“Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touch in 1984, the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee. […] In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one’s homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that ‘new’ technologies – like multi-touch – do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the ‘great invention’ story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call ‘the long-nose of innovation’.” If we lived in a just and science-based world, this detailed history alone would be enough for judges the world over to throw all of a certain company’s patent aggression out the window. Sadly, we live in an unjust and money-based world.
As much as civilizations likes to point out who did what first, mainly to promote a kind of proudness in their citizens that helps their “elite” to pursue their own selfish interests, the single point creation is by itself a very rare event, even more if you compare it with the discoveries that are “mounted” piece by piece. But we have this habit of remember only what best fits our needs. Be it personal or at group level.
Apple x Samsung case is just one example of it.
Soon, if this nonsense patent war escalates, the only alternative to non-dominant GUIs will be to make almost every aspect of interaction customizable and shareable in easy steps. This way I may use “pinch to zoom” and “click on email” to work and the developer of the application will not risk to be prosecuted because of an obvious “should not be granted” patent.
THIS! +1
However, there’s a difference in not doing one’s homework, and doing it and choosing to ignore it.
Apple did it’s homework and made sure they had the patents they required. Samsung just transcribed the homework.
It’s like writing an assignment in school doing all the work and then have a fellow student copying your work. How would you feel if someone copied your work? Not too happy I reckon.
The discussion should be about what can and cannot be patented and how long should patents last. In this case I see Apple just did it’s homework, acquired what it needed and delivered.