Editing Palm OS (section)

==Legal issues==
Palm OS has been involved in various lawsuits over the years.

*''[[Xerox]] vs. Palm Computing'' (1997) – In 1997, Xerox was granted {{US patent|5,596,656}} covering the "Unistroke" input system developed by David Goldberg, [[PARC (company)|Xerox PARC]] in 1993.<ref>{{cite book|last=Goldberg|first=David|author2=Richardson, Cate|title=Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '93 |chapter=Touch-typing with a stylus |date=May 1993|pages=[https://archive.org/details/interchi93confer0000unse/page/80 80–87]|doi=10.1145/169059.169093|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/interchi93confer0000unse/page/80|access-date=18 April 2014|publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery|ACM]]|isbn=0897915755|s2cid=17507192 }}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Xerox filed suit against Palm (then [[U.S. Robotics]]), alleging that [[Graffiti (Palm OS)|Palm's Graffiti]] infringed on this patent. The Palm OS switch from Graffiti 1 to Graffiti 2 was triggered in part by Palm losing this lawsuit to Xerox. The patent was invalidated in May 2004 due to [[prior art]] developed at [[Bell Laboratories]] in 1982.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2004/05/26/202705/xerox-loses-patent-claim-against-palmone.htm|title=Xerox loses patent claim against PalmOne|work=ComputerWeekly|access-date=9 June 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Burr|first=D. J.|title=Designing a Handwriting Reader|journal=IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence|date=Sep 1983|volume=PAMI-5, No. 5|issue=5|pages=554–559|doi=10.1109/TPAMI.1983.4767435|pmid=21869141|publisher=IEEE Computer Society|s2cid=16042308 |issn=0162-8828|quote=The curves resemble lowercase cursive script, but the user may change them to suit his own writing style. The only restriction is that each symbol consist of a single curve (no pen lifts).}}</ref>
*''[[Pilot Pen Corporation]] vs. Palm Computing'' (1998) – The original name for Palm OS handhelds was Pilot. However, a lawsuit from Pilot Pen Corporation forced a name change<ref>[http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/113549/lawsuit_forced_3com_drop_pilot_palm_pilot/ Lawsuit forced 3Com to drop the "Pilot" in Palm Pilot] ARN. 7 April 1998.</ref> to PalmPilot, then eventually to Palm.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}
*''Palm vs. [[Microsoft]]'' (1998) – In 1998, Microsoft planned to name the next version of their handheld [[computing platform]] "Palm PC". Palm filed suit against Microsoft, forcing the name change to, first, [[Palm-sized PC]], and later, [[Pocket PC]].{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}
*''E-Pass Technologies vs. Palm, Microsoft and HP'' (2000) – In 2000, E-Pass Technologies filed suit against Palm, alleging that its handhelds infringed on an E-Pass's patent (#5,276,311) for a multi-function, credit card-sized computer that allows users to securely store account numbers, PIN codes, etc.
*''[[NCR Corporation|NCR]] vs. [[Handspring (company)|Handspring]] and Palm'' (2001) – In 1987, NCR was granted a patent for a portable e-commerce terminal. In 2001, NCR sued Handspring and Palm. This case was ruled without merit in 2002, a decision that was upheld on appeal.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}
*''[[Research In Motion|RIM]] vs. Handspring'' (2002) – In 2002, [[Research In Motion]] (makers of the [[BlackBerry]]), sued Handspring. By year end, both Handspring and Palm licensed the patents and the suit was dropped.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}
*''Peer-to-Peer Systems vs. Palm'' (2002) – Also in 2002, Peer-to-Peer systems filed lawsuit against Palm that alleges Palm infringed on its patent for wireless gaming. This lawsuit was settled as of February 9, 2005.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}
*''[[Forgent Networks]] vs. HP, Toshiba, palmOne, etc., etc.'' (2004) – Starting in 2002, [[Forgent Networks]] began offering licenses for a patent that encumbers [[JPEG]]. In 2004, it filed suit against various companies, including palmOne. The JPEG or 672 patent has been reviewed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which has rejected 19 of the 47 claims based on [[prior art]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pubpat.org/forgentjpeg.htm|title=Forgent JPEG Related Patent|website=Public Patent Foundation|access-date=9 June 2015|archive-date=15 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415174327/http://www.pubpat.org/forgentjpeg.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>