Breaking: Apple Files Touchscreen Mouse Patent

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just thinking, the patent office has a backlog of several years so when you apply for a patent it could be several years before it's approved. So is the article saying that they just filed one or had it been given to them after several years of processing?
 
basically, apple took another invention and applied a few more words to the end of the patent to create a new patent... apple now patented a touchscreen "on a mouse"... numpad "on a mouse"... phone "on a mouse".
 
Well, I suppose this is a step up for a company that sells a one-button mouse that needs workarounds to get a right-click.
 
Wait a sec... So Apple needed a patent and many impractical (my opinion, based on the picture) additional buttons before they were willing to consider more than a single button for their mouse? How very... Apple.
 
That's an interesting idea. Part of the article is misleading though. Apple is upping Microsofts mouse, but Microsoft's Arc Touch Mouse was just upping Apple's Magic Mouse with the additional feature of flexible curving. It was Apple that came up with the touch sensitive mouse idea. The article leads one to imply otherwise.
 
@notanakin: Considering every mouse they [Apple] currently sell has the ability to right-click, that's not exactly something new to apple. But thanks for giving your opinion without using one!
@dman3k: Ivention, not really. Innovation, definitley. If I can have my phone on a dock as I sit at my desk, and place a call without taking it off the dock, it really is more intuitive. Keep it up, Apple.
By the way, I'm not some Apple fanboy; but when you can simplify such a task and simplify lives in the process, then I'll promote your products too.
 
seems useless to me with your hand on top of the screen. I'm against apple, but I'm also against microsoft. Unfortunately, these silly gimmicks manage to attract the masses and create profits.
 
Slapping 2 existing technologies together is not innovation, nor is it worth a patent. True innovation is inventing the mouse, or the touchscreen. Putting them together is just feeding off the crumbs of other people's greatness.
 
Not sure how this would work. I mean with a mouse, you move it around on a small area so the laser feeds DPI data back to the computer and therefore moves the mouse with your movements.

This will do something but I can't see it for more than just a gimmick really.
 
QUOTE but even the most emotional Apple-haters among us have to admit that some of the best ideas for future computing devices come out of Apple's labs..



Like??
 
my current optical mouse is just fine. i'll wait a couple of years for prices to come down and have a look at it, if the public accepts it.
 
I thought the purpose of a touch screen was to remove the need for a mouse/keyboard accessory in the first place?

Now they want to put a touch-screen ON a mouse? Why? Why would you need or want that?

Why not put a touch screen on my car's dashboard so I can operate all my car's stuff without turning knobs and pressing buttons? I'd prefer that over a touch-screen mouse.
 
[citation][nom]mister g[/nom]Just thinking, the patent office has a backlog of several years so when you apply for a patent it could be several years before it's approved. So is the article saying that they just filed one or had it been given to them after several years of processing?[/citation]

The Patent application was published on 2009. This means it was probably filed around 2007-2008. It should not be until a few years before we know if they can obtain allowance of the patent.

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]Slapping 2 existing technologies together is not innovation, nor is it worth a patent. True innovation is inventing the mouse, or the touchscreen. Putting them together is just feeding off the crumbs of other people's greatness.[/citation]

True. If indeed this is the case where it is two known techs that are put together and the effect of the combination is nothing more than the sum of each tech, without further "synergy", then it is an aggregation which is not patentable under Section 35. USC 103.


Cheers
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but someone already did this, did they not? I could have sworn I'd seen at least a concept model (using OLED or maybe eInk) that had a touchscreen in the mouse that allowed it to be configurable or display status or something. Looks like Apple saw the same article, this is why first-to-invent is much better than a first-to-file system (and also explains why slow-moving dinosaurs like Microsoft want first-to-file).

[citation][nom]EnFoRceR22[/nom]QUOTE but even the most emotional Apple-haters among us have to admit that some of the best ideas for future computing devices come out of Apple's labs..Like??[/citation]
Hmm.. Firewire, which they then discontinued. Umm... Multitouch (supposedly). Err... yeah, I got nothing else.
 
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Correct me if I'm wrong, but someone already did this, did they not? I could have sworn I'd seen at least a concept model (using OLED or maybe eInk) that had a touchscreen in the mouse that allowed it to be configurable or display status or something. Looks like Apple saw the same article, this is why first-to-invent is much better than a first-to-file system (and also explains why slow-moving dinosaurs like Microsoft want first-to-file).
Hmm.. Firewire, which they then discontinued. Umm... Multitouch (supposedly). Err... yeah, I got nothing else.[/citation]

I disagree with your statement regarding first-to-invent vs. first-to-file. If indeed there was such an article outhere, and it was published BEFORE filing of Apple's patent application, then it is prior art which can bar Apple from obtaining the patent, regardless of whether it is a first-to-file or first-to-invent patent system.

First-to-invent is cumbersome in that it requires affidavits and swearing behind a reference to effectively establish that a given party invented before another one.

In fact, there is room to argue that a first-to-invent system does not go along the intent for patent protection; provide an incentive for innovators to share innovation (through publication of patent) provided they obtain a limited exclusivity - insofar as this sharing is done asap so that others may benefit from such knowledge asap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom