Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 17:19 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 412041
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-14
And yes this is absurd. Only the folks who figured out the method to do multitouch in the first place in hardware should hold the patent.
That wouldn't make sense. What if the guy who patented the technology didn't have the means to bring it to market. Selling patents is fine. As long as the original inventor gets compensated for it.
And yes, if a company that Apple bought held valid patents on multi-touch technology, then everyone shoujld pay Apple to use the patents. They also had the opportunity to buy Fingerworks. If they didn't then they obviously didn't foresee the technology's potential, and only realised it one Apple brought a product to market. Apple took risks and deserves the reward.