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.
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.