The problem is Apple didn't really INVENT[1][2][3] the concept and technology for multi-touch. They just implemented the first realized product (in a phone). So what if they filed a patent for that product? It doesn't mean it wasn't an obvious technological concept.

1) http://www.macworld.com/article/49738/2006/03/interface.html

2) http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface

Paul Graham wrote an essay on software patents in 2006. I found it helpful to get an overview of the wider issue:

http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

I wonder whether this part is relevant:

"When you read of big companies filing patent suits against smaller ones, it's usually a big company on the way down, grasping at straws. For example, Unisys's attempts to enforce their patent on LZW compression. When you see a big company threatening patent suits, sell. When a company starts fighting over IP, it's a sign they've lost the real battle, for users."

Paul's thoughts are in the right direction. To extend his writing (to apply to this situation), if a company starts fighting over IP, it's a sign they've lost the battle for users or fear that they will and are attempting to preemptively kill the competition.

Among the more absurd patent claims being litigated: "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image"

Seriously? I'm not sure if it's a step above or a step below one-click, but it sure as hell ain't far from it.

Also Neonode did this back in 2004/2005 with the N1. Apple's patent is a month old.

Demo @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#t=4m00s

Edit: from question to statement.

The date Apple received the patent is very different from when they filed the patent, or even when they first came up with the idea.

So in spite of the fact that it's a bit absurd, it is inaccurate to claim that anyone who had a lock screen more than a month old constitutes prior art.

However if you read it (though, IANAL) you'll see that it is a direct translation of lock screens from standard phones to those with touchscreens. It's on the same level as a patent for "standard thing X but with a computer", or "X on the internet", now it's "X with a touchscreen".

Looks like a straight forward patent money grab. Apple just has to win on a few of these patents to negotiate a license fee with HTC. With one win under their belt they can extend it to other handset makers without too much trouble. All the sudden Apple is making some money off every cell phone sold as dumb phones disappear and get replaced by SmartPhones (or they just get smarter and infringe) Obviously Apple would never license iPhone OS to third parties so this seems like an attempt to simply license some of the technologies instead. I don't know the math but just based on the huge volume of cell phone sales alone it's gotta be worth a ton of money. If Apple loses in court other handset makers just continue to use these technologies and nothing changes. Unfortunately that's how the system works. Apple share holders were probably not too happy about the prospect of leaving all that money on the table.

My curiosity is who declared war on who in the Google v. Apple nonsense.

Just a little over a months ago, Steve Jobs took some jabs at Google, calling them out on their motto ("Don't be evil") and saying they want to kill the iPhone with Android.[1] Now we have Apple suing HTC over Android devices - glancing over the documents[2] "HTC Android Products" is mentioned over and over and over, though WinMo phones are cited as well.

In the past, Google has intentionally removed features from Android in respect to Apple's patents, even at Apple's request[3]. This isn't exactly the case now, which is why I'm asking the question... did Google start adding in these patent infringing features first, or did Apple feel threatened first?

I don't think it's a coincidence that HTC is the largest manufacturer of Android handsets. Is it possible that Apple foresees a significant loss in market share over the coming years and wants to stem the flow?

[1]: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-...

[2]: http://documents.nytimes.com/apple-patent-lawsuit-against-ht...

[3]: http://digital.venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google...

I believe that Apple 'declared war' first, when it began rejecting Google's iPhone applications last summer. First it rejected Latitude, then it rejected Google Voice, which is when things really started to get nasty.

Google has been slightly more subtle with its shots back. It released Navigation for Android, which I strongly doubt will be making it to the iPhone any time soon. It acquired AdMob before Apple could. And then it launched its own phone (less subtle, that one).

I'm curious how early Jobs found out about Google's plans for the Nexus One. I'm sure such devices take a long time to make, and if he heard last spring/summer that Google was making its own phone, that might have sparked all of this. That's just speculation though.

I don't understand this patent world. From everything I've read, it is obvious to me that I could get about 5 patents out of every casual conversation I have with my fellow grad students each day. Is everyone in the judicial system completely oblivious to this insanity?

Accepting patents is a lot less paper work for the patent office than rejecting a patent. You need to give a good reason to reject a patent, but no reason to accept a patent. Their basic operating theory seems to be accept them all and let the lawyers sort it out.

Yes. Also, if your livelihood comes from the judicial system, it's in your best interest to keep it active.

Don't forget you need about $10K to file each idea as well. That is probably the biggest barrier to entry.

It seems to be more of an attempt to attract attention.

Synaptic were working on Multitouch sensors before Apple Patented, and researchers have been for years before Apple too.

And looking at the patents, they are obvious. Hopefully Apple don't win this.

The issue is that Apple hasn't patented multitouch; they've patented heuristic algorithms to determine gestures based on multitouch input (the '949 patent'). That's why all Android phones (and the Palm Pre) shipped with multitouch-capable screens, but no multitouch-capable software (until the recent Nexus One update).

Nobody wins in these things except the lawyers. Also, at this point Apple is starting to look like a 5 year old baby throwing a temper tantrum. The negative publicity with the app store combined with taking jabs at google just makes them look really bad.

Would it be smart of Google to buy HTC? Many people speculated that YouTube would have been sued to oblivion had Google not bought them.

The article makes a good point that Palm would be a good acquisition target with all its patents (they did rule the smartphone market for many years), relatively tiny market cap and uncertain position in the market (small player amongst many giants). It would be a bit out of place for google to buy them (ie buying a hardware company whose software can't fit in google's), although it may work as a talent (Jon Rubenstein) and patent acquisition in their fight against Apple.

WebOS is actually a very good target for hosting on Android. The philosophy is also compatible with ChromeOS.

its funny you say that, because I remember everyone saying that youtube was going to get sued into oblivion as soon as it was obtained by a company with deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile.

The deeper the pocket is, the further away the oblivion is.

Well, less "sued into oblivion" and more "sued for great profit".

The difficult spot for Google is that they have to sort out if they want to be the commodity mobile software vendor or get serious about hardware. Buying HTC would then make them a competitor to many of the companies that they're now trying to get on board with Android.

Earlier conversation on this topic: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161467

Reminds of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...

That was about copyright though, this is about patents.

As we see it's not true that corporations buy patents 'just in case'. It's nice tool to axe the enemy :)