decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
no No NO! | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
no No NO!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT
Actually, multitouch screen technology is a very specific
physical implementation of using the capacitance of human
touch to allow multiple points to be captured at a time.
Most early touchscreens (including most pre-iphone
smartphones) could only handle one touch in one place -
they'd get confused if you touched multiple places. There
is a very specific implementation behind it (and, AFAIK, the
only one that works). Of all the tech in the iPhone, it's
probably conceptually the most patent worthy - it's a
breakthrough in human interaction with a touchscreen (and,
again, Apple doesn't own it - they license it from the
inventor).

And yes, to a large extent, an inventor can choose WHETHER
to license their invention - they're under no obligation to
do so. They can license exclusively to one person if they
want and shut everyone else out. They can license to 2
companies and deny a third. A patent is by definition a
grant of monopoly - the patent holder controls the market.
Which includes the ability to exclude others from the
market, even if it's purely to spite a competitor.

I'm not honestly sure if that extends so far as to be able
to be overtly racist in your licensing, but that's a crazy
and extreme example well beyond the scope of this
discussion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )