re: "20080094370 covers the idea of having multiple gestures triggering the same action - so a swipe to the right might show the next album cover, but tapping on the perspective-viewed cover would also work, as would tapping on a "next" button"

HTF did the patent office grant this? What is the difference between clicking a Next button and using a keyboard shortcut, or a menu item? Just because it is on a touch device, this is not a novel invention!

The US patent system is a joke anyway. Go on Palm, make your device whatever you want it to be. Then release it in the whole world but the US (it's not like USians have any money left to spend anyway. You'll do 100 times the cash in China alone). Methink the US patent system needs that kind of scenario to become a tad less insane. Seriously. Who in their right mind would allow to "protect" a bloody _function_ regardless of the method used to implement it.

The US patent system is probably the numero uno barrier to innovation in the US, and it's significantly hindering innovation in some other countries too. Seriously, grow up and get rid of that pile of crap already. Replace it with a protection on technical implementations, like sensible countries do.

I remember reading that co-op buildings tend to not accept lawyers.

They don't want trouble with that species.

Several of the Apple patents/applications noted here are almost certainly subject to prior art, unless the mere fact of using a finger instead of a mouse makes it a new tech.

We were using mouse acceleration, motion slope and other characteristics to determine what to do clear back in the mid-1980's. Every device I own has examples of multiple devices and actions having the same effects. How is spreading one's fingers apart different from using the mouse to move alternate corners of a box - like any art program, such as GIMP? In some cases something like 'alt-drag' moves the box from a single static corner, or all sides from a center point, preserving aspect ratio or not.

It seems to me that these are examples of 'throw it at the wall and see if it sticks' patent applications. I hope the Pre succeeds, and Palm defeats any attempts to extract excessive licensing fees, especially from such trivial patents.

There is an elemental unfairness about software patents having been brought into play after 1986, when so many truly major innovations had already been down the pike - B-trees, linked lists, virtual memory, time-sharing, client-server, almost everything having to do with network protocols such as TCP/IP, dynamic linking, GUI, windowing, bitmap displays, bit-blit, morphing, LISP, ASCII, relocatable code, several hundred useful graphic algorithms, ... the list goes on.

The people who created the computer industry did their work without the potential for revenue from patents, and that is one reason why the art progressed so quickly. I was only a minor (teensy) player, and could have acquired a hundred or so patents, were it possible at the time. Now we have companies bullying each other over patents regarding which direction to move one's finger. They should all put 1% of their revenues into a fund to repay all those geniuses that made their business possible.

I would love to give Apple the middle finger for their frivolous use of industry retarding patents. After reading this article however I am not sure if this gesture has also been patented by Apple (along with the wave, the handshake..etc) However, knowing that their legal department far outnumbers the engineering department, I dare not take the risk.

...that boil down to "doing something that has been done since the dawn of time - but now on a computer".

So how are this lot going to survive the "in re Bilski" decision?

I love giving Apple the finger. They want to make products, that's fine, but do it without ripping off the commons.

One of the real questions about patents is have they genuinely innovated. It is clear that the iPhone is an amazing device that has single-handedly dragged the whole industry forwards it in its wake. Prior to 18 months ago, the best we had was the likes of Symbian, Microsoft, et al with their horrid little stylus and rather rubbish interfaces.

Why should Apple be the ones investing in innovation simply for the rest of the industry to copy them.

How can the industry begrudge Apple some form of recompense for their hard work? And the rest of us should be grateful that they've finally breathed some life into a moribund marketplace.

As the article states these are only patent applications and there is no suggestion that Apple would try to (or even could) enforce them if they were granted.

@Gary Bickford

I stand and applaud your comments, real innovation has been stifled in recent years because of patent greed. Invented something radical ? Sorry but our company patented a vague description of it last year (well actually we bought the company that did actually have a vague idea)

Meh

Funny, thing is this.. Apple never invents the underlying technology e.g. touch screen it just patents software interpretation of soemone elses invention, jobs seems to wake up with whatever that was stuck up his A% and decides to patent it... in this case 2 fingers.... Seriously the US patent system needs to change,

I don't think there's any particular evidence of Apple patent squatting. They're not going round buying up patent portfolios and making money by scaring infringers into licensing but are simply patenting things they've developed and sell. You only have to look at all the iPod clones or things like the P168 to see they have some justification for trying to protect themselves against direct copying.

The other reason big companies like to have a large patent portfolio is to protect themselves against excessive claims by other parties, so if someone like Nokia or Palm were suddenly to make a claim for infringement against Apple they could most likely settle it by some sort of cross licensing deal.

Unlike trademarks, I don't believe you need to go round enforcing your patent rights or you'll lose them, so I wouldn't worry too much about Apple using patents to stifle competition and innovation just yet.

Apple to palm : see you in court.

palm to apple: Talk to the hand!

i propose that any entity holding more than 10 patents be destroyed.

10 brand new, unique and innovative ideas ought to be enough for any individual to retire on, or any corporation to make a lot of money from.

it might seem a bit radical but i really think it would improve the quality of patents no end and benefit the world in general. once that's done we can go and turn all the advertisers and marketing goons into soylent green, solving several problems in one fell swoop.

Application #2009006711499

"Method and mechanism for doing fucking anything" it's titled. Bet it gets approved.