Apple sued for every touchscreen device by Flatworld prof A Pennsylvania professor is gunning for a slice of all of Apple's touch-based product revenues, after claiming they infringe a patent for a museum screen technology he developed 15 years ago. Slavoljub Milekic, a professor in cognitive sciences and digital design at the Univeristy of Arts in Pennsylvania, said he developed a …
but why wait until now? I'm using an 8 year old Draenetz power analyser with a touch screen. Did he sue them 8 years ago? or the Estate Agents who 15 years ago had touch sensitive overlays on shop windows with a 'puter screen indoors to let you browse the houses available?
If I was to award him damages I would want him to show he has taken every step to protect his patent ever since it was granted, not wait for a fine crop of cherries to pick.
But they aren't because there's prior art - at least for the click/drag part of the claim. Back in the late 80's I joined a company called Comshare. By the beginning of the 90's one of the applications created and sold to top 1000 companies around the world was an executive information system (EIS) based on a touch screen. In it the mouse was replaced by a finger. Now you may be going to say Windows didn't exist back then. No, but OS/2 did. Nor was Comshare without competition and at least some of the people working at now Apple then worked for Comshare or a competitor.
No he doesn't have a strong claim. The most important part of a patent, that defines the "umbrella" of functionality covered, is the first independent claim. Claims have to be extremely particular in terms of the meaning of the language they use. Here the loss of the image from the screen is coupled to exceeding a threshold value. I can't think of any part of the iOS interface where this is clearly the case. Even when e.g. you are scrolling a table in iOS, and you flick it so the table motion has momentum and images in the table move off screen, though there are "flick" velocity values which would ensure such effect is achieved, the actual velocity needed to achieve the effect will vary due to many tangential factors (such as how close to the edgeof the scrren the image is) and there is no particular predefined threshold value determine the outcome should be achieved. The fact that it is only by some calculation a threshold value is exceeded will be judged to be "external" to the mechanic described by the claims (because there may be many such different calculations which can be seen as applying and none of which are definitively the calculation in all cases). All clauses in the claim should contribute something coherent and internal to the invention.
So unfortunately for the prof, in my opinion, this claim is too specific (and I do have experience with this). Each clause of each sentence of an independent claim is like a logical "and" and on this single point of "exceeding a threshold value" Apple doesn't infringe, when that is judged necessarily internal to any such claimed invention. Yes, claims language is that specific and the standards of how claims are judged are that precise and pedantic!
Q: Do these guys actually check whether they issue almost identical patents multiple times?
A: Apparently not. The USPTO has issued patents for using laser pointers as cat toys at least 5 times:
5443036 Method of exercising a cat
6505576 Pet Toy
6557495 Laser Pet Toy
6651591 Automatic laser pet toy and exerciser
6701872 Method and apparatus for automatically exercising a curious animal
No.
If he was issued this 15 years ago on the basis of a working system he deserves a patent. It is what the system is for - to protect an inventor building stuff. He actually built it - hallelujah.
The more interesting question is "Why nobody managed to find this when looking to invalidate the patents owned by Apple".
But he didnt wait. He notified apple when the iphone was released. He has since been building his case, nothing wrong with that. It didnt say how long he notified and waited for a response from apple.
This guy invented, built, patented and used. This is the sort of thing the patents are there for.
"that the fact that he waited 15 years to enforce the patent"
Did you bother to read the article, or did you just do the fanboi jump to Apple's defence after reading the headline?
The patent is for touchscreen gestures, a concept this guy came up with and built - not just 'a touchscreen device'. After the release of the first iPhone (in 2007), he notified Apple, who failed to respond. He has every right to build a good case and take as long as he needs to pursue them. He didn't wait 15 years to enforce.
You have managed to make two inaccurate claims in a 4 line paragraph. Both of which could have been avoided, had you READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. <sigh>
No. He waited 2 years. The patent wasn't granted until 2005 - the same year that Apple aquired FingerWorks - whose products had already been on sale for several years. Fingerworks patents were granted in 2006.
It doesn't say in the article when the professor built two systems so he may not have built them until after he saw Fingerworks products.
The article says that he developed his idea in 1997. Fingerworks was founded as a company in 1998 so the work was most likely in progress before that.
With the exception of the 'throwing a file off the screen' bit, (though I have games that allow you to throw items around on the screen using inertia dated from 1992), nearly all the prof's other claims are traditional mouse actions - except that he is using a finger.
Agree 100% with Voland's right hand.
Why is the last sentence in the article making a left-field reference to patent trolls? Is it a subtle way for the article's author to say they believe this guy is a troll?? Seriously?? Not only is the patent applied for in 1997 (when for the vast majority of people, touchscreens were complete science fiction) and granted in 2005 (2 years before the iPhone), but the guy also actually implemented his invention in the museum display, AND he notified Apple of infringement in 2007.
This guy is almost the exact opposite of a patent troll
I know, he actually built something and patented it... Imagine that, actually doing something with the patent you own instead of using it as a blocker.
Why did nobody else find this when trying to invalidate Apple patents? Well just look at the huge volume of patents involved. The US patent office seem to do very little indeed, just cash the cheque and say "Yup". IIRC the process in the UK involves an initial search, during which point invalid applications should be rejected.
"They don't. They find a "bottom dwelling scum sucker" prepared to take it on a "contingency basis" for around 30% of any future payout."
How could they? Apple have all them types as their evil minions/patent trolls. Ah wait.... Apple will counter-sue; as bullying companies as a troll is their game :p
I don't beleive in Karma but Ha fucking ha!
Since business processes are patentable (like almost everything else in the good ol' USA) how about patenting patent trolling?
'The accused in this case has blatantly ripped off my client's technique for extracting money from people who have actually done the marketing and development ...'
...the Flying Spaghetti Monster is suing Apple, HTC, Google, HP, ASUS, this professor, the inventor of the push-button and those hand-graphic arrow signs for infringing on the FSMs patent for a "jointed pointing device, powered by the users own body, and located as an array at the end of directional appendages".
Seriously - patents are getting used way too much by way too many people and this is simply diluting whatever validity justifiable patents may have.
In Apple's "bounceback" patent (when you scroll to the top of a list and keep scrolling, the list initially moves with your finger but bounces back) they came within a gnat's tadger of saying that it was obvious something like this was needed to show the user they were at the top of a list, and that bounceback was the most obvious way of doing it. They still got a patent on it though.
Generally, a patent troll is a non-practising entity, suing people over patents it has bought, and not actually using them. Here the original inventor has a company practising the patented technology.
End users gesturing on a touch-screen are also liable for infringement, of course, so it's not just the manufacturers who are in the firing line here.
...until the university he was working for claims that as his employee they own it - and then the museum that he did the installation for will claim that as they paid him to create the kiosk, they own it.- and then much fighting will ensue and lots of lawyers will be able to afford fancy new cars.
Doesn't it make more sense to describe someone as a patent troll if their only use of their patent is in extracting rents from other inventors? If he was using it then it's reasonable to grant him a temporary monopoly for the work he's done, but if he's not using it and someone else invents something similar with no reference to his designs then it would be reasonable for them to be allowed to continue with their own product.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
