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."

50 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 YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, maybe now that Steve's gone again they won't be so bad, who knows.

      Actually, I'd be more worried it'll get much worse without Steve Jobs around. As much as people around here don't like to admit it, Steve Jobs was a geek. Not in the über-programmer kind of way or anything like that; but he had a passion for technology and sincerely loved "cool toys" in the same way as most of us. He put the products and user experience first (whether you agree or disagree with HOW he did it; it definitely appeared he was doing so). While Apple seem to have been going further and further down the road of becoming evil incarnate, I don't put all of that blame on Mr Jobs - I'd even say some of his efforts to improve the products and user experience would have hindered the evil at times.

      In short, if Apple's overall vision changes and they stop concentrating so much on making stellar products (* again, as defined by what the masses seem to want rather than we as tinkerers and geeks), I can only see their future level of evil making their current level look like rainbows and ponies.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    8. 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!
    9. Re:Oh ffs by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    10. Re:Oh ffs by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 4, Informative

      >> 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.

    11. Re:Oh ffs by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      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...
    12. Re:Oh ffs by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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 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 melonman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think a more likely outcome is something like the patent pool that was forced into place by the US government around the 1920s to avoid a situation where, basically, no company could build a plane without infringing another company's patents. Otherwise, sooner or later, Android will be in trouble, but so will Apple and all other US companies.

      --
      Virtually serving coffee
    2. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as an American who lives abroad and works in Europe... this is how it has been working already for some time. The company I work for sells a software product globally. The version shipped into the US market was up until recently crippled to avoid infringing a ridiculous US patent that was granted in the mid-90's and just recently expired. Now we can finally ship a full featured product to the US.

      It's utterly amazing that the patent system in the US is still this bad. Where is the reform we keep hearing about?

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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...

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

    8. Re:The US will just cripple its own tech by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3, Informative

      >> 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.

  3. I've got a gesture for the patent office... by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful
    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  4. some background info on the Dutch ruling by TESTNOK · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:some background info on the Dutch ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's less amazing when you recognise America's history of protectionism when it comes to this type of thing.

      I guarantee if someone like HTC or Samsung had gone for the same patent they would not have been granted it.

      "Great American Companies" (tm) have a massive advantage of widespread patriotic bias on their home turf in the courts and at the patent office.

  5. Prior art? by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. 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.

    2. Re:Prior art? by Myopic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. Here's more. Did the patent office not look very hard for prior art? I only had to look for about two seconds:

      http://www.toolzone.com/acatalog/info_DW1363.html

      There it is: a slide-to-unlock mechanism, already implemented, on a handheld device even, available for many decades.

      The problem with the patent system is not the theory but rather the implementation we have in this country. Patents are theoretically okay, but they are actually bad. Apparently prior art like I have quoted here, and which is widely available, I'm sure, in many other products, doesn't count -- and that's a problem. It SHOULD count.

  6. Re:Whats next, patent to use your hands by Kokuyo · · Score: 3, Funny

    You truly thought we were an intelligent species? Really, now?

  7. Nokia physical slider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this mean that Nokia's physical slider for unlocking phones is patentable? I wonder if Nokia has a patent for that and if not, whether USPTO would grant one?

  8. Childish by jevring · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All I see is "wahh, waah, we want to be a monopoly!" I hear that doesn't get people attention from the government at all.

    --
    Move sig!
  9. Neonode N1M - prior art by __Paul__ · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  10. Re:Slide to...? by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Don't blame Henry Ford by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know what you mean but you have it backward. Ford was trolled by the Apples of his day (the low volume high cost carmakers) who claimed to have patented everything from the wheel up. He had to spend years and a lot of money fighting them. He won, and the car was democratised. Whatever his faults, Henry Ford ought to have some special place as a Slashdot hero, because in a sense he "open sourced" the motor car.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  12. Re:Slide to...? by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!

  13. Well what about this ? by giorgist · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Well what about this ? by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 5, Informative

      Neonode N1m was released in 2005

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
  14. Why is this only SW patent problem? by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why don't we see a drugs manufacturers killing themselves with an 'oval shaped pills' (or as they would put it 'an anatomically efficient vessel for introduction of effective chemicals into the gastro-intestinal system') patent?

    What the hell is the department of the Patent Office responsible for SW doing?!

  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. It infringes on my patent.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lick to unlock.

    It's not as popular, but I can call their patent a ripoff of mine!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  19. Re:It really is time by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is not anachronistic in other fields. The problem with patents on software is not the length of time that the patent is valid, it is the fact that people are being granted patents on mathematics and pictures. Software is already covered by copyright law; why should it also be covered by patent law?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  20. 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.

  21. 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...

  22. 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.