Share this Story

Samsung Looks to Render Apple Patent Useless with Mitsubishi’s Diamond Touch

As we live out our day to day lives, Samsung and Apple have been at each other’s throats for the past few weeks in court, and the trial is beginning to finally wrap up. With things looking slightly in favor of Apple, Samsung presented evidence yesterday afternoon that could be their saving grace. Samsung’s lawyers had just finished questioning their second defense witness, a Mr. Adam Bogue who is a Mitsubishi engineer. According to Bogue, he demoed a piece of hardware called Diamond Touch to Apple engineers in 2003 which allowed users to shrink and expand images by grabbing and dragging their virtual corners. In essence, this is pinch-to-zoom as we know it today. 

Samsung’s case to the jury is that how can they be found guilty of copying patented technology when said technology shouldn’t have been granted a patent in the first place. Amazingly enough, Apple’s cross-examination of the witness yielded even crazier results. When asked who owns the Diamond Touch today, Bogue replied with “Quinn Emanuel.” Quinn, being the law firm that is presently representing Samsung in the trial, begins to wheel out the actual Diamond Touch model into the courtroom.

Can Diamond Touch help Samsung prove that Apple shouldn’t hold their patents in the first place, there by saving Sammy’s butt? After a couple more days of proceedings, it’s going to be up to a jury to decide. Below is a video of Diamond Touch in action almost 10 years ago, well before the iPhone was released with its patented technology. As described in the info of the video, it’s “not just multi-touch, it’s multi-user-touch.”


Via: BGR, Fortune

  • divya

    America is cheating the world on patent…..steal formula or copycate from poor countries or developing country and file patent…and try to get money from it

  • BILL


  • blue horseshoe loves…


  • ds

    Apple has patented stuff everyone else could think. They did a very innovative job compiling them together in one device, but not very original.
    One thing I give credit for is turn-wheel UI on iPod. That was a good innovative design, but who knows.. it’s been around already…

  • Phandroid

    Now Diamond will sue Samsung and Apple… and win.

  • There are a lot of patents apple can have rendered useless. Their so called patent on lock screen (windows CE, MagicHat, and BBOS). Touch to dial number links (Windows CE, Blackberry, PalmOS, Magichat (from 1993), sharp (with their wizard organizers from 1990). The list could be 20 pages long.

  • PC_Tool
  • Luxferro

    Hopefully by the end of this we see Apple lose many of it’s patents.

    • Chronon7364

      While the outcome is unpredictable, after all of Apples patent trolling and vague/broad patent filings, it would be so utterly satisfying if that happened.

  • manny

    So samsungs excuse is we stole it from apple but apple stole it first?? And apple has a slight edge?? I honestly hope Samsung gets burried in this trial. It seems to me that samsung were a bunch of apple fanboys

    • Liqu1d

      Samsung’s “excuse” is that how can Apple get a patent on something when there is prior art

      • Luxferro

        easy, the patent system is garbage. There’s no checks and balances.

        Perhaps all these lawsuits which lead to annoyed judges will lead to an improved patent system.

    • florious80

      This isn’t juvenile court, we don’t care about excuses. Since Apple is claiming Samsung stole pinch and zoom, Samsung is showing that they actually own the prior art, rendering Apple’s claim baseless.

  • Jeremy

    Maybe Apple finally took to many suggestions from Microsoft.

  • Artistan

    I own the patent for patent base lawsuit…

  • I own the patent for patenting

  • You must have missed this in the Fortune article you linked. Apple still has a case:

    “On Tuesday it may point out that a company called Fingerworks was
    making multi-touch devices long before Mitsubishi built the Diamond

    And Apple bought Fingerworks — along with its patents — two years before it introduced the iPhone.”

  • TheFirstUniverseKing

    That’s gotta be the most annoying music ever.

  • nightscout13

    You go to hell Apple! You go to hell and you die!

  • JazzoRenee

    Samsung is bad ass.

  • samholton

    Steve Jobs (1994) when asked if Apple copied ideas from the Xerox PARC… “We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

    Then later in 2011, he says “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to
    go thermonuclear war on this.”

    The following clip talks about software patents and shows a clip of Steve Jobs blatantly lying about “inventing” multi-touch.


    • triumphtriple

      This video also includes an excerpt from this video:

      Jeff Han demoing a multi-touch screen with pinch to zoom in Feb 2006, about a year before the iPhone was introduced!
      I have no clue why they don’t call this guy as a witness.

  • cancerous_it
    • 4n1m4L

      lol “Good artists copy, great artists steal” -jobs, ’96
      “I’m going to destroy android because its a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this” -jobs, ’10

  • Scott Juffe

    Did anyone else catch that they are viewing the iPods and iTunes4 homepage when demoing how to surf the web?

  • Apple then sues Samsung over it’s patent on better technology than it currently uses.

  • HonestGuy

    Too bad mitsubishi admitted diamond touch was not functional but still a mere concept when showcased in 2003. Apple perfected and patented the tech before diamond touch and essentially beat them to the punch with the tech. But this does nothing to dispell the fact that Samsung blatantly copied design and feature elements from the iPhone. They’ve all but admitted it at this point, an instead of owning up to it, they’re saying it’s ok for them to steal because apple”supposedly” did it. Mind you, Mitsubishi has never put out a successful smartphone, this is what Samsung is actually trying to use as validation for beig a ripoff wannabe. I know everyone’s bias is toward android, but let that bias be with the OS. Google itself told Samsung not to copy apple but they did anyway do they get what they deserve.

    • I’m glad that Henry Ford didn’t sue the pants off of Cadillac when they came out with a 4-wheeled motorized vehicle of their own. Or else idiots like you would be crowing about “ripoffs” to this day….

      • Henry Ford didn’t invent the automobile, but your point is valid

        • JazzoRenee

          Ahhhh, but he perfected it hahahhaha

          • summit1986

            I’ve owned two Fords and “perfected” isn’t one of the adjectives to describe either of them…

          • JazzoRenee

            You don’t have to perfect to have other people copy isn’t that Apple’s problem now??

            I’m just saying

        • florious80

          Actually, Ford is known not for automobile, but the assembly line manufacturing process….

      • HonestGuy

        If you’ve done you’re research you’ll know that fingerworks had this tech before Mitsubishi and the diamond touch project and guess who purchased fingerworks, apple. Samsung was grasping for straws with this allegation and it’s already been nullified. I’m on this site for android news like everyone else but Samsung is caught red-handed and I’m honest enough to call a spade a spare.

        • Hunter

          The people in that courtroom have done their research, no mention yet of “fingerworks” ….hmm

          • HonestGuy

            They don’t need to, the acquisition is valid and apple owns the patent. The allegation was nothing more than a shock claim to slander apple and in no way neared any impact on the decision of this trial. Samsung never stated that they didn’t copy apple, but instead went the I’m no worse than he is route.

          • Hunter

            They don’t need to show that fingerworks preceded Mitsubishi? If they could do that then there would be no need to argue over this patent.

          • HonestGuy

            Seriously, it’s outlined in the patent that fingerworks developed the pinch AND zoom gesture in 1999. It doesn’t need to be argued because apple holds the patent to said tech. It’s like someone arguing with you about the ownership and layout of your home, when your holding the deed and blueprints in your hand. Apple tried to give Samsung a licensing deal but they refused because they knew apple would not approve of the way Samsung implemented it in their devices. It was a snake move that deserves legal action.

          • select

            It’s not patent infringement if the patent is invalid.

    • JoeInMO

      Since when is a patent subject to a working product? It’s not… most patents are nothing more than ideas that never result in a working product. If what the Mitsubishi engineer says is true, then it’s a shame Mitsubishi didn’t patent it in 2003, or defend their intellectual property when Apple filed their patent. Unfortunately I think the invalid patent claim is a separate action between Mitsubishi and Apple. Personally I hope Mitsubishi pursues this and takes Apple to the cleaners.

      • Manny

        If you’ve done you’re research you’ll know that fingerworks had this tech before Mitsubishi and the diamond touch project and guess who purchased fingerworks

        • JoeInMO

          If I had done my research??? I’ve done no research and don’t claim to have done any. Who invented the egg? I don’t care.

    • “Big Red”

      That’s like saying the improvement of automobiles is crap because someone took a concept and made it better. Isn’t that what we all do? The fighting back and forth in court on this case is retarded. Steve Jobs stole tons of idea’s from others! And so did every other phone manufacturer!

    • Samsung already got what they deserved- a crap ton of market share and billions in profit. Apple almost literally has no basis Samsung ripped from it’s designs directly because they themselves have ripped off dozens if not hundreds of other companies too. All tech and design companies rip off eachother to advance- they one up eachother’s popular designs that sell to try and make a quick buck themselves. Imagine where we’d be if every manufacturer of tv’s, cell phones/ smartphones, cars, chairs/ tables even all cried about a copied design? The iPhone 4/4S itself looks almost exactly like LG’s Prada phone and the grid of icons on a black background is pretty smilar as well. Call is what it is- Apple’s attempt to take down its biggest rival

      • HonestGuy

        For the last time, samsung is no competition. Apple has something we call a ecosystem, that earns them revenue in various facets. iTunes and app store sales alone can rival samsungs hardware profits, and apples hardware profits eclipse the entire industry. Google may have a argument in the future, but as it stands no one in the industry is touching what apple has built. Apple took Samsung to court because they are protecting their IP, which they fell is being infringed upon.
        Random thought, I remember wanting a fascinate because it reminded me of the iPhone and Verizon didn’t have it at the time. From that point I formulated the belief that Samsung phones were for people who wanted iPhone-like hardware but running android software.

  • Smurf yeah….

  • ahh Mitsubishi, if only your automotive division wasn’t floundering so amazingly badly…

  • cancerous_it

    diamond touch will now be sued by apple for patent infringement because it wasn’t invented until apple saw it first.

  • Southrncomfortjm

    Samsung doesn’t have to do too much work here since Apple cannot win without a unanimous verdict from the jury. First the jury will have to decide unanimously that Samsung infringed and that the patent was valid. If they decide that issue unanimously, then they also have to decide the amount of damages unanimously. My guess is that the jury will find Samsung infringed in some way on some patent but be unable to determine what the damages are and will end up awarding Apple $1. For precedent on a $1 jury verdict see the USFL v. NFL litigation from 26 years ago: http://articles.philly.com/1986-07-30/news/26096314_1_usfl-attorney-harvey-myerson-judge-peter-k-leisure-usfl-commissioner-harry-usher.

    • Stewie

      Gee, then its the odds that one out of 12 will be an Android user, but an advanced Android user? 🙂

      • sirmeili

        I’m curious if the lawyers got to choose the Jury like they do in a criminal case (I’m sure they do). Is so, I’m sure each side did their best to not get anyone who was either a huge apple fan (for samsung) or a hugge sammy/android fan (for apple)

    • lonz77

      You are mistaken about it needing to be a unanimous verdict. That’s only true in criminal cases. This is civil. When OJ Simpson lost his fortune to Ron Goldman’s dad, it was not a unanimous verdict. He did have the required majority though.

      • Southrncomfortjm

        No, you are. You are confusing a state (OJ) and federal (this) case. State civil cases do not necessarily require a unanimous verdict. Federal civil cases required unanimous verdicts unless the parties decide otherwise. So yes, this case requires a unanimous verdict which is very hard to get.

        • lonz77

          True, that was a state court, but federal civil cases don’t have to be unanimous either, so you are still wrong. This is from ajs.com:

          Civil cases in federal courtThe Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not require either a twelve-person jury or a unanimous verdict. Federal statutes provide for a six-person unanimous verdict in most civil cases.

          • lonz77

            After more research I will concede that federal civil juries must be unanimous unless the parties agree otherwise. If I were Samsung I would certainly not agree to change that. I sure hope they win. Love my GS3.

          • Southrncomfortjm


          • lonz77

            What did you think of. The verdict? I guess they found a way to be unanimous after all. This is disappointing to say tb least.

  • and the choir said…

  • Hopefully there are not any Apple fanboys or girls on that jury!

  • WyattEpp

    Hilarious. Court TV isn’t even this entertaining.

  • Herach Andrews

    yeay. Go Sammy.

  • Dan

    Boom, head-shot!

  • kaufkin

    oops. 🙂

  • BroRob

    Apple then sued MERL because they patented video demonstrations of technology. That video will now be thrown out and is inadmissible in this case. I believe Harvey Spector is Apple’s attorney.

    • +1 for the Suits reference.

    • TheWenger

      Whenever I read a quote from Samsung’s lawyer, I hear it in Harvey Specter’s voice.

  • moelsen8

    sweet. i hope they’re holding onto a few of these trump cards.

    also, i wish this trial was televised.

  • New_Guy

    Things just got very interesting =)….

  • samsung did copy apple but android has nothing to do with that

    • moelsen8

      agree with you, but apple’s no better. they just make it look good and run to the patent office.

  • elliot323

    Sha-zam, this just goes to show you Apple is incapable of inventing anything

  • TheFirstUniverseKing

    Wow, this could be a game changer. One that Samsung desperately needs.

  • Good work samsung

  • Sting

    I hope Apple looses this patent for good….

    • e_droid

      I hope this changes the way tech companies will be approved for patents. The ambiguity that Apple has been trying to get away with is sad and is taking away from innovation from multiple companies.

      • triumphtriple

        I agree! At the very least they shouldn’t hand out patents to things that have already been invented!
        Jeff Han demoed multi-touch pinch to zoom at TED in Feb 2006, 10 months before Apple even applied for the pinch to zoom pattent!

        Video link:

    • Noyfb

      Would like to see the FTC get involved and look at all of apples patents to see how many of them have been copied from other people and finally show how much they have stolen from the world. This is the second time in 6 months now apple has been busted for patent infringement firt being Moto, and now this. That should be enough to warrant an investigation.

  • teevirus

    At some point someone is going to have to explain to me how these patents are granted. I thought they had to pass an obviousness barrier among other things. And once granted is it possible to dispute a patent.

    • vawwyakr

      Actually I think on a lot of technical patents (like software, engineering etc) the default is to grant the patent. I think its to 1) speed up the patent process and 2) eliminate the patent office as a barrier to business. So they let the people in the business sort out for themselves (or in the courts) which patents are valid.

      • PJ

        I think vawwyakr is correct. The Patent Office expects the courts to determine the validity/enforcability of a given patent. Makes you wonder why we have a patent office at all? Regardless, this makes a lot of lawyers millions every year and benefits corporations with that have lots of cash to spend on lawyers.

      • psuturtle

        I actually hold several “tech” patents, and while none of mine are necessarily software specific, it’s not a grant first check later process. In order to file, you need to do an exhaustive search for prior art, and then defend your idea against any related prior art that is found. This is where a good patent attorney can help dramatically. Even after successfully defending your idea against prior art, there is no guarantee the patent office will agree with your findings and actually grant a patent.

        I don’t know the specifics of the patents being disputed, but if it’s as high level as multi touch and that’s it, Samsung has a strong case. If it’s the actual act of pinch to zoom, that could be considered unique as I didn’t see anything in the video that specifically showed a zoom in/out….only window resizing and multitouch. It really depends on the details of the patent in question.

        • I’m sure it also really helps if you have greased a number of palms along the way to expedite your patent & assist your prior art defense

      • DroidBricker

        I think you’re 100% right. It also makes the courts and lawyers a lot of money.

  • Greg Morgan

    I think that is a very big piece of evidence in this case…

    • KleenDroid

      I can’t believe we have not seen this before. And I don’t understand why Samsung or other companies would allow Apple to patent things that they didn’t invent.

      • Greg Morgan

        We haven’t seen it before I believe because only Apple was calling witnesses. Now it’s Sammy’s turn. And there wouldn’t be much other companies could do about Apple patenting these inventions. The entire system is broken.

      • Larizard

        Besides the fact that Google for sure is keeping Samsung afloat in this trial by working form behind the curtains. This is the world’s largest SEARCH engine we are talking about here! I can’t wait for more prior art they will dig up for this.