Slashdot Mirror
Apple Granted Patent For Slide To Unlock
generalhavok writes "The United States Patent & Trademark Office has approved Apple's patent on the slide to unlock gesture used on iOS devices. Interestingly, this patent was earlier dismissed in Europe due to prior art. With many Android phones using a similar slide gesture, it will be interesting to see how this new patent will affect the patent wars between Apple and Android vendors."
Here is an article from the FOSS Patents Blog with some details on the case ruled on in last August in the Netherlands, which is what I guess is being referred to as "earlier dismissed in Europe". It's certainly amazing how one judge can say "this clearly existed before" and another can say "no it didn't" based on the same info.
Apple is not gaming the system. Apple is playing by the rules, and the rules are utterly stupid.
How many ways could this be implemented in code? Thousands? Millions? There is no clear boundary with this patent and Apple is sure to apply this to Android phones as a few of them use a very similar method to unlock the phone.
This is a problem with all software patents, not just Apple's.
This patent is sure to hinder innovation and competition as Apple engages in business combat, not simple competition. Competition is about creating choice in the marketplace, not destroying it. Apple seems bent on destroying choice, just like Microsoft.
The USPTO is telling Apple they are allowed to do so. The outcome may be bad, but, once again, Apple is playing by the rules here. Plain and simple.
Given that the Neonode N1M is likely to be considered prior art, how would one go about getting the patent ruled invalid?
worldmobilenet.com -- World Prepaid Wireless Internet plans
No, the first claim of the patent is for a gesture dragging a graphic along a "predefined, displayed path". So if the unlock gesture isn't a fixed path (like the Samsung S2, which can unlock in any direction; or the path isn't displayed, like a puzzle piece which moves along a fixed path to its destination but that path isn't visible, then it's not covered by the patent.
No, notably, it covers *only* gestures that involve having your finger in continuous contact with your screen *and* having a GUI widget moving continuously under your finger. So all the hype about prior art like entering codes by tapping is bullshit (because your finger isn't in constant contact), and all the hype about android's various unlock mechanisms being in violation are similarly bullshit (because no widget follows the finger continuously).
An article about patents explains the patent in such a broad way that it sounds like it covers everything under the sun? Who'd have thought it!
Announced 1Q, 2005
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
Go to 4:00 to see the slide to unlock in action
Now Apple requested the patent on December 2005, I am guessing some form of prior art should kill that.
Really? We wouldn't have got there any other way? I give you the LG Prada. Announced before the iPhone. Released before the iPhone.
SO you don't buy Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, HTC, Sony, Panasonic, Kenwood, Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Harley Davidson, or LG products then?
Or are you just some idiot that like to parrot what others say without actually thinking.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
>> Android completely rocks for techie people, but it sucks for the typical drooling moron user.
55% of marketshare against your superior (meh) Apple's 28% would like to disagree. But don't let facts spoil your fantasy.
2. Stealing involves taking something and making it your own; the original owner is left with nothing.
Ummm, not when you're stealing ideas.
Steve Jobs' next line in the video is: "Apple has always been shameless about stealing ideas"
No sig today...
They also have a pretty strong "we'll sue you if you copy our ideas" philosophy. They've been pursuing these kind of lawsuits for quite a while, and this is nothing new.
>> The "US Firmware" version would be oh-so-bare-and-legally-compliant; but the hardware would be identical because...
Right on. A very good example was the old (but awesome) iriver H320/340 mp3 players. Hardware supported video playback, but US firmware took out the feature because of some patent/royalty bullshit. It was just matter of downloading the korean firmware and it turned it into a a great video player (for that time).
Iriver used to make great products (in terms of build and quality), but their love for microsoft, proprietary madness and finally the ipod craze killed their US market.