keys are down, in which case it can enter a
none-sequentially oriented command based on the combination of each of the two (primary and
secondary) keys' subsequent sequential movement such as "pinch, zoom, parallel slide", and when the
secondary key making the sequential movement is the "concurrent pressing of secondary keys (modifier)"
- a fourth set of circumstance described in Multi Touch UI algorithm.
            Additional Documentation




Companies Requiring Multi Touch UI Patent
Mobile Phone Operating Systems

Apple
Microsoft WM7
Google Moblin
Palm
Blackberry
Nokia Symbian

Computer Hardware

IBM
Dell
HP
Apple
Sony
Sharp
Panasonic
N-Trig


http://www.n-trig.com/Content.aspx?Page=SupportSDK

You will notice on the NTrig product as on other products, that all four modalities use two fingers. Since
the data was entered at the moment the key was pressed, there was no such thing as entering a data with
two fingers. Multi Touch UI changed all that by entering a (intended) data at the moment the key is
released rather than when pressed. This gave options for the same key to enter different data by pressing
another key before the first key is released. And since each key has a unique code, if two keys are pressed
simultaneously (regardless to the sequence), a combined unique code maybe entered. But at the same
time, the system maybe programmed so that when the second key is pressed (before the first is released),
then the function of the first key is entered as sequentially the first.

All four of the Multi-touch modalities demonstrated here use two fingers and subsequent (directional and
release) movement of the two fingers. When the user first touches the screen with the two fingers, it is
the fact that the two keys are down that matters, not the sequence of the key presses. And subsequently
when those two keys move in certain directions (pinch, rotate, parallel and release), it is the sequence of
the key press (and release) that matters since the keys are down already. So Multi-touch screens enter
data by pressing one key to the next either sequentially or non-sequentially. And since it is the second key
that triggers an intended function, the second key must have a distinction to tell whether to enter data
sequentially or non-sequentially in relation to the first key. The only way to do that is by having a
distinction of primary or secondary (as described in the document 1) on all the keys involved so the
system may make determination based on which (primary/primary, primary/secondary,
secondary/secondary) of the combination a given two keys are.

Semi Conductor Companies

Cypress Semiconductor
Intel
TI
Potential Competitors
The potential competitors are also new methodologies, and do not have the background and acceptance
in the industry of Multi Touch UI .



Fingerworks 7,030,861
Purchased by Apple
http://www.fingerworks.com/

Their patent is the way to "double" five-fingers combinations (codes) by taking whether the fingers are
"neutral" or "spread" position into account. In another words, it has to do with how it recognize the codes
rather than how it enters data. A traditional chording keyboard enters data(codes) by release of all the
keys involved, but their touch-pad enters data (codes) by (sequentially) touching another key, as well as
by release such as multiple finger taps. This entering data by touching another key makes the touch-pad a
multi-touch data entry system rather than a chording data entry system. And if it enters data by
sequential touching of another key, then a distinction (primary or secondary) must be made between a
key to enter data sequentially or non-sequentially in the case of a key to form a code. That is when the
touch-pad infringes on the Multi Touch UI patents by entering data under the four sets of circumstances.
The fact that Apple bought them out shows that Apple desperately wants to "somehow" protect their
version of multi-touch technology, but failing thus far to do so definitively. If A company such as Apple
were faced with this legal question, a company would be much more open to an immediate opportunity
to protect their technology with the FP patent. This coupled with the fact that the FP IP causes doubt, and
that this same opportunity may be offered to any competition.
Swype
www.swypeinc.com

This was developed by the same inventors of Tegic T9 predictive text input. Swype has been designed
to run in real-time on relatively low-powered portable devices.
       The Swype software is very tightly written with a total memory footprint of under 1 MB,
       An application requiring from 500K – 900K (depending on options, when compiled for the
        Windows Mobile platform).
       65,000-word language database with an average size of approximately 250K.It is made up of
        three major components: Input path analyzer, Word matching search engine with accompanying
        word database, User interface – which is customizable by OEM’s.

Mobience
http://www.mobience.com/

This is just the same as typing with a regular phone numeric keypad, which is Multi-tap (one for A, two for
B, three for C) keypad. The only thing different from a regular keypad is its letter layout and having
some auxiliary keys; it is arranged to "approximate" QWERTY with some consideration given to letter
frequencies, and auxiliary keys don't do much to overall performance. The video presentation greatly
exaggerate (if not downright misread) the typing speed it shows.

These are other Multi Touch patents.

PAT. NO.Title 1 7,460,110 Dual mode touch system 2 7,411,575 Gesture recognition method and
touch system incorporating the same 3 7,355,593 Pointer tracking across multiple overlapping
coordinate input sub-regions defining a generally contiguous input region 4 7,256,772 Auto-aligning
touch system and method 5 7,236,162 Passive touch system and method of detecting user input 6
7,232,986 Apparatus for detecting a pointer within a region of interest 7 7,184,030 Synchronization
of cameras in camera-based touch system to enhance position determination of fast moving objects 8
7,030,861 System and method for packing multi-touch gestures onto a hand

A multi-touch system is disclosed that compares finger arrangements at the beginning of multi-touch
gestures and discriminates between neutral- and spread-hand performances. Gestures by the neutral-
and spread-hand versions of each chord are then mapped to separate, but intuitively related cursor
functions or sets of commands. Less-frequently performed functions and commands are typically assigned
to the spread-hand chord, since spreading the hand from neutral takes deliberate effort. With these
neutral and spread distinctions, a two-handed gesture set can be packed into a one-handed touch
surface, or for two-handed touch surfaces, twice as many intuitively customizable gesture command sets
can be accommodated.
This infringes on the Multi Touch UI patent. With close scrutiny, it is not a chording but a multi-touch
system because it uses both slide (sequential) and simultaneous (non-sequential) two fingers (or more)
functions. It is mathematically impossible for a same key to get involved in the both ways without using
the Multi Touch UI IP. The rest of fancy functionalities are built "in addition" to the Multi Touch UI
system, which does not change the fact it is using the Multi Touch UI algorithm, and therefore they are
using the FP IP.
                                             Valuation
Mobile Phones which will require FP IP


139 million smart phones 2008
                  Mobile platform wars: Symbian top mobile OS globally; Mac OS X surges READ FULL STORY

                  Larry Dignan: Gartner has tallied the global smartphone sales by operating system and
                  the results put Symbian as the top dog with market share of 47.1 percent with RIM's
                  BlackBerry OS a distant second at 19.5 percent. Here's a look at the figures for the
                  fourth quarter.
Touch screens that will require Multi Touch IP


Analyst firm iSuppli said that global shipment revenues for the leading touch-screen technologies will rise to
$4.4bn by 2012. (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2211952/iphone-gives-touch-screens )



Applications that will require Multi Touch IP


1 billion iPhone Apps Downloaded
Softpedia - Bucharest,Romania
... “That’s because they leverage the groundbreaking technology in iPhone — like the Multi-Touch
interface, the accelerometer, GPS, real-time 3D graphics, ...
See all stories on this topic



Microprocessors that will require Multi touch IP
IMS says new Cypress CapSense solutions to expand market leadership Cypress Semiconductor
announced that the 2008 report Touch screen & Input Technologies for Mobile Handsets from IMS
Research in Austin, Texas, cited Cypress as the industry leader for touch sensing. IMS reports that
Cypress has an estimated 2.5 billion touch sensors in mobile handsets, automobiles, computers, white
goods, and consumer electronics. The report further says, IMS Research believes that Cypress continues
to serve as the market leader for touch sensors. The report also highlighted Cypress’s push into multi-
touch touch screens, noting that a variety of factors are driving the evolution of input technologies for
mobile handsets. The most significant factor is the increasing need of users to have a better way to
navigate with the advanced graphical user interface of newer handsets. Cypress’s TrueTouch touch screen
solution lets users to make simple, intuitive single and multitouch gestures like tapping an application to
open, panning through photo albums, scrolling down an e-mail, and
rotating and pinching pictures. Unlike other solutions, the TrueTouch solution is also capable of multi-
touch all point touch screen functionality, meaning that up to 10 simultaneous touches on the screen can
be tracked independently. This capability provides touch screen designers with the most freedom to
create new and creative interfaces for mobile handsets, portable media players, GPS systems and other
products. With the TrueTouch solution, Cypress expansion into the touch-screen market IMS writes, is
expected to help Cypress maintain that presence as a market leader.




Licensing revenue comparables:



                    Public Comparables                                     Sun
                    Percentages      Logitech                 Mad Catz Microsystems
                    Gross Margin           34.4%                   25.1%      45.2%
                    SG&A                   23.2%                   10.3%      27.8%
                    EBIT                   11.9%                  14.1.%       7.9%
                    Licensing Rev            N/A                     N/A      $5.1B
                    Licensing Rev %                                           36.8%
                                                  Multi-Touch Mobile Statistics

                          Follow the Leader, iPhone was the first for a multi touch phone




                                                                                                       Top 7 Competitors
  70 million iPhones by 2010 with 300% yearly growth.                                                   With Multi-touch
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/03/31/analyst-how-apple-sells-45-million-iphones-in-2009/
             Assumptions: iPhone =180,000,000 in 4 years                                              #1 - HTC
                   Competitors total 180,000,000                                                      #2 – Google
               Combined=360,000,000 units is 4 years                                                  #3 -Motorola
                                                                                                      #4 - Nokia
                                                                                                      #5 - Sony Ericsson X1
                                                                                                      #6 – Blackberry
                                          Notes and Articles


MicroSoft white paper regarding Apple IP
                         http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Engadget Article legal opinion regarding Apple and Palm IP :
              http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/


Apple vs. Palm: the in-depth analysis by Nilay Patel, posted Jan 28th 2009 at 1:28PM

Apple and Palm kicked a lot of dirt at each other last week -- acting Apple CEO Tim Cook flatly told
analysts that "We will not stand for people ripping off our IP" when asked specifically about competition
like the Palm Pre, and Palm responded with a similarly-explicit "We have the tools necessary to defend
ourselves." At issue, of course, is that the Pre employs a multitouch screen and gestures almost exactly
like those made famous on the iPhone -- and if you'll recall, Steve Jobs introduced multitouch on the
iPhone with a slide reading "Patented!" To top it all off, the past few days have seen a number of media
outlets proclaim that Apple's been awarded a "multitouch patent" without so much as a shred of analysis,
instead hyping up a supposed future conflict. That's just not how we play it, so we enlisted Mathew
Gavronski, a patent attorney in the Chicago office of Michael Best & Friedrich, to help us clear up some of
the confusion and misinformation that's out there -- read on for more.

Just a couple notes before we begin: first, we're not going to get into whether or not Apple or Palm
should have been granted particular patents or if the patent system is working as it should -- that's a
philosophical argument way outside the scope of any potential lawsuit that might arise. Suffice it to say
that although we're aware the patent system has flaws, there's no debating that people and companies
should be compensated for their work, and we're not going to begrudge Apple or Palm for trying to do
everything they can within rules of the current system to protect and profit from the hundreds of millions
of dollars each has spent on R&D. You can bet the public policy implications of the patent system don't
keep Ed Colligan or Steve Jobs up at night; we're going to assume both sides will be using every trick and
decades-old patent it can find to win a potential lawsuit.

Second, while we can sit here and play with an iPhone to figure out what exactly Apple's trying to patent,
we really don't have much to go on with the Pre apart from some brief hands-on time with units running
alpha-level code at CES, so we can't really make definitive calls one way or another. A lot can change
between now and whenever the Pre is launched, so while we're going to do our best to identify the
elements of the Pre and the iPhone that could potentially infringe Apple or Palm patents, treat the Pre
stuff with an extra dose of salt.

So now that we've got the caveats out of the way, let's get started breaking down the areas where Apple
and Palm can really do some courtroom damage, shall we?

Apple, multitouch and "the multitouch patent"

If you're to believe the conventional wisdom, Apple has a death grip on multitouch patents, which is why
we haven't seen it (officially) implemented or fully exploited on other capacitive touchscreen phones like
the G1 and Storm, even though they might be capable of it. Like all conventional wisdom, this meme is
partially rooted in reality, and partially exaggerated for the sake of the story: while multitouch itself is
nothing new -- Palm PR is actually sending out this 2007 Bill Buxton white paper showing roots of
multitouch appearing as early as 1984 -- Steve wasn't kidding around when he said that Apple had patents
on its particular implementation. The company purchased a company called FingerWorks in 2005,
and several patents on the tech came along with founders Wayne Westerman and John Elias -- and
Apple's been busy since, applying for several more multitouch patents in the three years since the
acquisition.

Here's the thing, though -- patent #7,479,949, entitled "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user
interface for determining commands by applying heuristics" that you might have seen touted around the
web as Apple's "key multitouch patent"? It's really not, at least anymore. Patents become narrower in
scope as they go through the approval process, and although we teasingly referred to it as "the iPhone
patent" when it was initially filed, it now only covers touch devices that have a very specific interface
feature: sensing whether or not you want to just scroll up and down in one dimension or pan around in
two dimensions based on the angle you initially move your finger relative to the screen. It's way easier to
explain this in a video:

There's a little more to it, but that's really the key element covered in the broadest claims of the patent. If
a device doesn't have this feature, it doesn't infringe this patent. So in order for Apple to win a case
against Palm based on this patent, it would have to show that the Pre has the same scrolling behavior.
Which it very well might, as we saw at CES:

That looks awfully similar, if you ask us, but without having spent the same amount of time playing with
the Pre as we did toying with an iPhone to figure out what this patent was getting at, we can't say for sure
it's the same thing. Let's just say it'd be for the best if the Pre was always panning in two dimensions,
rather than switching to a purely vertical scrolling mode -- Apple's patent really wouldn't be applicable in
that case. Easy, right?

That's not the case for another iPhone interface patent, which is less to do with "multitouch" and more to
do with touchscreen interface behavior (a common theme with Apple's iPhone patents, actually):
#7,469,381, entitled "List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a
touch-screen display." This one covers a pretty famous iPhone behavior -- scrolling to the end of a
document, revealing the edge, and then "springing back." Again, way easier to demonstrate on video:

It's not going to be easy for Palm to claim that the Pre isn't infringing this one -- there's just no denying
the note-perfect reproduction of the iPhone behavior. We'll see if Palm releases the Pre with this
interface intact, since Apple has at least the beginnings of a claim against this one.

So where's the "multitouch patent" everyone keeps going on about? Well, we certainly couldn't find the
sort of broad patent that would qualify, and we didn't find much of anything that would keep anyone
from using multitouch gestures like pinch-to-zoom -- in fact, Apple has a better patent position with
regard to pinching gestures to cut, copy and paste than it does on pinching to zoom. We're not kidding: it
picked up #7,339,580 "Method and apparatus for integrating manual input " last year, which
straight-up covers "generating a cut command in response to a pinching motion between a thumb and a
fingertip detected on a multi-touch-sensitive surface." You won't find anything like that for pinch-to-
zoom, and at this point there are so many other multitouch systems (including Microsoft Surface and
Windows 7) out there using the gesture that we don't know if Apple could convince Uncle Sam to
dole out a patent on the idea. Go ahead and skip the Flintstones, there's your irony for the day.

Of course, just because Apple's current multitouch patents aren't as broad and sweeping as commonly
assumed doesn't mean it can't put the hurt on Palm with what it does have -- and from what we've seen,
the Pre's in some dangerous territory. (Plus, Apple still has plenty of pending patent applications out there
it can try and tweak to target the Pre, but we'll get to that later.) We'll be able to find out way more when
the Pre is actually launched -- trying to determine exact behaviors from short videos and hazy
recollections is a road to ruin.
We do have an iPhone here, however -- and looking at some of Palm's patents, we can pretty much say
that Apple's got some 'splainin to do.

Palm's patent portfolio

In all the rush to portray Apple as the big bad wolf, people seem to have forgotten that Palm is a
comeback story -- it's been in the game since 1992, and it's got a pretty hefty patent portfolio of its own.
Take #7,268,775, entitled "Dynamic brightness range for portable computer displays based on ambient
conditions," for example -- it covers automatically adjusting display brightness using an ambient light
sensor while leaving a user-selected brightness setting alone. Yep, that's exactly how the iPhone does it:
Or how about #7,007,239, "Method and apparatus for accessing a contacts database and telephone
services"? Claim 10 is an almost exact description of the iPhone's phone app -- buttons for dialing, call
history, contacts, and speed dial that stay on-screen as you toggle between them:




                 (510 is speed dial, 520 is the dialer, 530 is contacts, and 540 is call history)




Not only that, but it covers pulling up contacts by just typing in initials, which is totally in the iPhone:
Or how about #7,296,107, "System and method for detection of an accessory device connection status"?
It covers leaving the display at full brightness instead of auto-dimming while connected to a power source
during sync -- go ahead and try it, iPhone owners, that's what it does. And let's not forget 2001's greatest
  hit, patent #7,231,208, "User interface-technique for managing an active call": it describes in detail a
conference call management system that's exactly like the iPhone's -- you put one call on hold while you
  make another, and then you can independently manage each call from a single screen. Look familiar?
If you're going to say that the Pre crosses the boundaries of Apple's spring-back edge scrolling patent,
you're really not in a position to say that the iPhone doesn't similarly ape Palm's call-management patent
-- or the brightness patent, or the contacts patent, or the dim-during-sync patent, or... you get the idea.
Apple might be the more infamous IP juggernaut, but Palm has literally hundreds of patents of
its own, and we managed to dig up four that seem to directly implicate the iPhone in
just a few hours of searching. Imagine what Palm's lawyers could do, armed with their actual
knowledge of what Palm owns and the motivation of some serious hourly fees.

The consequences of playing with fire

If you're asking yourself why Apple or Palm would develop a product that so obviously infringes on
published patents, it's because somewhere along the line, each company made the decision that it could
realistically convince a court that those patents were invalid -- most likely because they're "obvious,"
which is a word loaded with legal meaning in the patent realm. For our purposes, we can just say that
"obvious" means that you can't patent a combination of different existing things, you have to do
something new -- and while we're not going to judge Apple or Palm's patents on that standard, we will
say that there's plenty of meat for the attorneys on both sides to chew on. All you really need to know is
that by suing Palm, Apple's putting its iPhone patents at risk, and that's an awful big ante. Same for
Palm if it sues Apple and loses -- it stands the risk of losing its patents, and we'd bet it's making a tidy
sum licensing at least some of them out to other companies.

Speaking of tidy sums, we haven't even begun to talk about the money involved here, and it's a lot --
enough to seriously tip the scales. Let's say Palm were to win: not only might Apple lose its patents, the
court would at the very least award Palm royalties for the patents the iPhone infringes, and at over 16m
iPhones sold so far, even a few percentage points adds up fast -- we're talking hundreds of millions of
dollars. If Apple wins? Well, Palm hasn't sold any Pres yet, so its exposure to royalty payments is much
lower -- and potentially losing some older patents it may or may not even be using doesn't seem like a
terrible punishment. Then again, if Palm loses, it probably won't be able to ship the Pre on time or as
promised, and that could well be the end of Palm.

What both sides could do is tweak their pending patent applications to more accurately describe their
competitors' products and then try to sue based on those -- it's actually considered good practice for
tech companies to always have patents pending, so they can try and cut their competitors off. For
example, Apple has a second patent identical to the "iPhone patent" filed with the patent office that it
can certainly slightly revise to try and loop in the Pre's scrolling behavior. Not only that, but Apple also has
tons of pending patent applications on multitouch that haven't really gone anywhere since they've been
filed, like this one that purports to flatly cover all capacitive multitouch surfaces. Will it ever get granted?
Who knows -- but it's certainly another card Apple can try to keep in its back pocket.

Wrap-up

So let's take a step back here and think about the bigger picture. You've got two large companies, each
loaded up with tons of patents and pending patents, only some of which we've touched on here, and
plenty of reasons to fight this one out: not only is Apple historically protective of its IP, it's got the
massively popular iPhone to defend, while Palm's more or less staking its survival on the success of the
Pre. It's going to be a bloodbath, right? Well, maybe, maybe not -- while we're not going to say that the
attorneys on each side aren't mentally picking out colors for their new BMWs, it's important to realize
that both sides stand to lose an awful lot in a potential lawsuit as well. Plus, to these lawyers' ears, Tim
Cook's statements the other day sounded more like an attorney-coached nonanswer than some angry
shot across Palm's bow -- it felt like Cook knew the question was coming and delivered his prepared
response a tick early, not like he suddenly remembered Apple's multimillion-dollar patent portfolio and
got fired up.
Still, we doubt this will all settle quietly in the night. More likely it's going to come down to whoever
decides to blink first -- and unless Palm decides to go out in a blaze of glory, files a declaratory judgment
action and tries to preemptively invalidate Apple's patents, we'd say the first shot's going to come from
Cupertino. After that, it's anyone's guess as to what might happen -- this isn't anywhere close to a full-
blown patent analysis, and we're sure the attorneys and law students out there will be able to find angles
and tactics we've missed. That said, we'll go on record: all we want is for both Apple and Palm to come to
the table, hammer out a cross-licensing agreement like other companies in the wireless industry do all the
time, and get back to work on innovative, exciting technologies and devices. The lawyers get paid that
way too, you know.

Disclaimer: Although Matt and Nilay are lawyers, they're not your lawyers, and this isn't formal legal
advice or analysis. To the extent this article might contain any statements regarding infringement of a
particular patent by a particular device or what those patents cover, those statements are attributable to
Nilay, not Matt, who still makes a living by giving actual legal advice to actual clients.
Apple takes the 'touch' out of multitouch

Posted by Eric Franklin

If you're intrigued by multitouch technology as much as I am, you've probably been following it
pretty closely and are at least impressed by its potential. But what could it do better? Acchording to
Apple, taking the "touch" out of multitouch would be a good first step.

According to an article on AppleInsider, Apple has issued a 30-page patent that touches on the
implementation of proximity sensors into its multitouch technology on devices larger than the iPhone.
The potential innards of a multitouch panel with proximity sensors don't do much for me, but robots may
feel differently.

The multitouch sensors combined with proximity sensors would let users interact with the given interface
without actually having to touch the screen. Now, this seems a tad ridiculous to me, and is anyone really
too lazy to move their finger an extra inch? Yeah they are, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Apple
sees some different applications for the technology. According to the company, users would have the
capability to turn off the entire touch-screen panel, or just portions of it. In addition, users would able to
power down one or more of the computer's systems by dimming or brightening the screen as they see fit.

Awesome, huh?! Alas, no. OK, I may be missing something, but why would you need a proximity sensor to
do this? You could just move your finger another inch and accomplish the same thing. The only unique
feature Apple cited from the filing was the idea that you could highlight virtual buttons on a display
without touching them. This could prepare the button for actually being pushed. Again, how is this
useful?I may be shortsighted (probably am) but the only advantage I can see for this technology is that
you wouldn't have to worry about scratching or smudging your screen anymore.

In the filing, Apple reportedly states that the proximity sensors could be made of infrared transmitters
and IR receivers. It speculates that a grid of IR receivers could be placed on the panel behind the touch
screen like the ones found in the latest iMacs and MacBooks. Each sensor would be able to detect the
presence or absence of an object within its vicinity. Using the data received from multiple receivers, it
could then be used to determine the positioning of an object above the panel.

AppleInsider quoted the filing as saying: "The transmitters and receivers can be positioned in a single
layer, or on different layers. In some embodiments, the proximity panel is provided in combination with a
display. The display can be, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD) or an organic light emitting diode
display (OLED display). Other types of displays can also be used. The IR transmitters and receivers can be
positioned at the same layer as the electronic elements of the display (e.g., the LEDs of an OLED display or
the pixel cells of an LCD display). Alternatively, the IR transmitters and receivers can be placed at different
layers."

OK, so now I know how it works. Still not sold on how useful being able to interact with the panel an inch
above it is useful. Unless the proximity can sense movement much more than an inch.
I looked at the diagram. It has a Multi-touch panel with a grid, which is "plurality of keys". It also has a
Multi-touch panel processor consisting of "channel scan logic" and "driver logic", where Frog data entry
system must sits. As for Proximity recognition, as the article mention that
I'm not sure what's the difference with a touch recognition, and what's it for; whether the fingers actually
touch or not touch, the fingers still has to get to "somewhere close enough".


        Apple did not invent auto-rotate. That feature appeared on digital cameras years before the
         Iphone. Heck, I remember auto-rotating computer monitors in the late 1980s.

        Here is a 2003, Nokia patent application for locking the touch-screen on a phone during an active
         call: http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20050079896/fulltext.html

        In regards to multi-touch, pinch scaling, that was first shown in 1991 in the Digital Desk system.

        No one is claiming that any one individual behavior is revolutionary..... Ever heard the phrase
         "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?

         Obviously you're not going to be won over as you have too much anti-Apple bias. Whatever. No
         other smartphone delivered the same level of user experience at the time the iPhone came out.
         This may seem like a subjective opinion, but it is the main reason the iPhone is so successful and
         all touch phones that came before it were such duds.

Get your hack on: unofficial multi-touch support released for ...
We've been hearing for months now that both Android and the T-Mobile G1 hardware have some
magical, top secret low-level support for multi-touch, but unless we can... you know, do something with
it, it really isn't doing anyone any ...
Engadget Mobile - http://www.engadgetmobile.com/


Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Apple ups the ante

By Prince McLean
Published: 10:00 AM EST
While Microsoft is working to refine its
flagship operating system to be more
palatable to a wide audience of PC users,
Apple is working to keep Mac OS X a key               Related AppleInsider articles:
attraction to Mac hardware to woo
potential switchers and retain its loyal             Road to Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bit to the...
users. Here's what's known about Mac                 Road to Snow Leopard: twice the RAM, half the...
OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard.                              Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits
                                                     Five undisclosed features of Apple's Mac OS X...
Previous Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow                 Apple previews Mac OS X Snow Leopard with...
Leopard segments

Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: competitive origins
Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Microsoft's comeback plan

Apple initially seemed to suggest that Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard would be a minor release following
2007's 10.5 Leopard, citing support for Exchange Server push messaging as the only customer-facing
feature. However, Apple historically directs attention upon its currently shipping products rather than its
future plans. As the Snow Leopard release grows closer (remarks at WWDC last summer indicated it
would ship "in about a year," or Summer 2009), more details have been released.

New kernel features in Snow Leopard

Snow Leopard will deliver a full 64-bit kernel, requiring the same significant "all at once" upgrade in
device drivers that Vista's significant kernel changes did. Apple will likely have an easier time pulling this
off, as Snow Leopard is only designed to run on a relatively small number of higher end PCs, all made by
Apple. Rather than trying to get lots of vendors on board as Microsoft must, Apple will be supplying the
majority of kernel-level drivers for Snow Leopard.

While Microsoft has sold a 64-bit version of Windows for Intel x86 PCs since mid-2005, actual 64-bit
adoption has been slow. Apple has incrementally supported 64-bit background servers and applications in
Mac OS X since the release of the PowerMac G5 in 2003; all 64-bit capable Macs can already run 64-bit
Mac OS X software because Apple doesn't offer two versions of its operating system; the same version of
today's Leopard runs both 32-bit and 64-bit code.

In Snow Leopard, this will improve as the entire operating system, including all bundled apps, will be
compiled for both 32-bit and 64-bits. This results in a roughly 15% increase in performance across the
board for 64-bit Macs, such as those with Core 2 Duo processors (most models released since 2006, as the
chart below depicts). It also has implication related to security hardening. Windows users also benefit
from running the 64-bit version of Microsoft's operating system, but compatibility problems have made
the move less attractive, leaving mainstream Windows users stuck on a 32-bit platform. Windows 7
perpetuates this problem by delaying the move to 64-bits to a future release.

In addition to bringing 64-bit processors into the mainstream of Mac computing by making 64-bit the
default rather than an option, Snow Leopard also debuts the fruits of Apple's efforts in making full use of
multiple cores and multiple processors. Snow Leopard's new Grand Central Dispatch is used to
aggressively and efficiently schedule processes across all available processor cores in parallel, and OpenCL
is being made available to allow developers to take advantage of the raw processing power that often lays
idle in the system's GPU.


                  The Mac at 25: Interface design
                  Macworld - San Francisco,CA,USA
                  A diagram from Apple’s patent filing for a multi-touch controlled device shows off one
  Macworld        possible direction that interface design could follow. ...
                  See all stories on this topic

Mobilewhack.com - http://www.mobilewhack.com/

Discussion of low-power netbooks in this form-factor:
http://www.oqo.com/
http://flipstart.com/
http://openpandora.org

Using this type of input scheme:
http://www.Multi Touch UI .com/
http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dft4rp7s_487dbnv4xgf
This first article in particular is a wee bit older, yet has excellent info on UI .
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=networ
king_and_internet&articleId=9011412&taxonomyId=16&intsrc=kc_feat
This article describes the potential of Multi Touch UI as a downloadable app for multi touch mobile
devices.
500 Million iPhone Apps Downloaded
Softpedia - Bucharest,Romania
... “That’s because they leverage the groundbreaking technology in iPhone — like the Multi-Touch
interface, the accelerometer, GPS, real-time 3D graphics, ...
See all stories on this topic

Five key handheld trends for 2009
Cnet Asia - San Francisco,CA,USA
It has been about two years since Apple first announced the iPhone, and to this day, there are still very
few mobile devices that come with multitouch. ...
See all stories on this topic
The Vaporware Netbook With Two Brains
Wired News - USA
By Bruce Sterling January 19, 2009 | 6:39:55 AM "In addition to its multitouch-capable tablets, Asus also
showed off a prototype of a strange, two-brained ...
See all stories on this topic


                                                  Stats
 World mobile phone stats. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_mob_pho-media-mobile-
 phones
 Manufacturers market share. http://stats.getjar.com/statistics/
 20 facts for 20 years of mobile communications
 At the end of 2007 the number of subscriber connections was over 3 billion and, if there was one
 active subscription per person, would represent half the planet's population. More information -
 [678kb, pdf] http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statistics/index.shtml
 INDUSTRY analysts also say it might take years for multitouch technology to take hold. Even in the
 cellphone market, it’s likely that touch screens of all types will be on only 30 percent of phones by
 2013, according to iSuppli, the market researcher.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/technology/24proto.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
 Nokia sells 1.5 million phones a day http://www.crn.com/retail/210200192
 China phone statistics : According to the statistics of the Ministry of Industry and Information
 Technology of China, by the end of June 2008, the number of mobile phone users in China had
 reached 601 million while the number of fixed telephone users declined.
 The statistics show that the total revenue of the major Chinese telecom operators was CNY398.79
 billion in the first six months of 2008, which is a year-on-year increase of 9.2%. The telecom
 investment in fixed assets was CNY113.64 billion, a year-on-year increase of 9.9%.
 http://www.chinatechnews.com/2008/07/25/7067-chinese-mobile-phone-users-over-600-million/
NetBooks

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:10/19/2012
language:English
pages:29