1 of 3
1
Patents
Posted: 17 June 2007 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]
Rank
Joined  2007-06-06
Total Posts:  24
New Member

Some start-up has patent applications on techniques used in multitouch screens - story here

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2007 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Rank
Joined  2007-06-09
Total Posts:  19
New Member

Would I be the only one laughing if MS gets sued?

 Signature 

Photoshop Master cool hmm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2007 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Rank
Joined  2007-06-06
Total Posts:  24
New Member

In some ideal, alternative reality, Microsoft buys the company, fires all its lawyers, covers the patent with a covenant not to sue clause and everybody’s happy. wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2007 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Rank
Joined  2007-06-09
Total Posts:  19
New Member

blank stare looks like I don’t get to see Microsoft get their asses kicked then....damn...ah well maybe next time!  tongue wink

 Signature 

Photoshop Master cool hmm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2007 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
RankRank
Joined  2007-06-12
Total Posts:  195
Member

A quick search reveals:

-A patent by Phillips to do FTIR on an LCD display.  They attach some sort of photosensitive silicon to the back of the LCD (rather than using a cam).
http://freepatentsonline.com/20070084989.pdf

-A patent by MIT to do FTIR.  Photocells at the end of the display detect light loss within it and interpolate where the finger would have made contact.
http://freepatentsonline.com/20040252091.pdf

-The patent noted above by Reactrix.  It seem to cover diffused illumination pretty thoroughly.

-These guys use internal reflection and a single

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2007 02:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
RankRank
Joined  2007-06-12
Total Posts:  195
Member

I found a patent with a figure that looks an awful lot like FTIR.  It’s 73 pages long and I haven’t read it yet.  I believe this qualifies as prior art:

In December 1985, Richard Greene from San Francisco, CA used FTIR in a graphics tablet.  He used a prism to block out external light, but did mention that the camera could be equipped with an IR filter and use IR as an input.  It’s pretty clear that he was thinking about visible light FTIR, but his primary claim is for a camera that can only see FTIR light to be used as an input device.  Infrared light and a rectangular prism seem to be reasonable extensions of this claim.  His claim was also geared towards digital art (he used FTIR to mimick real brushes in computers).  I don’t see any reason this couldn’t cover FTIR as a general input device.

I’m not a lawyer.  Read it for yourself here:  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4561017.pdf

My last post got cut off.  The 4th solution i referenced used one camera and FTIR.  It triangulated a repsonse based on where an image was in air space vs. where the corresponding image was in the surface.

Here’s another from 1996 on rearlit diffused illumination:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5483261.pdf

This guy has a claim that looks an awful lot like FTIR and an external camera:
http://freepatentsonline.com/20040108990.pdf

I haven’t read it yet.  Pay special attn. to figure 10b.  I don’t know if embedding the LEDs gets around his patent, but it shouldn’t matter using the Drawing Prism as prior art.

Another prior art:  Danny Rozin built a canvas using IR light input and an external camera in 1998.  I don’t know if he used FTIR, but he did use an external camera, IR light, and a projector on the canvas.
http://www.smoothware.com/danny/neweasel.html

I’m tired and I’ve been reading patents quite a bit today.  Hopefully this post is coherent. =)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 02:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
RankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-01-08
Total Posts:  1008
Member

thanks for taking your time to look in to this illustrated, i will do some reading upon it now

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Rank
Joined  2007-08-31
Total Posts:  20
New Member

Are there any methods for multitouch that aren’t patented?
I am looking into selling small multitouch systems that are all set to go, except for a computer (as I cannot compete with big players, my only weapon will be cheapness). I am not trying to get a huge market, I just want to make a little bit of pocket money (:Of course, I will be running them on freeware.
However, if all current multi-touch imput systems are patented, then I don’t have much hope. By ‘imput system’ I don’t mean software, I mean the hardware, i.e. DI or FTIR.
So, are there any multitouch imput systems that are not patented?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2007 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
RankRank
Joined  2007-06-12
Total Posts:  195
Member

I don’t believe a Jeff Han-esque FTIR table is patentable.  FTIR is a very old technology.  It was being used as an input device in the 80s.

Also, if you properly structure your business and do end up in a lawsuit, hopefully there won’t be much for you to lose.  In any case, you’ll get a cease-and-desist before you are sued.  At that point you can decide if it’s worth defending or you can just fold.  If it’s going to be small anyway, the patent problem becomes pretty moot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2007 02:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Rank
Joined  2007-08-31
Total Posts:  20
New Member

Yea, well, I kinda doubt it can be anything but small . . . I’m a fifteen-year-old kid grin .
I got the idea from a dude (forgot who) who thought of selling a ‘kit-set’ style setup through IKEA. As we don’t have IKEA here in NZ, I though maybe I could do the same.
But you say that FTIR is not patented or patentable, as it has been used since 1980s . . . that’s good.

What about a simple DI?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2007 12:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
RankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-01-08
Total Posts:  1008
Member

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

Here another website to look up patents.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2008 07:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Rank
Joined  2008-01-02
Total Posts:  5
New Member

So I’m currently working on a number of different multitouch development projects right now, from corporate to art installations. I was wondering who if any one has patented this work, and can you. As we all know there are starting to be some big players in the game right now, so any one who is thinking of starting any type of business off of this technology, we as a community need to consider these what the legal implications are. Also is the term NUI copyrighted by you guys, or is it a broad term that is being used to describe this new type of User Interface.

Thanks to all who give there input in advance.

Joshua AM

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2008 03:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Rank
Joined  2008-03-08
Total Posts:  3
New Member

Look at this patent from Microsoft (US, Japan and Europe):

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=JP2006040271&F=0&QPN=US2006010400&RPN=US2006010400&DOC=dcb66f26dd9a5109c07b32e9b16910e087 (in particular: Claims, Description, etc.)

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I understand this means that all the people developing FTIR or DI based prototypes/products like us should pay royalties to Microsoft.

Am I correct? Has anybody contacted Microsoft/had legal issues about patents like this?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2008 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-08
Total Posts:  2539
Dedicated

There’s no way that would be true, as MS was not the first to develop FTIR or DI based technology. There are other large companies also selling similar based techniques.

 Signature 

MTmini, MTbiggie, & Audiotouch creator & Community Core Vision Co-founder

Follow on:
My Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Youtube

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2008 02:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Rank
Joined  2008-03-08
Total Posts:  3
New Member

I agree, but that patent exists and it describes almost the same thing that we’re doing.

Do you think that we should simply ignore it? I’m quite confused…

Also, could you name some of those companies selling FTIR devices before Microsoft?

I only know of companies that have started selling *after* the introduction of Surface…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2008 03:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Avatar
Rank
Joined  2007-09-25
Total Posts:  84
New Member

First of all, everyone can build a multitouch table. A patent is all about selling it, nothing else.

The technology we, and microsoft use for their multitouch displays is build on that of Jef Hans demo’s. I’m sure he’ll has some patents on some things.

Microsoft can have some patent (or can have asked some patent, because I think it’s way to early to have them recognized). But i find it rather strange that the patent document is in Japanese, or something alike and not in American English, because we’re speaking about international and european patents here. I’m not sure your source is thrust worthy.

The patents I could find, and I’m sure their legal about Surface are these:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=OOufAAAAEBAJ&dq="microsoft+surface"

 Signature 

http://www.michaelvanderheeren.be/

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
‹‹ patent      Apple patent gesture dictionary ››