G1 is multi-touch capable

[ministersin]

WHY do you all insist that Apple owns "a ton of" patents on multi-touch???? I have responded to this a long time ago and several times since. Apple has only 2 that are remotely on point and not enough to stop anyone from implementing multi-touch. I have looked into this. If you think there are a ton of them, then show me the patent! Otherwise, shut the hell up and stop scaring developers from implementing multi-touch!

Read my post. Nothing about patents there.

The multi-touch interface would have added system resource suck and cost to the phone for functions that Android doesn't have.

Find a Dev that will talk to you about multi-touch code on the Android SDK. Good luck.

[felixHcat]

WHY do you all insist that Apple owns "a ton of" patents on multi-touch???? I have responded to this a long time ago and several times since. Apple has only 2 that are remotely on point and not enough to stop anyone from implementing multi-touch. I have looked into this. If you think there are a ton of them, then show me the patent! Otherwise, shut the hell up and stop scaring developers from implementing multi-touch!

You're right. Word is Windows 7 has the pinchy zoomy gestures among other multi-touch gestures...

[TheMessiah]

WHY do you all insist that Apple owns "a ton of" patents on multi-touch???? I have responded to this a long time ago and several times since. Apple has only 2 that are remotely on point and not enough to stop anyone from implementing multi-touch. I have looked into this. If you think there are a ton of them, then show me the patent! Otherwise, shut the hell up and stop scaring developers from implementing multi-touch!

You sir need to research a little bit more before you OPEN your mouth!

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20070177803

This is Apples patents...... I believe they have around 200 claims which includes cross reference patents.

Thanks,

Gerry-

[TheMessiah]

You're right. Word is Windows 7 has the pinchy zoomy gestures among other multi-touch gestures...

And most of the claims that they've patented are towards mobile telephones.

.

[TheMessiah]

Read my post. Nothing about patents there.

The multi-touch interface would have added system resource suck and cost to the phone for functions that Android doesn't have.

Find a Dev that will talk to you about multi-touch code on the Android SDK. Good luck.

Ministersin, I'll give you an example, do you know that my Samsung EDTV has the capablity to become an HDTV! Yes, my television has the necessary hardware however, it is all turned off because thats how they do everthing now a days. To save cost. Did you know that some AMD processor are capable of higher speeds than on the box? Same thing!!!

[Stanovoy]

You sir need to research a little bit more before you OPEN your mouth!

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20070177803

This is Apples patents...... I believe they have around 200 claims which includes cross reference patents.

Thanks,

Gerry-

Wow... amazing dude. Simply amazing. How about you learn some basics about patent law before acting like you are in the know?

What you have linked to is not a patent. It is a patent application publication. An application is very different from a patent. What you are seeing here is a publication of said application as it stood 18 months after its filing date. The application as it stands today is likely to be different. If I get bored today, I'll look on PAIR and check out its current status and form.

Claims are not the same as patent. Not all claims can stand or fall separately. The application has 77 claims, but probably only 10 or so independent claims. Every independent claim even in its current form is already very narrow. Keep reading and I'll tell you why they are as such.

The "incorporation by reference" that you have pointed to serves only to incorporate by reference. It does not lend any presumption of validity to those incorporated. Furthermore, all but one are applications, not patents. The most these will do is (1) allow this application to claim an earlier priority date, and (2) for certain affidavits if there's a lot of overlapping between two applications whereas the inventorship is the same.

Now, why are these claims so narrow? Apple only owns 2 patents remotely on point. Both patents are extremely narrow because of prior art (previously issued patents or public knowledge). Any subsequent patents touching the same areas as those two would have to be even narrower. Patentability depends on novelty. If all claim elements can be found in another patent, then the claim is rejected under 102 (anticipation). On the other hand, if a combination of two or more patents contains all of the claimed elements, then again the claim is rejected, but under 103 (teaching, suggestion and motivation). So you see, by the time this app gets issued by the PTO, if ever, it will be extremely narrow.

Thank you for your interest in patent law.

[mast3rpyr0]

Wow... amazing dude. Simply amazing. How about you learn some basics about patent law before acting like you are in the know?

What you have linked to is not a patent. It is a patent application publication. An application is very different from a patent. What you are seeing here is a publication of said application as it stood 18 months after its filing date. The application as it stands today is likely to be different. If I get bored today, I'll look on PAIR and check out its current status and form.

Claims are not the same as patent. Not all claims can stand or fall separately. The application has 77 claims, but probably only 10 or so independent claims. Every independent claim even in its current form is already very narrow. Keep reading and I'll tell you why they are as such.

The "incorporation by reference" that you have pointed to serves only to incorporate by reference. It does not lend any presumption of validity to those incorporated. Furthermore, all but one are applications, not patents. The most these will do is (1) allow this application to claim an earlier priority date, and (2) for certain affidavits if there's a lot of overlapping between two applications whereas the inventorship is the same.

Now, why are these claims so narrow? Apple only owns 2 patents remotely on point. Both patents are extremely narrow because of prior art (previously issued patents or public knowledge). Any subsequent patents touching the same areas as those two would have to be even narrower. Patentability depends on novelty. If all claim elements can be found in another patent, then the claim is rejected under 102 (anticipation). On the other hand, if a combination of two or more patents contains all of the claimed elements, then again the claim is rejected, but under 103 (teaching, suggestion and motivation). So you see, by the time this app gets issued by the PTO, if ever, it will be extremely narrow.

Thank you for your interest in patent law.

dude.. they should definatly write patents so they are actually readable. how am i supposed to know if theres a patent for something i want to make if nothing makes since in a patent that may be it?

[Stanovoy]

dude.. they should definatly write patents so they are actually readable. how am i supposed to know if theres a patent for something i want to make if nothing makes since in a patent that may be it?

If you want to write a software, chances are you will be fine. Anything else, you have to pay more attention. Here are the basics:

1. Do a general keyword search on issued patents.
2. For each patent, look at the independent claims. Those are the ones that don't begin by saying, "The method/system/apparatus/etc of claim XX, further comprising...";
3. For each independent claim, read each element and see if your invention does that. If your invention does every single element for that claim, then you need to change at least one step enough to circumvent what's claimed.

If you have trouble understanding the claim languages, then read the actual patent itself to help you understand. Anything claimed must also be in the actual patent. Otherwise, it will be rejected under 112 for lack of antecedent basis.

Hope this helps

[TheMessiah]

Wow... amazing dude. Simply amazing. How about you learn some basics about patent law before acting like you are in the know?

What you have linked to is not a patent. It is a patent application publication. An application is very different from a patent. What you are seeing here is a publication of said application as it stood 18 months after its filing date. The application as it stands today is likely to be different. If I get bored today, I'll look on PAIR and check out its current status and form.

Claims are not the same as patent. Not all claims can stand or fall separately. The application has 77 claims, but probably only 10 or so independent claims. Every independent claim even in its current form is already very narrow. Keep reading and I'll tell you why they are as such.

The "incorporation by reference" that you have pointed to serves only to incorporate by reference. It does not lend any presumption of validity to those incorporated. Furthermore, all but one are applications, not patents. The most these will do is (1) allow this application to claim an earlier priority date, and (2) for certain affidavits if there's a lot of overlapping between two applications whereas the inventorship is the same.

Now, why are these claims so narrow? Apple only owns 2 patents remotely on point. Both patents are extremely narrow because of prior art (previously issued patents or public knowledge). Any subsequent patents touching the same areas as those two would have to be even narrower. Patentability depends on novelty. If all claim elements can be found in another patent, then the claim is rejected under 102 (anticipation). On the other hand, if a combination of two or more patents contains all of the claimed elements, then again the claim is rejected, but under 103 (teaching, suggestion and motivation). So you see, by the time this app gets issued by the PTO, if ever, it will be extremely narrow.

Thank you for your interest in patent law.

Okay let me correct myself, 130 claims and NOT patents.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20080211766 = 53

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20070177803 = 77

BTW havent you heard of Patent Pending??? So even if the patents are pending other companies can not come out with new technology to which have similarities to the claims on the application or else once the patent have been approved by PTO then they would have lawsuits up the ass!!!

All I'm saying is that the G1 is INDEED HARDWARE capable of Multi-Touch and can NOT be utilize do to the "patents pending" by Apple. All you need is software anyway to make it work. Moreoever, the application filed to PTO is more than likely to be passed anyway pending the 18 month waiting period....

[ministersin]

Ministersin, I'll give you an example, do you know that my Samsung EDTV has the capablity to become an HDTV! Yes, my television has the necessary hardware however, it is all turned off because thats how they do everthing now a days. To save cost. Did you know that some AMD processor are capable of higher speeds than on the box? Same thing!!!

Look at that...TheMessiah and a MinsterSin having a disagreement. Imagine.

Still have to disagree. First I'd say the examples you give are not very good analogies, first off, the TV is a large piece of hardware. The EDTV/HDTV is more in line with input connectors rather than what a screen can display. MOst "modern" flat TV's can display 720 lines of resolution. That doesn't mean they can just turn a switch and make them HD. It means it is harder to make a screen that COULDN'T display 720 lines than just to not offer the connections/converter so you have to pay more for the HD version.

I would also venture to say that you Samsung doe not have the internal hardware to convert an HD signal, even though it could display 720p. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Overclocking is unrelated here. Yes, they back off on speed to keep at a safe temp. and extend life of product. Throttling a processor is completely different than the underlying command controls of a Synaptics Touch surface.

Synaptics offers a more expensive underlying technology that allows for multi-touch interface. Since the primary OS on the phone did not include the functionality, they did not contract the additional cost of the additional technology.

It comes down to this. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm trying to explain how it is.

If you don't believe me, contact HTC or Synaptics.