Out of the two examples he gives, you found that one to be more objectionable? How about...
According to my source, in addition to multi-touch, the other feature that Apple objected to was using a standard headphone jack. Apple apparently owns a patent on controlling software using buttons connected by a standard 3.5mm headphone jack (at least for music and video playback controls), and would not grant Google a license to the patent. Hence the G1’s use of a proprietary ExtUSB port rather than a standard 3.5mm headphone jack.
It seems plausible to me - they're talking about the buttons on the wire going up to the buds communicating back to the device... I'm certainly no expert, but I can't think of any other devices that do that via a standard 3.5mm socket.
I doubt they have a patent on the headphone thing. My Nokia N-series phone has a 3.5" headphone jack and it ships with an inline remote that is similar in functionality to the controls on an iPod shuffle. My Sony and Panasonic portable CD players from 10 years ago also had a similar thing.
I have an old MP3 player that has a volume control, play/pause and skip in the earbud wires that go to a 3.5mm jack (but the earbuds have a 4-conductor plug). Also, the 4-conductor 3.5mm doubles as the USB port for uploading songs to it. You can also use normal 3.5mm headphones with it, you just loose the volume control functions.
Apparently a lot of the HTC smartphones (of which the G1 is one) use the same USB audio connector scheme. If Apple made any demands, it was to HTC, not Google... which strikes me as unlikely, too.
I highly doubt Apple tried to move Google off of the 3.5 mm jack. There are plenty of phones and other devices even now that have a 3.5 mm jack and controls in the headphone wire.
My understanding is that "multi-touch" can't be patented, but a specific implementation of multi-touch can. Am I wrong? If not, what's so bad about that?
I don't understand why you think multi-touch is obvious or unpatentable. Prior to the iPhone, were multi-touch consumer touchscreen devices well-known?
To answer your second question: No, among Apple's customers and prospects, a patent lawsuit will tarnish Palm, not Apple.
Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee:
In light of that one might conclude that while multi-touch might not be new technology, the specifics of Apple's patent claims may very well be.
Besides shouldn't the idea by itself of taking a single touch input device and making a multiple touch input device be the very definition of obvious. How they actually built the multi touch input device is a different matter.
On patents in general, Wikipedia says: 'Typically ... a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable'
That doesn't answer my question, but in the interest of not stifling conversation, I pose the question of which of Apple's patent claims is not new, inventive, useful, or industrially applicable.
I don't quite follow you. Entirely my fault I'm sure - I'm exhausted
I can't say what criteria JoelSutherland applied in the parent post, but I think the general guidelines for patents are a good start for a discussion about the worthiness of Apple's claims
I've thought that a great strategy for Palm would be to get sued by Apple. Shouldn't that tarnish Apple's great image?