The Newton had an onscreen keyboard - in 1994.

While I don't know what "keyboard display incapable of user termination" means, you can Google "on screen keyboard" and get nearly 60 million hits. A pretty strong indicator of prior art. I've used touch screen keyboards on everything from ATMs to photocopiers to airline checkin terminals.

And perhaps companies such as Apple who are frequent targets of these lawsuits should stop selling their products in and around Tyler, Texas, which is a notorious venue for what most would consider to be frivolous lawsuits. Maybe that will get the attention of the residents in that area and prompt them to get their congressional reps to do something about it.

like I said before, 50% profit margin without royalties in mind is not really a profit margin. You're gonna see some more serious lawsuits popping-up many years from now. Once the iPhone becomes a more popular products, and Apple sells millions of them, then the real lawsuits will start appearing. The patent office is F…U…

A keyboard display is not a keyboard that is displayed. It's a display of some kind that is integrated into a keyboard. Some high end keyboards have these but none are Mac compatible that I've found.

The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard so how can it have a keyboard display? It seems this company may have a dispute with the English language rather than Apple.

I used Google Patents to look up the claim. http://www.google.com/patents?id=YPIRAAAAEBAJ&dq=method+and+medium+for+computer+readable+keyboard+display+incapable+of+user+termination Patent No.: 6784873 Inventors: Peter V. Boesen, Thomas J. Mann Filing date: Aug 4, 2000 Issue date: Aug 31, 2004

As much as I'd like to think this is only about it being a virtual keyboard, after reading the patent description, it seems clear, that the iPhone's soft-keyboard is probably THE BEST implementation of the EXACT technology described in the patent.

That said, this patent should NEVER have been granted. At best, the patent even admits that the ONLY distinction between the claims of the patent and existing soft-keyboard technology, is that none of the implementations they'd seen REMOVED the option of the user closing the keyboard. Why is it an "invention" if you simply "remove" an option for users to close the keyboard (when input is needed, the keyboard opens itself, and when its not, it goes away)? They proceed to say ANYTHING even in the same spirit should be covered by this vague and useless claim.

New patents are generally about ADDING features, not removing them. You add a back to a stool, and you've invented a chair. These guys are effectively saying that they've "invented" the three-legged stool, after removing the forth-leg of the normal stool, and claiming that customers will have an easier time assembling it so they now have a patentable "innovation". They then proceed to describe how many existing keyboards work and how this minor omission is useful in eliminating customer confusion.

Boy, I'd love to find an existing invention... REMOVE functions from it that might cause customer confusion, and patent it. Wow, sounds like a winner!

How pathetic. Hear that people? Don't take the close/minimize buttons off your on-demand virtual keyboards, or they'll come after you too!

If you have ever been there you will understand this is a joke. They filed there to find a sympathetic Judge or technically uninformed Jury who does know any better.

Good BBQ restaurants in Tyler Texas so if it goes to trial they will eat pretty good.

[REMOVE functions from it that might cause customer confusion, and patent it.]

Don't laugh; some would consider that a "significant improvement"-- a major patent consideration,along with Prior Art-- where I think this patent will be deflated. Even the reference patent cited actually shows an implementation closer to iPhone-- but of course both patents describe stylus-driven input. Nobody's talking about finger-touch in their abstracts, and the engineering problems overcome for that purpose.

['m filing for a patent on patent lawsuits]

Forget it, that's not a machine or article of manufacture. Your court is the Copyright Office, and you can't copyright an idea-- only an embodiment.

The thing that bothers me, the patent office long ago used to require "reduction to practice"-- actual working prototypes-- and they don't anymore. I think they should return to that policy. I realize that makes home fusion reactor innovation unlikely but a lot of blue sky stuff could be tested for efficacy this way, ejected, and ease the load on the PTO.

It's just a bit possible more than one company has "cleanly" arrived at the notion of a vitrtual keyboard and even implemented it. Apple did it, Palm did it, tons of examples. The iPhone is definitely a significant improvement on these.

Apple reduces to practice, or put another way by big Steve, "real artists ship."

IMHO, this will be another nuisance suit with some merit-- I predict a settlement but no mandatory licensing whatsoever. Even in Tyler, Texas.

As a side note, I am claiming to be the first to break wind while using an iPhone and will expect "reasonable royalties" from each person who does so hereafter... otherwise you're just engaging in "willful and deliberate" copying.

Claiming to be the first is one thing, but you can't demand royalties unless you patent or copyright it. And then you'll have to prove you were the first. But then you'll lose there, because others will argue that the iPhone is just a portable communications device, of which have existed for years, and people have been farting while using them for ages (h***, people s*** while using them - I'd love to be on the other side of that call). Sorry, but you lose on all counts.

When Apple has a hit product, all of these other companies come crawling out of the woodwork to sue. If they have the patent already, where is the product that benefits from the patent?

Well, if they didn't have a hit product, there wouldn't (a) be any reason to sue apple (for what, $6 of royalties?) and (b) no one would pay attention and hear about it.

As for the 'product that benefits', you do not need to have to make the product in order to have the patent. It could be you're working on gaining capital investment to produce a product. Or you're trying to license the product to others (a virtual keyboard, by itself, is useless unless you have an application to use it with, and a device to use it on). The point of a patent is to give you the time to develop a product and put it on the market. You all act like the second a patent is given, a product must exist.

Apple's had a software based keyboard that works with touchscreens since at least the OS 9 Era. Key Caps was a godsend.

KeyCaps was around since v1.0 of the MacOS. But its not the same thing. You could not type in keycaps in lieu of the keyboard (typing on it did not enter the text into MacWrite, for example). You would have to click keys, then highlight the resulting text, copy it out, and paste it into your document. It was also user terminatable, whatever the h*** that's supposed to mean.

And perhaps companies such as Apple who are frequent targets of these lawsuits should stop selling their products in and around Tyler, Texas, which is a notorious venue for what most would consider to be frivolous lawsuits. Maybe that will get the attention of the residents in that area and prompt them to get their congressional reps to do something about it.

Um, well, if the residents are like most people, they would take that more as a slap in the face and actually find against the companies even more.

If you have ever been there you will understand this is a joke. They filed there to find a sympathetic Judge or technically uninformed Jury who does know any better.

This isn't a joke. Lawsuits are serious. If you take it as a joke, you're going to lose. The lawyers pick Tyler texas because it has a history of successful outcomes. This is done ALL the time. Generally, the venue for a case is picked based on the history and leanings of the courts and people in the area. Some circuit courts are a lot more liberal then others, some juries more sympathetic for the little guy then others. Its the way the system works. Maybe Tyler Texas is filled with a bunch of PC-loving Apple-haters (the only people who would ever find Apple had infringed, as we all know).

The problem with requiring the loser to pay all is often small inventors could never protect their patents under such a system. The law is not always clear, and courts do not always make fair decisions. Go into any low level court, and on a daily basis you will see a judge making the law up. Lower level judges 1) do not care if the case is reversed, and 2) know that most cases are never appealed. Federal courts on a whole are better then state courts, but it occurs in both.

Between big companies loser pays all may be a good system because it puts pressure on the big companies to settle to law suit. A company will not settle if it feels it will win because it can afford to pay the other side's court fees. A small company or inventor cannot afford to lose even if he thinks he is right and loser pays all puts unequal pressure on that person or company to settle or withdraw from the suit.

No instead, judges should be more proactive in dismissing clearly frivolous suits in the beginning stages of a suit. In such cases, the loser should pay all. If a judge deems a suit is not frivolous at the beginning stages the parties should carry their own legal bills unless it later becomes clear the suit should have been settled or dismissed but was not.

Moreover, the patent system needs to be reformed.

This is simply a patent parking company stretching the description of their patent to encompass the iPhone. They're looking for fast cash and many times get it. Little do they know the 40 years left to them of the good life will be followed by an eternity of burning in h***. Not a good return on investment I'd say.

It is also worth noting that Fingerworks was granted a patent for what seems to describe Apple's iPhone keyboard.

Moreover, Apple bought Fingerworks, so it owns the patent.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=dygWAAAAEBAJ&dq=fingerworks

That patent is for a physical 10 key system. Nothing to do with the iPhone.

Back in the late 90s through about 2002 I worked at a software company (First Wave Inc. - now out of business) that authored and sold a program called Kiosk Communicator. One feature our software had was customizable touchscreen keyboards that appeared when needed and then went away after data input to free up screen space. We deployed these nationally and partnered with Apple to promote our product (it was generally deployed on touch-enabled iMacs).

Take a look - http://web.archive.org/web/20010218122050/www.first-wave.com/com_kc_tour_04.html

If this company filed the suit in their local district etc i'd think twice about the validity of their claim, but since they chose to manipulate the situation, i say let them rot in h***, them and other patent farmers only out to make money and not actually produce anything. Bunch of progress hindering c***-heads!!

Stop selling the iPhone in Florida. Then let's see how long the suit lasts.

Of the notion that one should extort in order to win. Seems rather morally bankrupt to suggest that the market fixes everything.

this is patent law-suit No.1 There'll be a No.2 and No.3 and so on for many years to come. That's how many of those 'innovative' companies function. They patent everything under the sun, and just sit-around and wait for someone to use it.

A few friends of mine work for the PTO and they told me that IBM makes billions of dollars a year from patents. IBM and I think HP are patent nuts.

Stop selling the iPhone in Florida. Then let's see how long the suit lasts.

Ah, apparently you're either still in the fifth grade, or handle all tasks in your life like you're still in the fifth grade. Someone doesn't kiss your feet, so you pout and take your ball home?

And exactly how would Apple taking the iPhone out of florida somehow magically get this lawsuit dismissed? What, a groundswell of potential buyers storming the company, setting it on fire and killing all the owners? Or laws passed that no lawsuits can be filed against apple inc?

Back in the late 90s through about 2002 I worked at a software company (First Wave Inc. - now out of business) that authored and sold a program called Kiosk Communicator. One feature our software had was customizable touchscreen keyboards that appeared when needed and then went away after data input to free up screen space. We deployed these nationally and partnered with Apple to promote our product (it was generally deployed on touch-enabled iMacs).

And so maybe you're prior company will be suing apple for stealing their idea. And since you say you 'partnered' with apple, there might be even more litigation available to them. Woohoo!

testudo/louzer!! geesh, pick a name already. you act like you're in the fifth grade and we're a bunch of 3rd graders and can't possibly see the similarities.

He he....busted.

Shouldn't the existence of the Newton (and PalmOS) make this claim a short-lived one?

The N800 device also provides a keyboard only when needed without user termination required. They should also sue Nokia

In september 1999, in preparation for CeBit in Germany, while working on a project for Ericsson, I implemented a virtual, on-screen keyboard which in fact covered all the "art" specified by the patent in question. It was for a "screen-phone/web pad" which contained pretty much all the features iPhone sports, but in a more primitive implementation, with a much bigger screen.

What's even better is that I spent a great deal of time hacking on the touch screen driver to add for multi-touch support which actually functioned relatively well, with the exception of two presses on the identical horizontal line, that was the whammy.

So, the reason Apple ignored their warning is that they don't have even half a leg to stand on.