Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Granted Patent For Slide To Unlock

Posted by Soulskill on from the slide-to-unlock-a-can-of-worms dept.

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."

32 of 622 comments (clear)

  1. Oh ffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go away apple!

    1. Re:Oh ffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seconded. Everybody who buys Apple products is supporting this abuse of the patent system and the market in general.

    2. Re:Oh ffs by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple is gaming the system, not playing by the rules. 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 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 diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    3. Re:Oh ffs by sosume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AFAIK, this is the first device I've ever seen doing this.

      I have a door in my bathroom which works exactly like the described 'invention'.
      If you read the Jobs biography, it becomes clear just how delusional the man was. He claims to have invented not only the GUI, menu's, and the modern mouse but also the concept of a PC, the internet, the rectangle, fonts, and what more. If he had not existed, noone would have invented it. Looks like he dropped acid too many times.

    4. Re:Oh ffs by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because someone is playing by the rules doesn't mean that you should absolve them of all responsibility. The companies that try to be as douchy as they can within the rules, are more likely to just go and outright break the rules when they think they can get away with it. So far Apple don't appear to have done anything completely illegal, so they haven't quite reached the MS and Intel charged criminal levels yet, but I don't think it will be long. Well, maybe now that Steve's gone again they won't be so bad, who knows.

      There are companies that have the same rules to play by, but don't try to do things like patent a rectangle with rounded corners. Ask your brother, I'm sure he'll tell you how pathetic that is.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Oh ffs by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of that stuff is delusional, but you can't argue that phone interfaces were shit until Apple released the iPhone and everyone else had to up their game. Phone hardware had been good for a while, but the UIs were awful.. often lazy companies will just stick with whatever currently sells, without trying to do better. The phone industry is especially bad for trying to squeeze blood out of stones and not really innovating.

      That's my only real defence of Apple out of the way though. All of their mobile stuff since the iPod has had an element of douchebaggery to it, something that damages or at least inconveniences consumers in some way to try and keep them locked in.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Oh ffs by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is to limit what people with no morals can do, yes. It doesn't mean that everything they do within the rules is still respectable. People should be allowed to complain if they think that someone is not acting within the spirit of the law, or even if they're well within the law, but still damaging society. Patent and Copyright laws were put in place to encourage innovation, but companies such as Apple like to patent things and not even license them out to anyone that they see as a competitor. Both MS and Apple seem to revel in "destroying" their competitors, rather than competing with them.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Oh ffs by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People are willing to pay more for "brand", it has very little to do with quality, providing the quality doesn't sink so low relative to the competition as to damage the brand.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:Oh ffs by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure I'll get modded down for criticising apple on slashdot- but - quite frankly- I'm the type of consumer Apple should be courting.

      I don't have a tablet- I'm considering a tablet. I am open minded to my options- I have no preference or alliegence at this point.

      I know everyone in the industry sues and takes rediculous patents- but Apple just goes over-the-top. They're involved in more law-suits than just about all the others combined.

      Statements from Jobs (RIP) about wanting to destroy Android even if it cost Apple all their wealth- shows the mentality within that company to stifle innovation of others.

      Apple goes beyond trying to get the best for their stockholders- the corporate policy seems damn-well belligerent.

      This is the tipping point for me- I'm no longer brand-neutral in the tablet sphere.

      From now on, I know, when I do get a tablet it won't be Apple. I cannot spend money on a product with a company who will misappropriate it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    9. Re:Oh ffs by Kavafy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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"

      That would be copying ideas, then, surely? You can't steal an idea.

    10. Re:Oh ffs by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Marketshare doesn't show quality, nor preferred product. It would only do so if everything else (price, availability, etc) remained the same.

      Using your logic, a Nissan Versa is a much better and desirable car, and everyone wants it more than say a Ferrari/Porshe/Mercedes (pick any model) because it out sells it 1000 to 1. You can keep your Versa, and I'll drive the Ferrari. Thanks.

    11. Re:Oh ffs by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prada, Louis Vetton,etc ... i.e. all the fashion houses no Patents, No copyright, only trademarks .. and they seem to making plenty of money

      Actually they are making more profit than most tech companies, is this because their legal bills are smaller?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  2. The way its done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd agree with Europe, sorry Apple, that boat sailed, slide unlock is now "just the way its done" ... perhaps Henry Ford should have sued anyone who dared put black paint on their cars?

    1. Re:The way its done... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless you are much more diligent with the little microfiber cloth than everybody else, or some kind of desiccated reptile-man, there is probably a grease trail on your screen containing a significant percentage of your unlock pattern for much of your phone's life...

      It's certainly incrementally more secure than slide to unlock, since that is merely supposed to protect against spurious unlocks; but touchscreens bleed usage data if they aren't cleaned obsessively.

  3. The US will just cripple its own tech by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Manufacturers will simply ignore US patents everywhere else in the world and provide a crippled product with various functions disabled for the US market if this sort of nonsense continues. It strikes me the US patent office still thinks its 1950 with the US deciding the direction of technological advances. Someone should throw some strong coffee in their faces and wake them up to the reality of the 21st century before they fuck up US industry for good.

    (And I'm not a US citizen).

    1. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by MichaelKristopeitDad · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This. Right on spot. The only thing the USPTO is accomplishing is crippling the US market and making it less and less attractive to companies, given the higher risk of litigation. And really, this benefits to no one.

    2. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a non-American myself it is incredibly disheartening to see so many innovations created by American companies being denied to large segments of the American populace itself thanks to it's own utterly absurd patent system. Whatever people think about US...foreign policy, popular culture, overt consumerism or whatever..the one thing you cannot deny is that quality of life has been drastically improved for so many thanks to technological advances made by US companies. To then go and deny their own population the benefits of those advances because of bizarre and outdated patent laws just seems morally and ethically wrong on so many levels.

    3. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're already in that situation. Unfortunately, rather than just cross-licensing the patents they're all suing each other and using temporary injunctions to gain first-mover advantage.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that these sorts of features are increasingly implemented in pure software, or in hardware where every unit has all the features(because spinning a new mask is crazy expensive), but only some features are firmware-enabled, for price-discrimination or IP reasons, it will be interesting to see whether the "cheap DVD player" phenomenon crops up...

      In the US, at least, back when DVD players were something people cared about, there arose a curious little wrinkle in the market:
      The pricier hardware, with the traditionally respectable brand badges(Sony, etc.) had nicer build quality, and was more likely to include features that were genuinely expensive in hardware(DACs that didn't suck, absurd numbers of outputs); but also enforced the various region locking, macrovision, and other user-hostile features of the DVD spec to the letter.
      The cheap seats tended to have the usual downsides(somewhat... functional... build quality, dadaist user interfaces, a bit of scrimping and saving on BOM); but tended to enforce user-hostile requirements rather tepidly. There would either be some trivial 'debug code' that you could tap into the remote, or a 'test firmware' would 'leak' about 10 seconds after release that would remove all DRM features. The cheapies also tended to have the cheap-because-it's-software pirate-friendly features, like support for assorted audio and video codecs in files just burned to data DVDs and the like.

      If the patent wars become too hot, a similar phenomenon could theoretically crop up in other electronics markets. The "US Firmware" version would be oh-so-bare-and-legally-compliant; but the hardware would be identical because SKU proliferation is expensive, and there would be a strong incentive for players, particularly the weaker players, to 'accidentally' suffer from a 'bootloader verification bug' that allows the least-crippled English-language firmware, *cough*easily available for download from our Hong Kong TLD's support page, 'only for our customers in the region'*cough* to be flashed to US devices...

    5. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People simply aren'y aware of this...
      If it was clear and common knowledge that products were either crippled in the US, or cost significantly more then there would be more public outcry about it. As it stands, 99% of people don't even realise there is a problem.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    6. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure the workaround is to put a slight curve into the slider, or some movement other than just sliding, or to emulate a sweeping motion instead of a slide etc. etc. I think the solution in Android 3 / 4 is novel enough not to qualify either - you drag a circle onto another circle. You're not "sliding" the circle because you can drag it up, down, left or right.

      The problem is that this is a gesture patent. By definition, anything you do on a touchscreen is a gesture - sliding your finger in a certain pattern. Apple gets a patent for sliding in a straight line to unlock. Google gets one for sliding in a circle to unlock. Microsoft is forced to use a square or triangle to unlock. HP decides to patent the WebOS motion of flicking up to close an app. Google patents flicking down to expand the notification bar. Someone else patents sliding in a straight line to scroll. Another patents sliding across a word to select it. etc.

      There are only a limited number of simple gestures, all obvious, but apparently the USPTO has never seen anything like them before. Using workaround gestures is not the solution, no more than other newspapers printing their text in different colors would be a solution to the New York Times getting a patent on printing in black ink. This patent is so mind-bogglingly stupid that if it's not overturned it will absolutely cripple the industry.

  4. I've got a gesture for the patent office... by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To The US Patent Office

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  5. Prior art? by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think someone already beat them to it.

    1. Re:Prior art? by mamas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By that reasoning, everything you do in the analog world that will be replicated in the digital world is patentable as "innovation".

      E.g., under that reasoning, I would patent a method to input text letter by letter, by pressing specific areas in a touchscreen, which may or may not have the letters drown on the touchscreen.

      Then you'd say, a "keyboard is not a touch screen".

    2. Re:Prior art? by am+2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's on a phone, so it's something completely new and nonobvious! "On the Internet" patents are soo 2000.

  6. Re:Slide to...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "It's not a lock screen, it's a ... clock ... from which the only way out is with a slide gesture."

  7. Re:fire them by tfg004 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When a patent gets invalidated, the USPTO should be forced to return the fees.
    Then it won't take long before they finally learn how to do their work properly.

  8. Re:Fuckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Stop being a dick. This is a stupid patent and you know it.

  9. Re:its the time frame which matters by FTWinston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We would still have phones with thousand of buttons and switches if apple would not have shown an other way.

    Guess you never used a Palm Pilot?

  10. This is not unique. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it gives you an idea what kind of idiots work for the USPTO, let me give you an example:

    A company I know of applies for a copyright to a word (not common everyday word, but the name of a famous person from old times). There are hundreds upon HUNDREDS of other patents that were granted the copyright because each one of them fits into a different category. Let me repeat, it's a one-word name, and hundreds of copyrights WERE granted. The copyright that this particular company applied for was not only under a different category than all of the above, but it even had another acronym attached to the name, so it was TRULY unique.

    USPTO denied it because they said (and I can't recall the phrasing exactly) already granted to someone else. There is no one else that applied for it!!!!!! *bang head*

    So moral of the story is, you can have prior art all you want. You can LACK prior art all you want. The ones who make the decision at the USPTO are individuals, and the whole process doesn't have a voting system. It's just a "so-and-so decides that you are the first; you're clear to go."

    The USPTO needs a damned voting panel system. Public voting would be the best, but hell, that ain't happening in this lifetime. At least an internal voting panel would be nice.

  11. Doesn't it have to be non-trivial/non-obvious?! by Sark666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought the two main criteria for a patent are: It hasn't been done before (prior art) and it's non-trivial. Like as in holy crap! What you just made there is awesome!! Please patent how you did this so society at large benefits from this and it is never lost!!

    I don't think a swipe to start using a touch interface qualifies...

  12. Re:Pondering a strictly fictional fix by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shakespeare had one of his characters in the play Henry VI utter "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Of course no one would urge that in real life. But it seems like Shakespeare missed a couple of even bigger evil bastard fuck-ups from hell. Politicians and bureaucrats.

    Quoted out of context. The purpose of killing lawyers in the play is to eliminate anyone who could try to get justice for people against a tyrant. Like what Pol Pot did in real life, starting with lawyers, school teachers, engineers, and so on.