Editing Graffiti (Palm OS) (section)

==Lawsuit==
The original Graffiti system was the subject of a lawsuit from [[Xerox]], claiming it violated Xerox's patent relating to its ''Unistrokes'' technology ({{US patent|5596656}}, granted in 1997). The Unistrokes technology was invented at the [[Xerox PARC|Palo Alto Research Center]] (PARC) by David Goldberg in 1993.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Goldberg |first1=David |last2= Richardson| first2= 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= 80–87 |doi=10.1145/169059.169093 |chapter-url= https://archive.org/details/interchi93confer0000unse/page/80 |accessdate=18 April 2014 |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]] |isbn= 0897915755 |s2cid=17507192 }}</ref>

Palm later appealed the original court ruling, both on the claim it violated Xerox's patent and as to the validity of the patent in the first place. An appeals court ruled in favor of Xerox with regard to the original ruling, that Palm had violated Xerox's patent, but sent the case back down to the lower court to decide whether the patent was valid to begin with. In 2004, a judge ruled in favor of Palm on the patent review, saying Xerox's patent was not valid on the basis that "prior art references to anticipate and render obvious the claim."<ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.theregister.com/2004/05/24/palm_vs_xerox/ |title= PalmOne overturns Xerox Graffiti patent| work= [[The Register]]| date= May 24, 2004| agency= Bloomberg| access-date= August 14, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2004/05/26/202705/xerox-loses-patent-claim-against-palmone.htm |title= Xerox loses patent claim against PalmOne| date= May 26, 2004 |first= Laura |last= Rohde |website= ComputerWeekly.com| agency= IDG News Service| access-date= August 14, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| last= Burr|first=D. J.|title=Designing a Handwriting Reader| journal=IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence|date=September 1983|volume=PAMI-5 |issue=5|pages=554–559|doi=10.1109/TPAMI.1983.4767435| publisher=IEEE Computer Society|pmid=21869141 |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> Xerox appealed the ruling.<ref>{{cite web| url= http://www.technewsworld.com/story/software/33999.html |title= Xerox To Appeal PalmOne Ruling| website= TechNewsWorld.com| last= Mello | first= John P. Jr.| date= May 25, 2004 | publisher= ECT News Network | access-date= August 14, 2020}}</ref> Xerox also obtained a US$22.5 million payment from Palm for retrospective licensing fees. Palm and Xerox agreed to not sue each other for seven years over certain patents, without publicly specifying which patents.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,19669443-26199,00.html |title= Xerox collects from PalmOS | work= [[The Australian]] |date= July 4, 2006 |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20090213183221/http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0%2C24897%2C19669443-26199%2C00.html |archivedate=February 13, 2009 |url-status=dead}}</ref>