Either way it doesn't seem relevant since it is capacitive and display-covering transparent capacitive panels have been in existence since at least 1983. (Bob Boie, Bell Labs)
If it was relevant, shouldn't Samsung be in the clear for their AMOLED displays since the patent only mentions LCDs? (elsewhere in the doc)
He alluded to HN posters who make broad IP statements without the experience or training to back them up. I'm not arguing the other side -- I was just trying to point out that the issue may be more complex than you assume. Take of that what you want.
I agree that the issue is surely complex. It does seem fair to assume that I can use logic and literacy to at least isolate the items I don't understand. If you look a few comments down, we seem to have reached that point.
Sigh, I quit. I'm done posting to HN. The graybeards are right, it's just not the same. Snark and dogma get upvoted, and there's no point trying to fight it.
This isn't meant as a reply so much as a final comment so that anyone who stumbles upon my profile knows why I never post.
Edit: Hate to edit my last post but I replied to the wrong comment and meant to post it here.
For example, you could start with the first sentence in Apple's claim: it applies to a "touch-sensitive display." What you cited incorporates a touch-sensitive sensor without a display that responds similarly. It's not unreasonable to say that a projector screen is not the same as a display.