If you do, you'll find that there is no prior art, otherwise Apple wouldn't have had to invent something new.

I've learned that I cannot stop people from constantly making these kinds of claims. You don't actually make a claim-- you just give me links and then assert there is prior art. This is not an argument, because you have failed to address the issue of what the patent actually says.

You can produce links to other websites all day long and then make it beholden on me to prove that they are not prior art. I'm not going to play that game.

Prior ... constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality

OK, so you're saying the links above don't have any bearing on the originality or otherwise of iOs multi touch? That's absurd. If what you're getting at is that there's some legalese-technical argument as to why a seemingly obvious prior occurrence of the "invention" then this indicates to me that the system is broken.