You know, I actually think it would be better if the patent was upheld. Imagine the fiasco it would create. It would put the spotlight on the absurdity and abuses of the patent system when applied to technology. Might even get non-technical folks interested.

Ultimately I think the solution is going to be one of the ones Judge Posner outlined in his editorial, but it might take a big shakeup like this to turn patents into the issue-of-the-moment for the populace and get something done (you know, in the usual rushed, nobody-read-this-legislation way).

Especially if the patent were found to be invalid elsewhere, and Android gets banned only in the US. That would cause people outside our industry to stop and think.

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure Apple wouldn't get that far - they could demand a $20 or $30 royalty instead, so consumers won't be directly confronted with the insanity; Android phones would just start being closer in price to iPhones.

Well, the Galaxy Nexus was (temporarily) banned only in the US. That ban got people to stop and think, but few of those people noticed that the ban didn't mean anything for the rest of the world.

I agree, it probably won't get that far. But it would be pretty interesting if it did.

I find myself hoping for an acceleration of the patent insanity. At some point, the absurdity of software patents will come to light and we'll all be able to move on with things.

Until then, it's a painful, expensive process.

So, yes indeed, bring on the reductio ad absurdum.

And safe in countries outside the US as (some/all) of the patents won't be valid there.

Have members of this forum thought about the consequences of an unencumbered India and China with a large developer community?

Except that designers then tread in fear of violating patents and produce much cut down versions, harming the consumer.

I once worked in a place that designed a CPAP pump, which is essentially an air pump with a humidifier. It has a removable water tank with a heating plate for humidifying the air. We had to use a removable plate to expose the tank instead of a door - because our main competitor had patented a hinged flap to access the water tank!

Regardless of how obvious prior art is, it's cheaper to make minor design changes than to spend years in litigation. Even though it's worse for the consumer, you have to avoid anything patented unless you have the ready cash that Apple has lying around.

I'm curious what happens if you're wrong though. Suppose they successfully push on this and android devices are taken off the market, or priced so high to cover licensing fees that people won't buy them.

What recourse does Google have? Presumably they can't sue the patent office for granting ridiculous patents that ultimately drive them out of business.

Apple isn't immune to the patent game either. What if any of the countless assaults on Apple succeed?

There are a lot of what ifs. There are millions of patents in play.

There are a couple of things you're not considering. First, the patent-holder could easily (and almost certainly will within the next few years) be Google/Samsung/HTC/... in which case they're not going to let Apple "simply license the tech". Second, if a patent holder gets traction in an attack on Apple, what is their most lucrative option? Hint: It isn't letting Apple negotiate a license.

>> For Apple, it isn't about the money, though. Stealing Apple tech is an assault on their prestige, so they are unlikely to negotiate licensing terms with Android handset makers, and those handset makers are doomed in this market.

Never saw such a low quality analysis on HN, lately. For Motorola too then maybe it isnt about money, really?

Most of the patents they've granted look to my highly un-patent-lawyer-like eyes like things I had on phones 5 years before Apple jumped into the fray. I'm not really sweating it too much.

Multi-touch is big though and I at least have no recollection of prior art.

I didn't downvote you, but do either of your examples actually have anything to do with multi-touch?

You're right, the two examples I chose to highlight aren't multi-touch. If you watch the video linked, you'll see a ton of examples that are, and you'll see Steve talking about how proud they are to have invented it and patented it.

You'll also see the crowd freak-out when they see it, which I think is a reasonable way to assess how many times previously they've seen something similar.

> You'll also see the crowd freak-out when they see it, which I think is a reasonable way to assess how many times previously they've seen something similar.

I would disagree: RDF.

Not to mention whether a group of Apple journalists and enthusiasts have seen something before isn't quite a waterproof endorsement of lack of prior art.

What's RDF?

>isn't quite a waterproof endorsement of lack of prior art.

That's why I said "I think is a reasonable way...they've seen similar." I made no statement about it being waterproof or a lack of prior art.

Reality distortion field

The Lemur was multi-touch in 2004 or 2005, IIRC.