|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Apple's touch-screen patent

We're bad at marketing

We can admit it, marketing is not our strong suit. Our strength is writing the kind of articles that developers, administrators, and free-software supporters depend on to know what is going on in the Linux world. Please subscribe today to help us keep doing that, and so we don’t have to get good at marketing.

By Jonathan Corbet
February 2, 2009
On January 20, 2009, Apple was awarded patent #7,479,949, titled "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics." This patent potentially has the power to make life difficult for anybody developing hardware or software involving touch screens. It could also bring about an unwelcome repeat of some twenty-year-old history. But any attempt to enforce this patent risks repeating a twenty-year-old conclusion.

In March, 1988, Apple filed suit against Microsoft and HP, claiming that their new window-oriented interfaces violated Apple's copyrights on the Macintosh GUI. This suit drew widespread condemnation on the net and a boycott compaign by the Free Software Foundation, which refused to incorporate Macintosh support into its software for years. Apple eventually lost, but, in the process, it cast a cloud of uncertainty over graphical interfaces for some years.

More recently, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook was quoted in this way:

He went on to say that Apple will challenge any company it thinks is infringing on its IP - which is hard to be taken any other way than a warning to Palm, whose new Pre device is the first to significantly incorporate multi-touch components since the iPhone.

The saber which Apple is rattling here is widely thought to be patent #7,479,949, often referred to as "the multitouch patent." Multitouch interfaces are those which can respond to simultaneous operation of two or more pointing devices. These "devices" are normally fingers on a touch screen, but it need not be that way. Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch devices have made multitouch a core component of the interface, as typified by the "pinch" gesture used to change the zoom of the object displayed on the screen. At this particular time, multitouch typifies Apple devices in much the same way that a well-developed windows-icons-menus-pointer interface did in the late 1980's.

Incorporation of multitouch techniques into other products seems like it is only a matter of time - and not very much time at that. The upcoming Palm Pre device is one obvious example. The Android developers have also clearly been thinking about multitouch; current releases do not support it, but it turns out that the G1 hardware supports multitouch, much to the joy of the G1 hacking community. Whether that capability will ever be exploited by official Android releases remains to be seen, though. Google is clearly concerned about the issue, and developers have been asked not to discuss the patent on the Android lists.

Whenever one deals in patents, one must look at what has actually been claimed. The first claim for Apple's patent is illustrative (if painful):

A computing device, comprising: a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including: instructions for detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display; instructions for applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device; and instructions for processing the command; wherein the one or more heuristics comprise: a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display; and a next item 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.

Note that this claim does not address multitouch techniques at all. Some of the dependent claims do mention it, but in the specific context of using a two-thumb gesture to change the orientation of a web browser display. The iconic "pinch" technique does not appear anywhere in the claims for this patent, though it is mentioned several times in the descriptive text. Your editor is far, far removed from being a patent attorney, but he has a hard time seeing how this patent could be read against most multitouch techniques.

What does appear in this patent is a heuristic for suppressing horizontal scrolling if the user makes a sufficiently steep gesture on the touchscreen. This sort of heuristic can certainly be found in the Android interface, which does just that kind of vertical-only scrolling. In your editors (again, unqualified) reading, the scrolling claims present much more potential for trouble than multitouch.

If Apple were to prevail with claims based on this patent, the effects could be severe - at least, in the United States. Devices made by companies other than Apple could lose a number of important techniques which make touchscreen-based interfaces usable. Companies like Palm could conceivably license the patent from Apple (if Apple were willing), but that is almost certainly not an option for toolkits (like Android) which are based on free software. Linux World Domination for mobile devices could well suffer a major setback.

Arguably, this patent would have no effect on business conducted outside of the US. Fully-capable devices could be sold elsewhere, as long as they are developed entirely outside of the United States. American users could be stuck with iPhones or devices with inferior interfaces - with the lucky few carrying devices furtively imported from elsewhere. In practice, excluding the US would make it harder for any such product to succeed. And US-based platforms, including Android and Palm webOS, would be out of luck.

It may not come to that, though. Perhaps Apple does not intend to use its patents as an offensive weapon. After all, the company has done well enough by focusing on building great products, and the look-and-feel lawsuits of the 1980's did little to help Apple succeed. A new round of litigation would risk alienating developers worldwide and distracting Apple from the activities which truly benefit the company.

If Apple does take the offensive, it faces a couple of severe obstacles. One is the slowly-changing attitude in the US, where legislators and judges are (belatedly) figuring out that the patent system is out of control. The bar has been raised (though not by enough), making patent enforcement more difficult than it once was. Beyond that, there is also the issue of prior art. The best reference there would appear to be this extensive history of touch-based interfaces put together by Bill Buxton at Microsoft Research. Suffice to say that, as in most other areas of endeavor, there is little that is truly new with touchscreen interfaces.

(As an aside, it's also worth noting that Microsoft, by virtue of its own interest in mobile devices, could become an unlikely ally of the free software community in this particular battle, should it come to be fought.)

All of that will be little comfort, though, to anybody working with touchscreen-based products in the US now. Even if a company sued by Apple were to emerge victorious, that victory would come at the cost of millions of dollars spent, much time lost, and much uncertainty sown among others who are thinking about developing for that company's platform. So, for now, the patent system continues to inhibit the innovation that it was created to encourage.


to post comments

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 2, 2009 22:19 UTC (Mon) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] (17 responses)

Wait a sec — Apple invents a really cool and useful new user interface technique. Even if the parts were all there, no one thought of putting them together like this before — and there's no real evidence that anyone would have if Apple hadn't thought of it. Sure, touchpads have been able to detect multiple fingers before, but before Apple came along, the concern was using that information to suppress accidental input, not to do anything useful.

So Apple spens significant money in developing and marketing devices which use this invention. It turns out to be a hit. Now, everyone wants to copy them and make money without having to take the development costs and risks of being first in the market.

Isn't this exactly the sort of innovation the patent system is supposed to protect?

Now, okay, the current 20-year term is ridiculous when it comes to computing devices. But that's an implementation detail which could be reformed without throwing out the whole system.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 2, 2009 22:50 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

actually, there are a LOT of people working on multitouch interfaces right now. Apple didn't invent a new technique, they just were the first ones to ship a high-volume product that uses it.

there may be specific details that they are the first ones to do, but things like 'a huristic to determine if the angle of the motion is steep enough to not be a horizontal scroll command' is hardly in that category.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 10, 2009 16:53 UTC (Tue) by bfeeney (guest, #6855) [Link] (2 responses)

Arguably they were the second. The LG Prada, a touch-screen phone, was
released three months before the iPhone was announced.

True, the iPhone uses some interesting touchscreen-based UI tricks (e.g.
pinch), but these two were invented by others, there was a video on youtube
showing an academic research demoing these techniques over two years before
the iPhone debuted.

Apple were the first to successfully create a product based on existing
techniques, not the first to invent those techniques. It's to Apple's credit
that they can exploit known techniques and the talent of their developers to
create great products; Microsoft and Google, despite employing similarly
skilled developers, have failed to create next-gen products (MS never got
beyond Windows+Office, Google has yet to get beyond Search+Ads).

The thing is though, ability to execute is not enough for a patent. It must
be new, innovative, and not at all obvious. None of these are true of that
scrolling
patent.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 12, 2009 14:59 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (1 responses)

"Arguably they were the second. The LG Prada, a touch-screen phone, was
released three months before the iPhone was announced."

Um, LG Prada was a touchscreen phone, but it was not MULTITOUCH. There has been several phones with touchscreens over the years, but none of them were multitouch.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Apr 20, 2010 14:41 UTC (Tue) by Desty (guest, #65496) [Link]

"Um, LG Prada was a touchscreen phone, but it was not MULTITOUCH. There has been several phones with touchscreens over the years, but none of them were multitouch."

So? The patent threat in question has no relevance to whether the phones are multitouch or not; you only need one finger to scroll in two-dimensions (or one, which is the issue at hand).

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 2, 2009 22:50 UTC (Mon) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link] (2 responses)

And in the meanwhile, they build upon inventions and code of *many* other people. Both within and outside the FLOSS community. What mess this world would be in if every significant contributor originally involved in the software they build on (from 4.4BSD to KHTML) sought to patent their inventions? Really, they are standing on the shoulders of giants.

And the practical advantage of inventing things is being the first to the market, and this already paid off well for them, judging the popularity of the iPhone in some countries (or the near omnipresence of the iPod).

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 4, 2009 2:03 UTC (Wed) by bbb (guest, #49804) [Link] (1 responses)

You are confusing copyright and patents. Copyright is about the code, patents are about ideas.

KHTML was clearly not the first HTML rendering engine. Sir Tim was the first to do that, but then
HTML is just another markup language, so the prior art goes back way into the 60ies. KHTML is no
doubt a great piece of software (and very much non-trivial to write), but there is nothing overly
novel in it.

Similarly, 4.4 BSD in particular and Unix in general consisted mostly of ideas that were present in
one form or other in earlier (research) OSs.

What you are realizing is that producing open source software, even (L)GPL software, may help
parties that you do not agree with. But that is the price of free software.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 5, 2009 12:33 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

I think the original poster meant patents for the innovations made by those teams, not for the specific products. I don't know much about KHTML, but BSD teams did invent a lot of things: examples [pdf]. "Method and apparatus for paging main memory to disk..."

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 2, 2009 23:04 UTC (Mon) by kune (guest, #172) [Link] (2 responses)

Patents give an exclusive right to an invention -- not the combination of things. Copyright and design patents are probably the better tools to cover such combinations.

Apple has surely patent exchange agreements with Microsoft and IBM. But even with those the iPhone will violate at least a dozen patents of third parties.

Assume that you own a company that has actual products and a patent violated by Apple. You will probably not risk to claim your rights with Apple, because your products will certainly violate some Apple patents. At least it will cost you millions to clarify the situation.

This leaves only two other types of companies: Companies with patents and no products and Companies with a product and no patents. The first type are nowadays called patent trolls. I'm not sure how we want to call the second type: patent losers maybe.

Free Software Developers will have to do without a patent if they are notified about it. A good example are specific bytecodes used for hinting of Truetype fonts, which is covered by Apple patents. Look here:

http://www.freetype.org/patents.html

Interestingly Freetype helped Apple to find new licensees for their Patents from embedded vendors. Meanwhile on distributions that care about patents your desktop experience will be hampered, because they use autohinting instead of the carefully designed bytecode.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 3, 2009 0:00 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] (1 responses)

Interestingly, according to FreeType's patent info, two of Apple's TrueType patents were filed on May 8, 1989 (and granted in Oct 1992). Per the term of patent rules, they should expire on May 8, 2009 (this year) - only a few months away. Wonder how much that helps FreeType.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 3, 2009 6:17 UTC (Tue) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

Not until October, actually since they still get the 17 years from grant.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 2, 2009 23:33 UTC (Mon) by ajross (guest, #4563) [Link]

and there's no real evidence that anyone would have if Apple hadn't thought of it
Oh, come on. Lieutenant Commander Data was using multitouch interfaces every week on my television two decades ago. Argue that Apple did it "better" if you want. But asserting that no one would ever thought of holding two fingers down at once (!) is just ridiculous.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 3, 2009 13:45 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (1 responses)

That's just silly. The wikipedia article on multitouch mentions the first gesture based multitouch product in 1982. Even the movie Minority Report that popularized multitouch and specifically the pinch gesture is from 2002, and at that time these interfaces were mainstream enough that there were several to draw inspiration from.

The patent in question is filed in 2008. Even Microsoft Surface is from 2007, the same year as the iPhone, and both products probably was severals years in the making.

All this is irrelevant, of course, as if we are to believe our editor this so-called "multitouch" patent doesn't even touch multitouch (pun intended).

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 3, 2009 16:38 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

I think Steve Jobs has also seen Minority Report. Of course it matters what the patent application is actually for.

What it seems to apply to (IANAL) is a device that is able to translate imprecise gestures into precise commands, through a touch screen of comparatively small size. Multi-touch functionality is indeed not at all one of the claims, but it is (of course) mentioned as a related application.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 3, 2009 19:20 UTC (Tue) by gregwilkins (guest, #515) [Link]

Maybe the producers of the movie Minority Report should be given a patent for interfaces that use multi pointers???

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 4, 2009 2:28 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (1 responses)

1) Has anybody seen FingerWorks keyboards in action? They did all of this and more many years ago. They have used multitouch gestures many years before Apple. Apple bought the company, now they use the same technology. So Apple invented this? I don't think so...

2) The 20 year term is not an implementation detail. If you look at things like the TRIPS agreement, patents can never last less than 20 years, unless major changes are undertaken in the judicial system and international treaties. What you call an implementation detail is more like a rewrite from scratch.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 12, 2009 20:28 UTC (Thu) by ecloud (guest, #56624) [Link]

Did you not know that Apple bought FingerWorks? Hmm wonder why they did that...

For some reason the touch controller chip is made by Broadcom. But as far as I know, Apple is the only one who buys the chip. It would seem there must have been some exclusive agreement. But I would think it should expire eventually since that's in Broadcom's best interest... they would like to sell such a hot chip to every cell phone mfgr.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute...

Posted Feb 7, 2009 1:23 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

If Apple spent significant money inventing multitouch, I agree completely that anyone else who profits from the invention should pay Apple. Otherwise, we risk not having such inventions.

But I have a hard time believing the invention was costly. I'm sure Apple spent a fortune implementing it in a product, but that's the same money any copycat would have to spend. Actually determining that pinch gestures are a good way to do a UI was probably close to free.

Incidentally, this philosophy of significant investment is not present in current patent law, because patent law was not originally intended to protect investment. It was intended to encourage disclosure of the invention. So since there is no possible way for Apple to use multitouch while keeping it a secret, the original goals of patent law don't support any protection at all here.

Apple's touch-screen patent

Posted Feb 2, 2009 22:22 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Mentor Graphics' schematic capture software used mouse gestures back in the early 1990s and perhaps before. SGI's also used them for a long time. It's true that these systems used one pointing device (no multitouch), but the Apple patent's claim you quote refers to "one or more" pointing device, and there seems to be plenty of prior art for the "one" case.

Prior art in Hollywood

Posted Feb 2, 2009 23:38 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] (2 responses)

Maybe the patent examiners have watched The Matrix...

Prior art in Hollywood - correction

Posted Feb 2, 2009 23:50 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] (1 responses)

Oops - that should be Minority Report (with the arm-waving wide-screen interface). Tom Cruise must have used two hands at least once in the film. So it was obvious even to somebody not versed in the art.

Prior art in Hollywood - correction

Posted Feb 3, 2009 14:09 UTC (Tue) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]

Not just Hollywood - it was based on a real product.

Apple's touch-screen patent

Posted Feb 3, 2009 0:44 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

As far as I can tell from a brief look, all of the claims involve both a particular gesture and a particular command. In order to work around this patent, developers would only have to use a non-overlapping mapping of gestures to commands. It seems highly unlikely that the space of gestures with multiple fingers is so constrained that it would be impossible to come up with different (and maybe better) controls from the ones in this list. This patent should only prevent people from making devices whose interfaces are just like iPhones. Considering that (from my point of view) Apple got wrong what happens when you click on an icon, what icons are displayed for, where menus are, what window controls exist, how keyboard focus is determined, how windows are moved and resized, (...), and even the effect on the cursor of movement on the trackpad, and, worse, other people seem to have adopted their mistakes, I'm glad that developers will be forced to find the right multi-touch interface instead of copying Apple.

Send a Message

Posted Feb 3, 2009 2:29 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] (3 responses)

Maybe time to isolate Apple where they interface with free software. Cups
and webkit are two projects that come to mind, and there is a certain level
of cooperation if you could call it that.

Actually I hope they sue. I hope they push this real hard and there are
long battles in court. They can then join Lotus (among others) in obscurity
and ponder over the stupidity of trying to use courts to gain a competitive
edge and suppress innovation.

And maybe the all things Apple worship that intrudes even into the free
software world will be expunged.

Derek

Send a Message

Posted Feb 3, 2009 3:07 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] (2 responses)

Interestingly, CUPS and WebKit are places where Apple has a lot of
control. They now own the copyright to CUPS. And while WebKit was derived
from KHTML, it evolved so much at Apple that KDE had trouble reintegrating
Apple's changes.

Send a Message

Posted Feb 3, 2009 15:08 UTC (Tue) by Chousuke (subscriber, #54562) [Link] (1 responses)

On the other hand, Webkit is great software, and it's now integrated into Qt as well. My guess is that it will replace KHTML entirely, rather than merging with it.

I agree that Apple could have been more cooperative, but in the end, we have a great, free rendering engine (and a javascript debugger); not solely thanks to Apple, of course, but I feel they deserve some credit for being the driving force behing KHTML's rise from obscurity[1] in the form of Webkit.

[1] I have no data to back up my claim about KHTML being obscure, but I honestly can't think of it as anything other than "the Konqueror engine".

Send a Message

Posted Feb 3, 2009 21:54 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

You miss the point totally. This isn't about what we get from Apple.

It's what they get from us.

Patches, testing, etc. Even acceptance.

Derek

Obviousness and interpretation heuristics

Posted Feb 3, 2009 7:39 UTC (Tue) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link] (2 responses)

Surely this first claim (at least) counts as “obvious ... to a person having ordinary skill in the art”. Just a couple of weeks ago I was working on code to implement heuristics for what type of scrolling to do based on stylus/finger movement on a touchscreen. If there's no prior art for the claim then it would only be because no-one's previously had that set of available commands specified in the second half of the claim, or that no-one particularly wanted to restrict scrolling to one dimension. (I know that I considered whether to restrict scrolling to just one dimension and decided it not particularly useful for my application.)

I'd be fairly sure that snapping an angle to exactly a multiple of 90° when near said multiple isn't novel: I believe this is found in various drawing programs when drawing a line. The general principle comes from Bayes’ theorem, which is already widely employed in deciphering analogue input (especially handwriting or other on-screen text input methods): that the probability that a gesture intends a particular command/result is calculated from the a-priori likelihood of the user wanting a given result (for each available result) and the probability of the user using this particular gesture if they want that result. ("A-priori" here meaning how likely you'd think the user wanted that result if you didn't know what gesture they'd given.) In terms of that Wikipedia page, search for partition; B refers to the gesture that the user has just given, and {A_j} are the available commands/results. I mention this in the hope that it reminds readers of this principle when writing any code that interprets pointer position, both so that better software is written and so that better prior art is created.

Obviousness and interpretation heuristics

Posted Feb 5, 2009 13:28 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] (1 responses)

I was thinking of this too. Given that drawing-programs have for literally decades had options to snap-to-90 for lines which in actuality are just close-to-90.

Guesstimating that the user probably intends to draw a vertical line (or scroll vertically) when he draws his finger in a line very close to the vertical, is painfully obvious.

Obviousness and interpretation heuristics

Posted Feb 6, 2009 11:42 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Of course it is not the content of a patent that needs to be scrutinized, but the patent system itself.

(Because you are obviously right, but the patent was still granted. ;-)

Apple's touch-screen patent

Posted Feb 4, 2009 22:02 UTC (Wed) by felixrabe (guest, #50514) [Link]

Can't LWN just print this out and send a copy of these comments to the patent office to get this overturned? Just write "prior art pointers and obviousity claims concerning patent #7,479,949" on the envelope and there you go.

If things were that simple I'd be Mr Genious, but they aren't and I'm not.

Apple's touch-screen patent

Posted Feb 5, 2009 6:57 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]

I read in news here in Finland that Nokia has had a patent for multi-touch operation, including zooming photographs with a pinch, since 2003. The news was basically about that at least they are not scared about Apple's patents, and it was elaborated that Apple might just be fearing others' patents and threating others in advance for defensive reasons.

Of course that news was counter-PR to this Apple's PR.

Apple's touch-screen patent

Posted Feb 13, 2009 8:09 UTC (Fri) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

I think you guys are missing the point here. This isn't really a "multitouch-patent". Rather, it's an "iPhone-patent". The patend descibes a system with accelerometers, proximity-sensors and the like. Multitouch-interface is just a part of the patent.

Multitouch alone is probably not patentable at this point. But iPhone-technology as a whole, of which multitouch is part of, could be.


Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds