Neither of those papers describe capacitive multitouch interfaces, nor do they describe the technology Apple invented for multi-touch. The first describes a multi-point interface that does not do what Apple does, and the second doesn't even describe a touch interface at all.
This would be obvious if you'd taken a few minutes to read their abstracts, and were aware of the nature of Apple's multi-touch invention.
The issue has been laid to rest, but I can't stop you and others from continuing to link to increasingly irrelevant claims.
The real question, to my mind, is why are you so desperate to believe that Apple didn't invent anything, such that you'd disparage yourself by being as dishonest as you have been here?
The first paper describes a multitouch capacitive touch tablet in 1985. It is absolutely identical to the core technology of an iPad. Apple may have improved things but the core ideas are layed out right here two decades before the iPad.
> A prototype touch-sensitive tablet Is presented. The tablet's main
innovation is that It Is capable of sensing mare than one point of
contact at a time. In addition to being able to provide position coor-
dinates, the tablet also gives a measure of degree of contact,
independently for each point of contact. In order to enable mutU-
touch sensing [...]
What's more the author of the paper, Bill Buxton, is widely cited in the literature as inventing the capactive multitouch display. Wayne Westerman, one of the cofounders of Fingerworks dissertation has dozens of references to his work. But even in his own words:
> What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation."
It's all clear as day if you do your research, unless of course you're already made up your mind... then maybe it's not so clear.
This would be obvious if you'd taken a few minutes to read their abstracts, and were aware of the nature of Apple's multi-touch invention.
The issue has been laid to rest, but I can't stop you and others from continuing to link to increasingly irrelevant claims.
The real question, to my mind, is why are you so desperate to believe that Apple didn't invent anything, such that you'd disparage yourself by being as dishonest as you have been here?