Your argument is akin to claiming that whoever invented magnetic audio recording on tapes didn't do anything innovative because Edison had already invented the gramophone.
The paper you cite claims that people were working on multitouch at University of Toronto. It is also true that touch panels (not multitouch) predate even that, going as far back as the 1970s.
But none of this is relevant, and the fact that the Surface uses cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen is not an "aside", its the smoking gun.
Apple (aka Fingerworks) invented multi-touch, which is the method detailed in its patents and used in the iPhone.
Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology.
I think the problem is that you guys have believed your own propaganda that patents just cover ideas. They do not. Patents cover specific technological inventions, methods and processes.
Thus, 1970 era touch panels, the displays at your movie theater, the surface and everything driven with a stylus is as relevant to the invention of multitouch as the gramophone is to the invention of magnetic recording. That is to say, in the same broad field, but not examples of "prior art".
"the fact that the Surface uses cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen is not an "aside", its the smoking gun."
I think you're confusing 'multi-touch' with 'multi-touch on a small capacitive LCD touchscreen'.
The fact that other companies chose to use cameras or other screen technologies instead of capacitive LCD touchscreen doesn't mean they weren't employing multi-touch. 'Multi-touch' simply means that the system registers multiple touches simultaneously.
Multi-touch existed long before FingerWorks got into the game, but they were the first to actually use it in a mass market product and they invented a lot of the multi-touch gestures that we now use on a daily basis.
"Apple (aka Fingerworks) invented multi-touch, which is the method detailed in its patents and used in the iPhone."
If FingerWorks invented multi-touch, Apple buying the company would not mean that suddenly Apple becomes the inventor of multi-touch, just that it holds those patents.
And the FingerWorks patents cite earlier multi-touch patents (even calling it that), so it's clear they're not claiming to have invented the entire thing.
"Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology."
Em, how about FingerWorks' own products, before they were acquired by Apple?
Different technology, different operating mechanism, doesn't do the same thing as apple's multi-touch (which I've explained a number of times already.) This detects a fingers location in gross space, not the pixel the finger is intending to touch. Pixel level accuracy is one of the key components of Apple's solution.
Notice that, just like all the others in this thread, you're liking to something that is not using the same mechanism and doesn't conflict with any of the claims in Apple's multi-touch patent.
Your ideology tells you that anything having to do with touch makes Apple's multi-touch invention irrelevant.
This is like saying that there was no invention in magnetic audio recording because the phonograph had already been invented.
I know this won't convince you, of course. One of the saddest things about this topic is not that so many people are ignorant of the nature of Apple's invention, but that their ideology compels them to believe that Apple didn't invent anything, and so they have no interest in learning. And, of course, rather than address the thesis of my article, I'm getting rampantly down voted and comments that are irrelevant.
The paper you cite claims that people were working on multitouch at University of Toronto. It is also true that touch panels (not multitouch) predate even that, going as far back as the 1970s.
But none of this is relevant, and the fact that the Surface uses cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen is not an "aside", its the smoking gun.
Apple (aka Fingerworks) invented multi-touch, which is the method detailed in its patents and used in the iPhone.
Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology.
I think the problem is that you guys have believed your own propaganda that patents just cover ideas. They do not. Patents cover specific technological inventions, methods and processes.
Thus, 1970 era touch panels, the displays at your movie theater, the surface and everything driven with a stylus is as relevant to the invention of multitouch as the gramophone is to the invention of magnetic recording. That is to say, in the same broad field, but not examples of "prior art".