At the tail end of Apple’s quarterly earnings conference call today, COO Tim Cook (CEO Steve Jobs, who is taking a medical leave of absence, was not on the call) noted that 17 million iPhones have been sold to date. When he was asked about the rising competition from Android, Blackberry, and Palm, Cook made an oblique threat:
We approach this business as a software platform business. We are watching the landscape. We like competition as long as they don’t rip off our IP. And if they do, we will go after anyone who does.
This threat seems directed squarely at Palm, which recently launched it’s own answer to the iPhone: the Palm Pre. The Pre has a multi-touch interface, something which Apple holds patents on, and from which other competitors have steered clear. When Cook was asked if he was talking about Palm, he demurred:
I don’t want to talk about any specific company. We are ready to suit up and go against anyone. However, we will not stand for having our IP ripped off.
What makes this veiled threat even more personal is that Palm’s executive chairman is former Apple product chief Jon Rubinstein, who was installed by Elevation Partners. Elevation Partners is Palm’s biggest investor. They believe so much in the Pre that they just sunk another $100 million into the company, on their initial $325 million investment a year ago.
Maybe Rubinstein can use that cash to pay Apple a licensing fee.
Cook is good to put the proverbial foot down, but also I’d not lock everyone else out either. That was Apple’s problem in the past and a licensing structure could bode well for them.
Because every cellphone maker will want to license from them and so basically they still own it, they license it out and get a royalty from every one of them sold. Hmm…how many touchscreen cellphones besides the iphone are sold in the world each day.
Tim? Think about that. You’re not giving up your IP then you’re protecting it and also giving them a reason to NOT steal from you.
Michael Murdock
apple doesnt own multitouch.
Finger Works was a pioneer in Multi Touch. And Apple bought Finger Works and it’s patents a few years ago… That’s where it got a lot of its key patents.
they did say that apple ‘owned’ it. they said it held patents on it.
What’s the difference?
I’d just like to say that I love Apple.
me too!!! anyone else??
Me three!
BestJobsOnline
http://tinyurl.com/7uj5ay
Fuck off Mactard
I can imagine the quandry of the Apple fanboys now.
Patents are bad! They stifle innovation… (I should go out and patent drinking water)…umm ah.. unless its held by Apple… so yeah.. patents are great!
If Apple patented multi-touch then did Microsoft’s surface or HP’s multi-touch enabled PCs license it from Apple or did Apple rip off Perceptive Pixel’s IP?
Microsoft was showing off multi-touch in their research demos about 5 years before the iPhone was released. And those demos covered everything that the iPhone can do now and more. So I’m guessing that most of Apple’s patents regarding multi-touch can be easily invalidated using Microsoft’s prior art.
And you, of course, know that Apple didn’t have internal research demos of multitouch before Microsoft showed their demos.
Srsly, troll better.
And you, of course, know that Microsoft didn’t have internal research demos of multitouch before Apple didn’t have internal research demos of multitouch before Microsoft showed their demos?
How did SD troll at all?
If the demos were available publicly, they would’ve been prior art to any Apple patent filed one year after those demos.
So unless Apple’s patents were filed 5 years ago, I’d say Apple has no dibs on multi-touch.
I of course am too damn lazy to go do the research… so feel free to do it and tell me I’m wrong.
It was a very clear warning: stay off our turf. Apple files a zillion patents a year for a reason.
Zillion Patents x $2400 = A lot of money
I still can’t believe they patented how two fingers zoom in zoom out on touchscreen. Everytime I see that picture I laugh
its like patenting the volume dial on a stereo. bunch of inevitable evolution. someone should patent how humans walk and make everyone pay up or start crawling.
i still want to know who invented the claw hammer, 5 gallon bucket and steering wheel.
What does IP mean?
intellectual property
In this context, it means Intellectual property. It refers to patents, copyrights, and other non-tangible assets.
@Clayton That is exactly what I was afraid people will ask!
According to http://en.wikip...wiki/IP_address its Internet Protocol but according to Tim Cook it’s an iPhone
I just wonder did he really say “IP”?
lol. Dude, it’s Intellectual Property.
Here’s one Apple multi-touch patent filed in 2004, issued in March, 2008: http://www.goog...e&as_psrg=1
Interesting that two of the claims cover methods to copy and paste, a feature iPhone owners are still waiting for:
“2. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a copy command in response to a synchronized tap of a thumb and a fingertip detected on the multi-touch-sensitive surface.
3. The method of claim 2 further comprising generating a paste command in response to a movement of the thumb and a fingertip away from each other detected on the multi-touch-sensitive surface.”
@Clayton That is exactly what I was afraid people will ask!
According to http://en.wikip...wiki/IP_address its Internet Protocol but according to Tim Cook it’s an iPhone or what Eric said (”Intellectual Property”)
Yes, IP in this context is Intellectual Property or concepts covered by patents. As for as the cut and paste patents and why we haven’t seen it — Apple may have tried that approach in-house and found it wanting…but still patent the idea with the hope that it could be improved to the point of implementation.
Or they can wait til someone else perfects it and sue them for it.
Your dumb.
Wow, that’s a LOT of money to make and market a new phone (re another 100 million). Is that money that is invested into the future of the product or to keep the company alive based on old liabilities?
More to keep the company alive.
Apple? Liabilities? Surely you jest about such a topic!
http://finance....AAPL&annual
Just fyi, the current liabilities are just short term things. Accounts payable is like buying countries full of RAM and waiting for an invoice to pay for them, less than 90 days total. No long term stuff as you can see.
Apple doesn’t usually license their tech, though. Mac OS X, FairPlay, etc. I think they acquire the patents so that they can be the only one with the feature, not so they can make competitors pay through the nose. Or, at least, not directly.
Good point.
Just a thought.
Plam gets a second investment from Elevation Partners.
Elevation Partners is a primary investment vehicle for U2’s band members, hence the name “Elevation”.
U2 are paid by Apple to promote some of their products.
Funny how they’re all interlinked.
great site! congratulations! and “I love apple” too! hahaha
This makes Apple look really bad. Steve Jobs sounded so proud when he announced all the patents they had on the iPhone during the original keynote. I hope they don’t kill the Pre before it even comes out.
funny, most of you are all anti-patent, unless that is apple holds the patent. what happened to “patents kill innovation”?
I think the Pre kicks ass. I am using an IPhone right now, and I miss a keyboard.
Plus, the demos of the Pre with Facebook/Outlook integration and marriage of data is awesome.
Pre kicks ass Pre kicks ass Pre kicks ass Pre kicks ass…but it’s not out yet and we never played with it.
Nerds, please get a life and a personalty.
…. well i guess i wont be releasing MY new handheld..
THANKS ALOT APPLE!
Eric,
Slight correction, next Android major firmware update contains multi-touch features..its due late q1 of 2009..
I guess we’ll see now if it comes out.
Wouldn’t it put Eric Schmidt in a rather sticky situation to have Apple going after Google for IP theft? Board member for one company, CEO of the other.
Also, given that the iPhone is slowly starting to dominate the US smart phone market, might their not being antitrust implications if they refused to license their multitouch patents — especially with carrier exclusives locking their technology to one phone *and* one service provider? (Just a thought — I’m not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.)
@Josh Catone: There is a reason that Eric sits out on all iPhone related board discussions.
Patent kills innovation? How can? Apple has every right to go after Pre, or anybody who is trying to copy their IP instead delivering a better innovation. I respect Apple for their contribution in innovation. I think, they have a good dicipline in perfecting things consistenly. Multi-touch gesture may seems not-so-great innovation, but no one come up with that idea until Apple bring it to the mass market
Or Pre is forced to use regular zooming (Android) and then patents different IP for some other cool feature.
And now you get a bunch of phones, each having desirable features. But no one can combine it due to patent issues.
I have no problem when a company files patents on products that they have introduced into the marketplace.
What I do have problem with is companies that file patents not related to any shipping product with the sole intent of putting themselves in a position to sue (shakedown) anyone else who, often unknowingly, brings a product that uses the same idea to market.
In the former case, a company in violation does harm the patent holder’s business. In the latter case, no harm to business is done.
Patents should be issued on a use-it-or-lose it basis. It should be prohibited to file or hold onto a patent that essentially prohibits inventions from being deployed if you have never produced a product. There should be a time limit from the time the patent is granted to which time a product must be made available for use. And, if a product is withdrawn, there should be an expiration date where all patents used exclusively would become invalid. That would allow a company time to sell its IP if it were to go out of business or decide to exit a market.
Regarding multi-touch… I don’t believe that multi-touch in general can be patented. It has to have an application. For example, you could not patent the use of any and all gestures involving multiple fingers on a touchscreen, but you could patent a specific application, say, the use of two fingers on a virtual keyboard displayed on a mobile device where swiping to the left with two fingers results in deleting a character.
How about patenting the pressing of a Backspace key on a real keyboard to delete a character?
I’m working on it
George, that sounds too logical and simple – will this principle yield more money than how it works now? If it doesn’t, you’re just crazy.
Since I have a great plan with Sprint (all inclusive, flat rate) and would never switch carriers for a phone, I am beat when it comes to the iphone. I did however see a Sprint logo on the Pre demo on Palm’s site…so I’m guessing I’ll have the opportunity to go with the Pre once out as long as it’s not stifled by IP lawsuits.
Don’t get me wrong, my blackberry is great for emails, messaging and even calls, but the browser blows. The Pre seems to capture the real internet, pinch technology and a real keyboard…so sign me up!
And by the way, no one ever talks about it, but is there anything worse than these exclusivities these days…iphone only on att, blackberry storm only on verizon and so forth.
who’d ever think you could create a monopoly by pinching and poking a phone??
Who’d ever thought you could just pick something up and use it as a “tool”, and rule the whole animal kingdom?
Does Microsoft Surface have multitouch?
If yes, does it infringe Apple’s patents?
If yes, is Apple the only company able to sell multitouch device?
Anyway, I just bought some Apple stock, so, I love Apple. I want them to rule the world and to be [or remain] the only source of true source of innovation on the planet (at least until I decide to sell my stock).
Apple does not “own” the concept of multitouch. Apple owns the IP behind its implementation of multitouch.
Steve Jobs would like to think he “invented” multitouch, but I think the general public got exposed to multitouch through Jeff Han’s (Perceptive Pixel) demos at TED in Feb 2006 (about a year before the debut of the iPhone):
http://www.ted....ouchscreen.html
Of course, Steve Jobs is more well known than Jeff Han, so everyone thinks Jobs / Apple invented multitouch.
Apple has really nailed the fundamentals of growing a successful profitable business – 1. Identifying their ideal customer and 2. Understanding their lifetime value of their customers and developing a product development strategy that supports this … http://www.goth...mtechminute.com
Fuck Patents! I can walk on my hands while I chew a gum. Can I patent that as a gymnastic maneuver?
Yes, if there’s no prior art and you can prove that its novel and non-obvious.
A lot of people thought (and sadly still think) that Apple invented touchscreen phones too. I kept telling them my Windows Mobile phone had far more features and they would say “but the iphone has touchscreen!”. Then they looked confused when I showed them my touchscreen, finger scrolling, 3G, copy-pasting, true GPS WM phone that came out years before the iCopy.
I bet they looked even more confused when you tried to suggest that WinMo performs any better than a gigantic turd in a box
Did I miss the memo where Jobs handed the reins to TV’s Ryan Stiles?
How can you have a patent on multi touch?????
It’s not necessarily the multi-touch functionality; moreso what the software does with the multi-touch. There is a reason the Blackberry Storm acts differently, and ended up being an epic fail.
someone is getting nervous here
..
i am an iphone lover, but will exchange it for a palm pre as soon as available!!
if this the tone apple, i would say RIP apple….patents are stupid…i see many ppl just patent any stupid idea to get bonus, promotion and name in the companies
multi touch patent, give me a break, there are many things in life are multi touch….does it mean we all should pay royalty to apple for doing things for centuries….who ever granted patent on simple multi touch idea is just an idiot
Patents have their place. I see the patenting of non-tangible assets such as logos/trademarks, etc. as being understandable and necessary, however filing a patent on how a person interacts with a screen is stepping across the line in my mind.
Companies by their nature are oppotunistic. So if you provide them with an opportunity to patent a product or concept at the expense of a competitor (and a competitor’s innovation), then that company will take the opportunity.
Perhaps the current climate of patents is more a consequence of decisions made by Government and IP Associations, and not the companies themselves?
As a side note, I’m looking forward to trying out the Palm Pre. I’m always one to back the underdog!
Tim Cook is saying this to Jon Rubinstein,but since Jon worked in Apple, he is well aware of the risk.He may use some way not to rip off iPhone,but to excel iPhone.
Seems like most everybody here needs to take a basic course on patent and trademark law.
Logos, slogans, taglines etc. receive trademarks or service marks, not patents. Kleenex is a trademarked brand of facial tissue.
Patents are necessary to protect and encourage innovation and invention. Keep in mind that complete products are rarely, if ever, patentable. It is the specific technologies implemented that allow for unique, new or improved functionality that are patentable. So, if (I do not know what patents they hold or purport to hold) Apple invented a way for the “multitouch” screen to work better or more effectively through the invention of new materials or software and is different from previously patented ideas (prior art), then they have every right to protect that invention through patents. They then have the choice to license their patented technology to others or hold it for their own use. If they decide to not license, it is up to their competitors to develop their own and different way to achieve similar functionality.
No company is going to spend money researching new technologies if there new idea can be legally ripped off by every copycat. On the flipside, without it would be impossible for individuals to protect their ideas and inventions if not for patent laws. Larger companies would simply copy the idea and market it. As it is now, if the company wants to use a patented item (technique, software, part) they must pay the royalty to the patent holder.
Being able to manufacture a patented item should not be a criteria for patentability as some here have argued. There are many legitimate patent holders who do not “make” anything. For example, if I invent a new microchip design that is not covered by prior art, I should be permitted to patent the idea whether or not I can physically manufacture the item. I am then able to take my idea and sell or license it to those who can.
Could anyone guessed that Apple would be such a cry baby for having to be copied, They uniquely dominated the market showing creativity and wits. That does not mean any one else could not do. Whats next another fool claiming UNIX as his/her invention. Give me a break.
Apple doesn’t need to worry since Palm fuck it up once again by pricing the Pre out of our interest.
It surprises me that TC would write an article about Apple’s Multi Touch patents without mentioning Finger Works.
Finger Works was a pioneer in Multi Touch, and has had products on the market for years. Apple purchased them (and their patents) a few years ago.
i was multi touching with all ten fingers TEN YEARS AGO ON MY WET WARE SO FKAL