<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apple multi-touch patent is not legal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andremalan.net/blog/2009/02/01/apple-multitouch-patent-is-not-legal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andremalan.net/blog/2009/02/01/apple-multitouch-patent-is-not-legal/</link>
	<description>Hacking Education and Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:18:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://andremalan.net/blog/2009/02/01/apple-multitouch-patent-is-not-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-883</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andremalan.net/?p=179#comment-883</guid>
		<description>The patent you refer to does not cover all possible implementations of multi-touch interfaces. It is pretty specific to Apple&#039;s implementation. 

I suggest you learn more about how patents are written and read the actual patent rather than relying on press coverage, which often gets it wrong. Patents can be tough to decipher, but I think if you compare the specific claims to what you see elsehwere (for instance, the Han video), you&#039;ll understand the difference.

Also important: The title of your post is a lie. Apple&#039;s patent is legal. No law has been broken. You may not regard it as valid, but that does not mean it is illegal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The patent you refer to does not cover all possible implementations of multi-touch interfaces. It is pretty specific to Apple&#8217;s implementation. </p>
<p>I suggest you learn more about how patents are written and read the actual patent rather than relying on press coverage, which often gets it wrong. Patents can be tough to decipher, but I think if you compare the specific claims to what you see elsehwere (for instance, the Han video), you&#8217;ll understand the difference.</p>
<p>Also important: The title of your post is a lie. Apple&#8217;s patent is legal. No law has been broken. You may not regard it as valid, but that does not mean it is illegal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andre Malan</title>
		<link>http://andremalan.net/blog/2009/02/01/apple-multitouch-patent-is-not-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-276</link>
		<dc:creator>Andre Malan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2009 01:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andremalan.net/?p=179#comment-276</guid>
		<description>Just watched the video that Wout linked to above and find it funny how similar the action for selecting something is to that of the iPhone. It took them so long to come up with a good system when they had this as an example all along.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just watched the video that Wout linked to above and find it funny how similar the action for selecting something is to that of the iPhone. It took them so long to come up with a good system when they had this as an example all along.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andre Malan</title>
		<link>http://andremalan.net/blog/2009/02/01/apple-multitouch-patent-is-not-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-275</link>
		<dc:creator>Andre Malan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2009 01:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andremalan.net/?p=179#comment-275</guid>
		<description>@Wout Wow, I had no idea that it went that far back. Thanks so much for the extra links, they are very interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Wout Wow, I had no idea that it went that far back. Thanks so much for the extra links, they are very interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wout</title>
		<link>http://andremalan.net/blog/2009/02/01/apple-multitouch-patent-is-not-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-270</link>
		<dc:creator>Wout</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 07:06:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andremalan.net/?p=179#comment-270</guid>
		<description>The first Multi-touch system was made as far back as 1982 by Nimish Mehta. This is certainly not an original concept.

Even the different gestures used are old; Pierre Welner designed the Digital Desk in 1990 and used &quot;pinch to shrink&quot;.

It&#039;s got a very impressive demo over at google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5772530828816089246

And even the very popular Jazzmutant Lemur was from 2003... Well before the iPhone or Han.

Check this pdf for more info: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/spring2009/Projects/Multy%20touch%20systems.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first Multi-touch system was made as far back as 1982 by Nimish Mehta. This is certainly not an original concept.</p>
<p>Even the different gestures used are old; Pierre Welner designed the Digital Desk in 1990 and used &#8220;pinch to shrink&#8221;.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s got a very impressive demo over at google video:<br />
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5772530828816089246" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5772530828816089246</a></p>
<p>And even the very popular Jazzmutant Lemur was from 2003&#8230; Well before the iPhone or Han.</p>
<p>Check this pdf for more info: <a href="http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/spring2009/Projects/Multy%20touch%20systems.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/spring2009/Projects/Multy%20touch%20systems.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.971 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2011-11-22 08:46:05 -->

