Multi-touch in the Courtoom? Palm versus Apple Round 1

In a conference call on January 21st, Apple’s current front man and chief operating officer Tim Cook told investors that Apple “[like’s] competition, as long as they don’t rip off our [intellectual property,] and if they do, we’re going to go after anybody that does. We will not stand for having our intellectual property ripped off and we’ll use whatever weapons we have at our disposal,” he said. This morning, Palm spokesperson Lynn Fox told Digital Daily that “Palm has a long history of innovation that is reflected in [its] products and robust patent portfolio, and we have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space.” We have confirmed that one of Apple’s aforementioned “weapons” could be the law firm Farella Braun and Martel. “Apple has recently become a client [of ours] so we’re not going to be able to comment on issues related to them,” a company spokesperson told us. But can an Apple lawsuit against Palm hold up in court? One frighteningly similar feature that’s debatable is the Pre’s multi-touch display, which users can “pinch” to zoom in and out. That “pinch”action is a staple on the iPhone and iPod touch and a favorite among owners.  There’s also the bottom centered push-button on the Pre which brings users back to the device’s home screen to view all open programs, or “cards.” The iPhone, of course, has had this same button for years, and it offers the same functionality. TheiPhoneBlog points out less noticeable copycat actions, like Palm’s use of the WebKit open source browser, its “cards” user interface, real-world interactions, and the icon dock at the bottom of the webOS display.  In defense of Palm, many operating systems use the WebKit browser, including Android.  The “cards” are a unique way for Palm to allow for multiple programs to be open at once, a feature the iPhone doesn’t even allow, so that seems like a moot argument. We think arguments based around the Pre’s ability to adjust the display based on the device’s orientation might be covered under Palm’s patent US 7,159,194 B2 titled “Orientation Dependent Functionality of an Electronic Device,” which states “The present invention relates to electronic devices. In particular, the present invention relates to an electronic device having functionality depending on its orientation.” Are these similarities enough for Apple to sue Palm over in a intellectual property lawsuit? We’ll be reaching out to lawyers for their comments. Stay tuned for their answers.