Report: Apple nixed Android's multitouch
One of the chief complaints about Google's Android is its lack of multitouch support.
Did Google CEO and Apple board member Eric Schmidt knuckle under to Apple on multitouch?
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News)Now, according to a VentureBeat report by M.G. Siegler, we may have an idea of why Google skipped the feature on its mobile operating system:
Apple, which of course makes the signature multi-touch mobile device, the iPhone, apparently asked Google not to implement it, and Google agreed, an Android team member tells us.Further, the Android team member went on to say that they were relieved that Google didn't go against Apple's wishes, given the legal storm that appears to be brewing between Apple and Palm, which is using multi-touch technology in its new Pre phone. Even if Apple ultimately decides not to pursue legal action against Palm (it's not yet clear how likely that is, but Apple does have an impressive array of patents), the situation has likely soured the relationship between the two companies. Google, it seems, wants no part in ruining its relationship with Apple.
While this all may sound a bit far-fetched, it's worth noting that last month Apple was awarded a patent titled "Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics." Patent No. 7,479,949, originally filed in September 2007, covers the multitouch and all its gestures (swipe, pinch, rotation, etc.) that are used on the Apple iPhone.
A day after that patent was awarded, Apple COO Tim Cook warned iPhone competitors they should understand that Apple "will not stand for having our (intellectual property) ripped off, and we'll use whatever weapons that we have at our disposal." Those comments, made during Apple's fiscal first-quarter earnings call, were believed to be intended for Palm even though Cook did not single out any particular company in making his comments.
Siegler goes on to address the Palm connection:
While the connection between Apple and Palm would seem like it should be strong, given how many former Apple employees now work at Palm, Google and Apple are actually more aligned. Not only does Google specially tailor a ton of its products for the iPhone (both with apps like Maps and Google Search, and specially formatted webpages), but its chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is on Apple's board of directors. And don't underestimate the fact that both share a chief rival: Microsoft.
While the open-source Android can be modified to support multitouch with a few well-placed lines of code, one has to wonder why the feature wasn't initially supported and when Google will officially do so.
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven. 
Google (or in this case The Open Handset Alliance) doesn't have Palm's patent portfolio, but you can bet if there is a legal battle between Palm and Apple, they will be filing a lot legal briefs on both sides.
Let's not forget how Apple blatantly violated Cisco's trademark to use the name "iPhone" to begin with.
I think if Palm is using technology it is not licensed to, Apple should go after them. Particularly something as important as multi-touch. This could be much like MS using the GUI, except they had no patent on that. Much like that, it is pretty well excepted that the phone and this technology is Apple's future. It would be worth the effort, I think.
Well, until that point, we'll just file your post under "FUD", Mssr. Benedict.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/
lists various Palm patents Apple appear to be infringing upon.
For example "Patent No. 7,479,949, originally filed in September 2007, covers the multitouch and all its gestures (swipe, pinch, rotation, etc.) that are used on the Apple iPhone." is actually not true at all. The only thing it covers is one aspect of the swipe that allows the system to determine if the users wants vertical, horizontal, or free motion. For example, if you start swipe vertically then it ignores any motion in the horizontal and vice versa. However, if you start swiping in a diagonal it allows free motion. This is *all* it covers.
The engadget article referenced above is a very good overview of the patent and the possible patent infringement/overlap between Palm and Apple.
"Oh, they didn't? Well maybe you can name some patents which you think Apple is allegedly appearing to have infringed? Oh, you can't. "
Or... it could be that they are actively working on such things now. Companies don't usually brag or advertise their legal plans to the public, you know. It tends to tip your hand. Nobody, including you, has any idea what Palm or Apple is doing at this time behind closed doors. Any attempt to guess- or worse yet, making wild accusations as you have would be equally guilty of spreading FUD.
This is something for you to consider before you go accusing people of FUD, Mr. Penguinisto.
Mbenedict's Engadget reference is an interesting one, and lacking anything more concrete than your own lack of information, would tend to be the more compelling argument.
Somebody needs to call the guys who gave that lecture and ask them WTH.
What Apple have patented are the specific gestures that they came up with and some of the capacitative technologies that they needed to develop to make multi-touch work on such a small form factor (remember Microsoft demonstrated multi-touch on a coffee table sized screen, unaware that Apple had already developed the technologies for bringing the technology to a platform that could fit in the palm of your hand)
Anyone can do multi-touch on a hand held device... they are just going to have to come up with a different set of technologies for making it work and different gestures from those that Apple "invented" for the iPhone
Maybe you could call the guys who gave that lecture why they didn't look at the 2002 copyrighted documents still on the Fingerworks web site.
Not an Apple lover, but, WTH? What were those guys at TED thinking? WTH?
Correct that it is the finger gestures not the tech they have patented (uncontested as yet though). However the pinching zoom and finger swiping gestures were demoed before Apple applied for a patent for them so that isn't going to do it. I'm sure there is something else there that was actually new but it's going to be harded to go after people for that.
@bonesbautista
Sound pretty apple fanboy to me. TED's demo of pinching and zooming was a demo of a technology in the works from long before the TED demo and long before Apple acquired Fingerworks (2005). Please go to wiki and look up Jeff Han. Also read the interview with Jeff Han on Wired in March of 2007 (linked from Mr. Han's wiki), more than a year after his TED demo and still before the iphone was out.
If you ease up your fanaticism it's easier to think and reason out the situation. Apple has little to actually fight about. They certainly can't file a suit until they see for sure precisely what the Palm gestures look like. The Apple positioning right now is just using fear and doubt to discourage competition but it will be a crazy day if this goes to court over what shape the finger gestures look like to perform a function.
http://venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android-and-google-complied
Things like hand and finger gestures on a screen should NOT be patentable.
Plus, there is prior art on some of the things if i remember correct. But it is Apple, they will probably get away with like, like they did with the iPhone.
This has really made me hate Apple now.
How many 'companies' out there exist only to file for patents or buy up other companies for their patents so that they can make money through lawsuits and licensing? I suspect the number is growing in this profitable business area.
Multitouch was around long before the iPhone, so once again, Apple becomes a patent troll for something they did not invent.
I guess with Palm, they are just bitter that Palm succeeded where the Newton had failed... which back in the day, I actually had a Newton and loved it, but in the long scheme of things, it was a failure. Especially compared to how well Palm did. I recently gave my 5 yr old niece, my old Palm IIIe just for her to play with.
Google should have implemented multi-touch anyway.
Remember when Apple sued New York City over their recycling logo? Apple is just sue happy! I would bet they have a whole slew of Apple fan boys who are lawyers that would probably work for free, just to have the chance to sue somebody.
Google folded pretty quickly, but as other comments point out, it's very easy to implement MT on Android- the hardware is already in place. Google knows that some *cough* "rogue" person out there will enable it for the masses, and Apple couldn't hold Google liable for that.
Kill the lawyers!
All in all, Google MADE the right choice by not risking anything.
Google is absolutely right in this, except maybe your "if they never file there are ways around" part.
Filing a patent lawsuit is very risky business.
First, the costs are astronomical. Something like this can run into the tens of millions of dollars to prosecute and win. Data retntion, lawyers, discovery, motions, you name it. And it'll be three years before it comes to trial in front of a technologically inept jury of our "peers"
Second, you are taking a huge risk on the patent itself. We all know that the examiners are overworked and there is a lot of prior art that was not discovered in the prosecution of patents. But when you take it to trial, the entire patent goes through a much more exhaustive examination. All of the file history, what claims were narrowed by teh examiner, did you really mean that, etc. In the end, the patent could be hugely damaged through the process
Third, in all patents, as time goes on, the claims get more and more narrow and specific. The first person to invent a touch screen interface gets a broad patent, then someone narrows it, then someone narrows that again with multi-touch, then again with gestures. If you're on the long-end of this tail, the ability to work around the patent gets easier. I don't see the Apple patents as early and broad, but late and narrow.
So, Google had a choice. Jump in and risk damaging a good relationship that they have with Apple or sit on the side and watch what happens when the other phone makers (who surely have a better portfoilio to fight back with) slug it out. If the patent is invalidated by someone else's work, time to jump in. If not, then you know how hard apple is going to go on this one. I think they made the right one.
Eric Schmidt. You may have heard of him. CEO of some tiny company called Google?
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/
To some extend without the comment from Apple about protecting its IP, I would have bet that we'd see them both sit on the sidelines and watch what happens. But Apple may have painted itself into a corner here and will not be forced to do something.
It's going to be interesting to watch.
Apple has done nothing innovative except for marketing and brainwashing. Even their PCs are just 300% markup on parts you can buy off the street, and the OS is basically a skin on Linux.
In all fairness Apple started about 15 years before linux even existed. If anything linux is basically a skin on apple.
Honestly linux, apple, and MS all have OS's that function on their own quite well which users can pick which one best meets their needs or specs. If you hate MS then don't use it, if you hate apple don't use it, if you hate linux don't use it. You have plenty of free rein to pick the best OS for you without having to resort to bashing other OS's which clearly work for others just not you.
"Apple has done nothing innovative"
I guess Gates just copied apple's OS back in the day because it was so un-innovative too? iTunes & iPod were both very un-innovative yet hold the #1 spot in their prospective categories. I don't care of apple myself because of the higher cost to buy but I can respect that they are indeed very innovative in the market place. Give credit where credit is due.
Umm no. All parts of this statement (and the OPs) are wrong. OS X is based on NextStep which is based on the MACH kernel. The MACH kernel, which came out of Carnegie Mellon University is based on the BSD kernel. The BSD kernel is *not* the Linux kernel. Linux was started in 1991 and may have been influenced at some level by MACH and/or NextStep (released in 1989). However, few people used or developed for NextStep and its overall influence on Linux development was likely minimal. This is especially likely when you understand that Linux and NextStep use very different kernel models.
Its also important to understand that Linux is a kernel. It is not the GUI (KDE or Gnome which are descended from other older window managers and toolkits) nor is it the associated utilities which are all GNU based. GNU predates both Linux and NextStep by several years.
As for people copying - the solution space for the sort of tasks that users engage in on a daily basis tends to be relatively narrow. There are only so many ways to deal with directory structures after all. So what you see is a tendency for solutions from multiple companies to converge. Does some copying go on? Sure, but its very likely that even in a vacuum you'd see a parallel evolution.
Mine wasn't meant to be right it's called sarcasim but thanks for the support. :)
If that was supposed to be sarcasm I strongly suggest you look up the definition of that word.
On to your next statement. Apple copies a lot of things as well, form Creative's MP3 player interface, to Konfabulator and widgets, to Xerox's ideas for an OS.
If Rio had marketed their players to the degree as Apple, Rio would still be around. The Karma was a superior player in every way to the iPod. Yet Apple was great at marketing as well as getting tons of 3rd parties to make different things for the iPod. The one thing I hate about my iPod's is that I cannot simply just drag and drop songs from my computer to the player directly. I hate iTunes! With the Sansa players, it acts just like a USB drive, drag the songs into the music folder, pictures into the picture folder and presto, done! Plus it's nice having that built in FM radio. My girlfriend absolutely loves her Sansa because of that. I got her an iPod for valentines day shuffle for Valentines day one year and she liked it up until the point of her getting the Sansa. The first thing she did was uninstall iTunes and put the shuffle in a keepsake box. It's so simple to use! No need for an overbloated app just to transfer music.
The apple patents that are referenced above are really continuations of previous patents that have a priority date as early as mid 2006 (I think) Long before the Surface thing was shown in public. (I used to work for a supplier to Microsoft on the Surface platform, so I have a pretty good idea of when we shipped the parts to them)
Ditto to you my friend, Ditto to you.
you said
"I guess Gates just copied apple's OS back in the day because it was so un-innovative too? iTunes & iPod were both very un-innovative yet hold the #1 spot in their prospective categories. I don't care of apple myself because of the higher cost to buy but I can respect that they are indeed very innovative in the market place. Give credit where credit is due."
The Apple OS that Microsoft "stole" was basically written by Bill Gates in the first place.
Steve Wozniak wrote a brilliant code yes. But Apple had to hire Bill Gates to convert it all to floating point.
Gates pretty much gave Apple their chance, then crushed them with windows 95.
And Xerox actually gave them ALL the Idea for the GUI instead of the text based interface.
Apple never got ripped off, neither in code nor in innovations, Xerox did.
Yeah apple is innovative, but really.... the ipod is the ONLY thing they "Innovated"
everything else, is pretty much just minute details and LOADS of AMAZING marketing to the right crowd of groupies.
Multi-touch was first introdcued by Microsoft and that where apple has copied and patented for small devices. I am totally with Palm its unfair to file any case against them.
IF Palm actually owned any patents related to multi-touch, they would have sued Google AND Apple. HOWEVER, since Palm has NOT sued Apple over multi-touch, that likely means that Palm does NOT have multi-touch patents. And since Palm has NOT sued Google over Android, it's likely Palm has little in the way of technology patents that apply to phone tech that's already widely available.
Palm is probably shooting from the hip, that because they have been in the PDA business and doing phones, that their patent portfolio surely must cover some of Apple's iPhone features. Only problem is, like I said before, if they held any patent related to multi-touch, they would have sued long ago, given the popularity of Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch.
So, bottom line is, Google made the right choice, to go forward cautiously.
In general, and especially in Silicon Valley, patents are used defensively by companies that are in the business to make things. (I'll leave Patent Trolls out of this for a minute) What that means is that people who are in businesses and compete with each other know full well that each of them has patents that can cause the other a world of hurt. so they generally let these kinds of disputes lie, unless of course someone shows up at their door with a patent infringement claim.
when this Mutual Assured Destruction breaks down is when either one of the parties holds a much, much larger bag of patents and possibly some necessary patents to build something or if one of the parties doesn't make anything in the business. The threats of MAD don't work against these guys, so they tend to be the ones that go looking for licensing deals. Trolls are damned near impossible to fend off since they are playing with other victims' money. Companies that make things are easier since you can hunt and find things that you own that can cause pain.
- by born_yesterday February 11, 2009 11:55 AM PST
- You can corner the market Apple, you can't stop me from jailbrake your baby, Steve. One word for you Mr. Job, eat my sh...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(44 Comments)