HTC Defeats Apple In Slide-To-Unlock Patent Dispute

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HTC Defeats Apple In Slide-To-Unlock Patent Dispute

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 4, 2012 @05:58AM from the horizontal-motion-is-innovative dept.

another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London. The judge ruled that HTC had not infringed four technologies that Apple had claimed as its own. He said Apple's slide-to-unlock feature was an 'obvious' development in the light of a similar function on an earlier Swedish handset. Lawyers fighting other lawsuits against Apple are likely to pay close attention to the decision regarding its slide-to-unlock patent."

149 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Obvious by Hazelfield · 2012-07-04 06:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it was pretty obvious that it was obvious. "Slide-to-unlock"? Aargh! The stupidity of the patent system is staggering.
1. Re:Obvious by danomac · 2012-07-04 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It may be obvious to us techy-types, but it's nice to see that it's not only us that sees it that way. I wonder if it'll affect the other litigation against the Galaxy Nexus? Pretty sure that same patent is used in that case.
2. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From what I understand, the search-from-multiple-sources is the Galaxy Nexus' reason for alleged infringement.
  Yes, the Firefox awesome bar which searches your local history and online results is effectively being called into question.
3. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  I think the judge in the Nexus one scrubbed all but the one about the multi-source voice search (like Siri).
4. Re:Obvious by Bert64 · 2012-07-04 06:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Slide to unlock is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a bolt...
  This is what one looks like for anyone unfamiliar with the term:
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Bolt_lock.jpg
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
5. Re:Obvious by White+Flame · 2012-07-04 06:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Have you ever used a briefcase? Any ancient clamshell case with slide-to-unlock clips (sewing kits, tool cases, etc)? This concept is ancient.
  The fact that putting it on a screen is patentable is retarded, and the fact that it was only overturned because somebody else had it on a screen before and not the obviousness of the process itself is even more retarded.
6. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  http://cdn.techpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/apple-slide-to-unlock.jpg
7. Re:Obvious by digitig · 2012-07-04 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Slide to unlock" has been around since the first person fitted a bolt to a door or gate. I suspect the patent is a little more detailed.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
8. Re:Obvious by JackAxe · 2012-07-04 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  A feature my Nexus One has had from the day I bought it back in 2010. Go figure...
9. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Apples patent on it does date way back, though the description was very clearly for a search dialog on Mac OS, not iOS on mobile (didn't exist yet). It's also based almost entirely on existing patents from other companies, with basically a, "well we'll do all the things these patents talk about, but in this one dialog with voice".
  What surprised me is that they didn't run with that patent against any of the other android devices over the years. Maybe the Droid. As far as I know there's nothing really unique about the voice search capabilities of the Nexus over other android devices, is there?
10. Re:Obvious by macemoneta · 2012-07-04 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It may be obvious to us techy-types, but it's nice to see that it's not only us that sees it that way. I wonder if it'll affect the other litigation against the Galaxy Nexus? Pretty sure that same patent is used in that case.
  It doesn't take a techy to see it's obvious. They've had slide to unlock mechanical bolts on doors and cabinets for centuries. Animating a physical device doesn't make it newly patentable.
  
  --
  Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
11. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The fact that putting it on a screen is patentable is retarded, and the fact that it was only overturned because somebody else had it on a screen before and not the obviousness of the process itself is even more retarded.
  Generally speaking, judges don't rule on something if they don't have to, especially if it is fuzzy.
  In the USA, patents need 3 things to be valid:
  - be useful
  - be new
  - be non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
  The third step is often contentious, and judges don't like being overturned on appeal (all the other judges make fun of them and call them names).
  So, if a patent fails for not being new, there is no need to rule on a contentious issue.
  Of course, some judges are activist judges, but that is a different story.
12. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  When you look at some of the older nokias they even have you push buttons * to # to unlock which are in the same place as the slider on the iPhone.
13. Re:Obvious by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-04 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  From what I understand, the search-from-multiple-sources is the Galaxy Nexus' reason for alleged infringement.
  Yes, the Firefox awesome bar which searches your local history and online results is effectively being called into question.
  You mean the patent that isn't about searching multiple sources, but the best of multiple sources?
14. Re:Obvious by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-04 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever used a briefcase? Any ancient clamshell case with slide-to-unlock clips (sewing kits, tool cases, etc)? This concept is ancient.
  The fact that putting it on a screen is patentable is retarded, and the fact that it was only overturned because somebody else had it on a screen before and not the obviousness of the process itself is even more retarded.
  And it's even more retarded that Apple quoted the prior art in the patent, and the patent office in several countries thought the difference was big enough to still grant the patent and this one judge didn't.
15. Re:Obvious by viperidaenz · 2012-07-04 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  I've had many devices over the years that used a little slide switch to unlock the buttons, including CD players from the 90's. When you have no buttons and a touch screen is your only interface, a slider on the touch screen is the same user experience.
16. Re:Obvious by LordLucless · 2012-07-04 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Who cares? "Did it first" isn't enough of a justification to get a patent. A patent not only has to be novel, it also has to be non-obvious. Everything was done by someone first. If that was the sole requirement for justifying patents, we wouldn't have the non-obvious requirement. Just because Henry Ford made his cars in black didn't mean the first guy to paint one blue got a patent on blue cars.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
17. Re:Obvious by aaronb1138 · 2012-07-04 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Copernic would pretty well qualify then as the prior art. I was using their unified search program in 1999 at least. Pretty much any search system which used multiple database tables and separate functions for each qualifies which would take you back to probably to what, probably the 70's.
18. Re:Obvious by Zaelath · 2012-07-04 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know how old this patent is, but what about Google Desktop (which tbh I hated), or the 20 other local search daemons that have done this stuff for years...?
19. Re:Obvious by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-04 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  I've had many devices over the years that used a little slide switch to unlock the buttons, including CD players from the 90's. When you have no buttons and a touch screen is your only interface, a slider on the touch screen is the same user experience.
  I repeat:So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?
20. Re:Obvious by kelemvor4 · 2012-07-04 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  From what I understand, the search-from-multiple-sources is the Galaxy Nexus' reason for alleged infringement.
  Yes, the Firefox awesome bar which searches your local history and online results is effectively being called into question.
  Guess they never heard of dogpile... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogpile
21. Re:Obvious by Theaetetus · 2012-07-04 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Slide to unlock is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a bolt...
  This is what one looks like for anyone unfamiliar with the term:
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Bolt_lock.jpg
  And if Apple's patent claimed "sliding an implement from one position to another to unlock a portal" then you'd be right, but it doesn't. In other words, if a physical bolt would infringe Apple's patent, and the physical bolt came first (which it did), then the bolt would anticipate the patent and render it invalid.
  But it doesn't... here's the first claim:
  
  1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
  detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
  continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
  unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
  
  A bolt lock wouldn't infringe that claim, and therefore, a bolt lock also doesn't anticipate that claim.
22. Re:Obvious by White+Flame · 2012-07-04 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of the judges, it's the fault of the patent office for being way too grant-happy, and of the idiot politicians who pressure the USPTO to grant more patents because it looks good in national e-peen metrics.
23. Re:Obvious by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-04 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Just because Henry Ford made his cars in black didn't mean the first guy to paint one blue got a patent on blue cars
  Don't give Apple any more idea !!
  They might decide to paint their new gadget a certain color and then file a patent for that
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
24. Re:Obvious by jrumney · 2012-07-04 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  In 1999, I was using a mobile phone with a switch on the side that locked the keypad. So even in connection with phones, slide to lock has prior art, which probably isn't patented because the "inventor" thought it was obvious.
25. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  I repeat:So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?
  Because they didn't need to. Apple using it doesn't mean Apple invented it, applying a metaphor in a specific context isn't innovative or inventive as has been confirmed by the court...or maybe you'll agree that by extension because it's implemented on an Android phone that makes it innovative (because previously it was only on an iOS phone)?
26. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  And if Apple's patent claimed "sliding an implement from one position to another to unlock a portal" then you'd be right
  And that is essentially what it is, simply applying a physical metaphor in a digital context, not innovative, they didn't invent anything.
27. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  Wow the apologists are out in force today, i suppose you think the slingshot in Angry Birds is innovative and should be patentable too?
28. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  google should just make it search-from-your-choice-of-multiple-sources.
29. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  wait so desktop patent on a mobile device doesn't count as original here but when apple try it that's fine.
30. Re:Obvious by Gadget_Guy · 2012-07-04 15:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I repeat:So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?
  Did you not even read the summary (let alone the article)? It seems Apple was not the first:
  He said Apple's slide-to-unlock feature was an "obvious" development in the light of a similar function on an earlier Swedish handset.
  There are also plenty of examples of people mimicking real world devices in virtual screens. Sliders on mixing desks, rotating switches, radio buttons (why else would they be called radio buttons?) etc. Even if Apple were the first to use this particular interface, it is still not actual innovation to just copy an existing design in a virtual form.
31. Re:Obvious by samwichse · 2012-07-04 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  They did, and apple is, as usual now, just being a patent troll. Example already used to invalidate this patent elsewhere: http://telecoms.cytalk.com/2011/10/slide-to-unlock-patented/ As soon as the tech for a gesture-worthy touchscreen came about, it appeared. Don't pretend this bullshit patent is some kind of apple magic fairy dust of innovation. Sam
32. Re:Obvious by Fjandr · 2012-07-04 15:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, the patent text says almost exactly what you claim it doesn't, as the addition of the word "portal" is an attempt at deflection which adds nothing functional to the rebuttal. Slide locks have implementations which secure numerous things, of which portals are but a single example.
  You slide the graphical representation of something along a software-defined and graphically-displayed route and the device unlocks once the graphical object contacts the defined unlock region.
  The bolt was an example of a physical item for which the slide-unlock, as it is currently implemented, is an exact digital representation.
  If you wish to be pedantic, a typical bolt would not infringe the claim (leaving aside the touchscreen in place of a physical object aspect), but a spring-loaded bolt would. One would require continuous contact with the bolt in releasing the lock, or it would reset.
  If the touchscreen is what differentiates the claim, then all digital analogues to physical manipulation are open to being patented. If that's the case, our views on what constitute legitimate patents are hopelessly at odds, so further discussion would be pointless.
33. Re:Obvious by Fjandr · 2012-07-04 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  All it adds is that the unlock path may be one of multiple options. So, instead of a straight line, like a door bolt, it might be L-shaped like a rifle bolt or whatnot.
34. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  Slide to unlock is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a bolt...
  This is what one looks like for anyone unfamiliar with the term:
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Bolt_lock.jpg
  And if Apple's patent claimed "sliding an implement from one position to another to unlock a portal" then you'd be right, but it doesn't. In other words, if a physical bolt would infringe Apple's patent, and the physical bolt came first (which it did), then the bolt would anticipate the patent and render it invalid.
  But it doesn't... here's the first claim:
  
  1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
  A bolt lock wouldn't infringe that claim, and therefore, a bolt lock also doesn't anticipate that claim.
  Using technical jargon to dress up a claim doesn't make something that's intuitively obvious suddenly non-obvious.
  Only a semi-literate clod would think it does. Wouldn't you agree, Theaetetus? Have a great day!
35. Re:Obvious by john29 · 2012-07-04 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  very good for htc.
36. Re:Obvious by john29 · 2012-07-04 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  yes you are right.
37. Re:Obvious by psiclops · 2012-07-04 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  i'm sorry i missed the memo where 'existing idea but on a phone' became novel and imaginative
  are we agreeing with 'existing idea on the interwebs' is novel and imaginative now too?
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
38. Re:Obvious by Xest · 2012-07-04 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  Can anyone clarify how Apple's patent on that is even valid?
  Searching multiple sources has been around for years, in so many ways, on so much hardware, in so many programs.
  Is it because of some obscure legal definition of a "source"? Windows explorer has quite happily search multiple media sources for me for years. Google search has quite happily returned results from a number of sources. Searching multiple sources from one interface has been a cornerstone of search for decades now.
  Why was Apple's patent on it even granted? how was it not ruled obvious, or invalidated trivially by the plethora of examples of prior art? Or is Lucy Koh just the most inept judge in the history of judges?
  I actually even sympathise with some of Apple's patents, some of them as much as I detest the way they're using them it's hard to say anything other than fair play I guess. But this one? one that has been used for such a colossaly dangerous ban in terms of absolutely destroying competitiveness in the cell phone market? I just don't get why this one, of all of the ones that could have possibly been chosen, is the one that's been allowed to cause such a brutal ruling.
39. Re:Obvious by Xest · 2012-07-04 20:03 · Score: 2
  
  The Nexus is Google's flagship device that always gets the latest version of Android, that's why Apple have targetted it.
  It's not about whether it's more, or less infringing than the others, it's about destroying competition through legal means, rather than actually competing with them through innovation.
40. Re:Obvious by boorack · 2012-07-04 20:30 · Score: 2
  
  Think of it as "money is speech" issue. With their infinite pockets they're able to ram through UPSTO any kind of crap they want. Plus now that they're too big to ensure future growth conventional way, they are moving to rent-seeking - with monopoly rent being the most attractive options for them. Getting rid of any competition and then squeezing last drops od market (hopefully for them - monopolized) is the only way forward for them and they'll try to accomplish this with any possible method/tool at their disposal.
  In a non-corrupt system someone caring for free-market being in fact free should decide splitting them into a few smaller entities the moment they've started their dirty patent games. In reality it is not going to happen. With virtually every major hedge fund/pension fund/investment bank having at least some Apple stock entire Wall-Street estabullshitment is now behind them. And by extension - all government sock puppets of Wall Street will also support them to the last possible moment (and given how they treat bankers - it means forever).
  Expect this dirty patent skirmish to continue forever - at least in forseeable future.
41. Re:Obvious by Eraesr · 2012-07-04 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about whether or not it's obvious or something that sprang forth from a genius epiphany. Apple (and other companies) try to get patents on everything not to make sure their innovation can be used as sellingpoint that is unique to their products, it is to fight legal battles like these. They're just taking potshots at everything in hopes they'll just hit one of them.
  
  What I'm trying to say is that in the tech world, there's so much patent trolling going on, it's unreal. Anyone's astonishment at the stupidity of this patent or its related legal fights is just naive. It's no longer about innovation, it's about being annoying to your competitor.
42. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 21:39 · Score: 0
  
  Why would they have to pick a new color? They clearly invented "White exterior on an electronic device."
43. Re:Obvious by thereitis · 2012-07-04 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  They could replace the slide-to-unlock graphic with a piece of paper on one side and a garbage can on the other. Drag-and-drop to unlock would be exactly the same motion. All that's different is the graphic.
44. Re:Obvious by Jumperalex · 2012-07-05 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  A worthy post right up until, "Of course, some judges are activist judges, but that is a different story."
  Let me rewrite that for you, "Of course, some judges make decisions with which I disagree."
  The only difference between an "activist" judge and a non-"activist" judge seems to be a commentator's agreement or disagreement with the judges ruling.
  
  --
  If you can't be good, be good at it!
45. Re:Obvious by pboyd2004 · 2012-07-05 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't there issues about not enforcing patents like copyright? Like if you don't go after someone then you loose your ability to go after people later?
46. Re:Obvious by Missing.Matter · 2012-07-05 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  He's not moving any goal posts. Among others, there are generally two requirements for a patent to be granted: the invention has to be non-obvious and novel. The first part deals with the bolt lock analogue, the second part deals with the existence of prior art. Slide to unlock fails on both counts.
47. Re:Obvious by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-05 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  He's not moving any goal posts. Among others, there are generally two requirements for a patent to be granted: the invention has to be non-obvious and novel. The first part deals with the bolt lock analogue, the second part deals with the existence of prior art. Slide to unlock fails on both counts.
  Actually, it doesn't - which is why it was granted more than once (while Apple cited this "prior art") and upheld in court more than once. You can come back admitting you were wrong once this decision is overturned.
  And yes, did he ever move the goal posts. Because we were talking about only one of those different requirements, and he brought up the other because he couldn't refute my argument in the first.
48. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-06 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention sliding locks on most clamshell devices.
49. Re:Obvious by Xest · 2012-07-07 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not with patents no.
  If anything this makes patents worse, because it means companies can pick and choose they litigate against, and can genuinely use it to manipulate the market.
  In contrast, if such a rule was in place as it was for patents, then it'd mean companies would have to go after the first person that breached the patent and at least bring clarity to the market the second that alleged infringement happens by way of a validity/invalidity ruling. As it stands it's like walking through a minefield - you have to keep going, but you new know when you're going to step on someone else's patent and/or when they're going to sue you for it. They could do it the second you do it, or they could wait years until you've produced a multi-billion dollar product, then try and sue you for far more.
50. Re:Obvious by samwichse · 2012-07-09 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  You inserted the question: "...why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?" into the argument.
  I replied with an example of a phone that did this exactly, and you just bluster on about moving goal posts?
  Sam
51. Re:Obvious by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-09 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  You inserted the question: "...why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?" into the argument.
  I replied with an example of a phone that did this exactly, and you just bluster on about moving goal posts?
  Sam
  And it didn't occur to you that this "without" implied a virtual bolt instead of a physical one - else the obviousness wouldn't exactly be obvious anymore. If you're not moving a bolt, you aren't obviously not using a bolt lock. So stop trying to move the goal posts and blaming it on me. But sure, for you guys, everything has to be spelled out - but not in too many or too long words.
Shysters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

How can anyone with a straight face say that patents promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences? It seems to me that, in all countries, patents serve more to promote the pocketbooks of lawyers.
1. Re:Shysters by tonywong · 2012-07-04 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well patents could be useful if the patent filers hadn't figured out how to game the system. They've basically used verbiage and obfuscation to paper up the claims and make it harder for the examiners to figure out what's going on. Part of this is to broaden the scope of the patent so there are fewer ways to work around them, but it also broadens the applicability to industries and products the filers never thought about.
  
  However this means that the patent officers are always overworked and underpaid, and the broad scope of knowledge they must possess is ever expanding. I guess you'd have to ask a patent officer how they could revise and reform the system but it is truly becoming a system of little worth to the public at this point.
2. Re:Shysters by 0123456 · 2012-07-04 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They've basically used verbiage and obfuscation to paper up the claims and make it harder for the examiners to figure out what's going on.
  In a sensible world, if the patent examiners didn't understand a patent, it wouldn't be granted.
3. Re:Shysters by AngryDeuce · 2012-07-04 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  They've basically used verbiage and obfuscation to paper up the claims and make it harder for the examiners to figure out what's going on.
  Pretty much the same thing the banking industry has done with the Federal Trade Commission as of late...
4. Re:Shysters by gmuslera · 2012-07-04 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Lawyers with straight faces could say that, even that is important for mankind, or at least, the sector of mankind that are lawyers [citation needed]
5. Re:Shysters by Darkness404 · 2012-07-04 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  Which is why we need to simply abolish patents in the first place.
  
  There's no redeeming quality with patents anymore. If you have a good idea, put it in a product. Any modern product is much more than just the general concept. If we needed patents to have success, why are there generics of just about everything AND the "brand name". If patents were needed, everyone would buy Kangaroo Krunch (a hypothetical generic to Captain Crunch) that sells for 25% less than Captain Crunch rather than Captain Crunch since both are nearly 100% identical.
  
  A product's success does not just come from a novel idea, or a set of novel ideas but it comes from execution, marketing and support.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
6. Re:Shysters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  In a sensible world, if the patent examiners didn't understand a patent, it wouldn't be granted.
  But who's going to admit that?
7. Re:Shysters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Since when has not understanding something been a vice? If the submitter can't break it down into illustrations and verbiage so that it can be understood, it does not deserve a patent.
8. Re:Shysters by Missing.Matter · 2012-07-05 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  There's no redeeming quality with patents anymore. If you have a good idea, put it in a product.
  
  Okay, let's say I have a great idea, I make a product, and I put it on the market without a patent. It starts selling, and Big Company X takes notice. They completely rip off my product, sell it for 50% cheaper, and launch a world-wide marketing campaign to promote it. What legal recourse do I have without patents?
  
  Or let's even back up a bit. Let's say I have my great idea and I want to get capital just to start producing it. I go to a VC and I pitch my idea. The first thing he asks me when I'm done my pitch is: "Do you have a patent?" Because if not, why should he invest in your company when clearly every other company will just copy the idea and sell it cheaper to more people at better margins?
I, for one, welcome our new HTC overlords. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:01 · Score: 0

I, for one, welcome our new HTC overlords.
1. Re:I, for one, welcome our new HTC overlords. by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-07-04 06:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  I, for one, welcome our new HTC overlords.
  I thought Apple was the Sith.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
2. Re:I, for one, welcome our new HTC overlords. by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-07-04 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  I, for one, welcome our new HTC overlords.
  I thought Apple was the Sith.
  Now I know Apple is the Sith.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Same patent used in Galaxy Nexus ban by another+random+user · 2012-07-04 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

This judgement covers one of the patents that has also been used by Apple in blocking the Galaxy Nexus from sale in the US - http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18705285
As this mentions the 'slide-to-unlock' function as obvious based on existing functions in earlier handests - could this be used in evidence as part of the arguments around the Nexus ban?

--
-1 troll is not supposed to be used simply because you don't agree
1. Re:Same patent used in Galaxy Nexus ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  nice info..good
2. Re:Same patent used in Galaxy Nexus ban by DragonWriter · 2012-07-04 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  As this mentions the 'slide-to-unlock' function as obvious based on existing functions in earlier handests - could this be used in evidence as part of the arguments around the Nexus ban?
  No, its not evidence. It might be precedent (persuasive only, because it is from a foreign jurisdiction, and of limited persuasive value because, in addition to the fact its a foreign jurisdiction, its applying a different patent law than applies in the US.)
  More importantly, while the invalidity argument here is one that is, in general form, available in US patent law, I don't think it is one that is available against an issued patent in proceedings before the International Trade Commission. So, I don't think its applicable at all to the proceedings in which the import ban is at issue.
3. Re:Same patent used in Galaxy Nexus ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 14:07 · Score: 0
  
  Prior art is fundamental to every patent system in the world, by definition, so it's very applicable. Every country has its own quirks re: details of demonstrating prior art, but it's possible.
Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? by zero.kalvin · 2012-07-04 06:06 · Score: 5, Funny

What's with this new sudden wave of common sense ?
1. Re:Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? by pro151 · 2012-07-04 06:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Don' worry, it won't last long.
2. Re:Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? by Kupfernigk · 2012-07-04 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Neither Apple nor HTC are British companies. The only British-designed component they share is the ARM processor. We don't have any economic fallout if Apple loses (or HTC, for that matter).
  
  --
  From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
3. Re:Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? by Sarten-X · 2012-07-04 06:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well, what you're seeing now is the eventual outcome of the vast majority of legal endeavors. That silly "common sense" almost always prevails, because, shockingly enough, judges are humans with the capacity to understand the details of a case and see past the misdirection the media throws at the general public. Of course, that misdirection is always highest at the start of a lawsuit, because an audacious corporation making outrageous claims is a good sensationalist story that people will pay attention to, and that brings prestige and profit.
  Within the past few years, there have been several lawsuits brought up that the media could make a circus out of, and now they're all starting to conclude. The judgments will be made according to a mix of law and interpretation that the judge thinks is fair. Since it's ludicrously unlikely for a judge to actually agree with the absurd assertions the media has put forth, everything will seem like a sudden outburst of common sense when it's really just business as usual for the American legal system.
  Pro151 is right (though at the moment modded at -1): it won't last long. I'd expect that by the end of the week, there will be some new legal shenanigans reported and sensationalized, so the anti-corporate zealots can have their Two Minutes Hate against those evil abusive companies, and the pro-corporate zealots can shout about how this is all the fault of government interfering in business, and the nonconformists can tout their crazy plans for how to fix everything by abolishing society and rebuilding it effectively the same but with all the problems magically gone. Everybody feels good about their particular opinion, and the media gets to feel good about starting a rousing discussion. It's a win-win, right?
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Is someone keeping track of all this? by Compaqt · 2012-07-04 06:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is someone keeping track of all the pre-iPhone tech/software that Apple copied in order to create the iPhone out of thin air?
It would be useful to paste it as a generic response to Apple fanboys, like that guy who used to paste the big-ol' response to any suggested spam solution ("Your spam solution will not work because...").
I never knew that Apple had copied swipe-to-unlock from the Swedish Neonode N1 phone.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Sony Ericsson P800 - released in 2002
  The iPhone has the benefit of five years of technology development, but is a clear successor.
2. Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? by White+Flame · 2012-07-04 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Doesn't matter. They'll just claim the innovation was the gestalt of putting it all together, not the individual parts.
3. Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? by Terrasque · 2012-07-04 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They'll just claim the innovation was the gestalt of putting it all together, not the individual parts.
  This have already happened in many discussions I've been in. After methodically refuting every "innovation" they then get to that part. At which point I try to tell them that the market was already moving in that direction (LG Prada, Samsung F700 for example), and that the concept of touch phones is ages old (IBM Simon).
  Being the first out in a race does not mean you invented running :p
  But at that point, it's really a lost cause, since they then just vaguely argue that the iPhone is somehow magically different than all those, but seemingly unable to tell why. If I feel particularly bored or spiteful, I start arguing that technically, the iPhone shouldn't even be counted as a smartphone until the App Store was opened mid-2008. For some reason, this really push some of those people over the edge.
  
  --
  It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
4. Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? by Truedat · 2012-07-04 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not just apple fan boys but that would be useful against android fanboys too. And any other fanboys. Just imagine it, we could have whole flame wars fought entirely with copy and pasted comments.
5. Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? by DCFusor · 2012-07-04 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't work for Oracle, when they tried to claim the same about Google's use of Jave "structure and org", did it. Of course, suing a search engine in a world where prior art matters is kind of stupid and brash, just like Ellison.
  
  --
  Why guess when you can know? Measure!
6. Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? by LordLucless · 2012-07-04 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  In my experience, Apple fanboys are the ones claiming that their company produces unique items that no other company in the world could possibly do, and thus should get patents on them. Android fanboys have other hobby horses, like "openness uber alles". I can't recall ever having seen Android fanboys defending Google's patents (not to mention that, prior to Motorola, Google pretty much had none, at least in the mobile area).
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
7. Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? by Truedat · 2012-07-04 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I meant ammunition of any variety. The biggest raw nerve that I've observed when it comes to android (well maybe google) fanboys seems to be about privacy violations though.
Unfair to Apple by cpu6502 · 2012-07-04 06:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

They invented this fine product with cool innovations like "slide to unlock" and the government should protect these inventive employees from theft by companies like HTC.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:Unfair to Apple by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-07-04 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Did not a court just find that slide to unlock was already in use before Apple had anything to do with it? Oh sorry, I forgot, facts are not important to a cultist.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
2. Re:Unfair to Apple by BanHammor · 2012-07-04 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I believe I just heard the sound of the comment flying over your head. It is sarcastic.
3. Re:Unfair to Apple by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-07-04 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, well that is why we have the <sarcasm> tag.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
4. Re:Unfair to Apple by Flipao · 2012-07-04 08:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But it's ok if they steal the pull down notification bar from Google? :)
5. Re:Unfair to Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  I know!! That really pisses me off.
The real Travesty here is... by SirAstral · 2012-07-04 06:13 · Score: 0

that the Judge did not rule in the first 5 minutes of the case that a "slide to unlock" patent was complete and utter void. Following that up with a Hefty Fine of wasting taxpayers time and effort with such foolishness. Would have given him bonus points for finding the USPTO in contempt for even issuing the patent but that would obviously be beyond the scope of his authority. But he sure could have made some key comments! After which a class action could be started by the industry against the USPTO for their.... stupidity!
However, this judge like every other self important judge fails to even realize their importance in society.
1. Re:The real Travesty here is... by Missing.Matter · 2012-07-04 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  that the Judge did not rule in the first 5 minutes of the case that a "slide to unlock" patent was complete and utter void....Would have given him bonus points for finding the USPTO in contempt for even issuing the patent.
  I think I'd prefer Judges to not be hasty and make snap decisions... you obviously should do the same: take a step back and not be so hasty with your postings, maybe even read the sumary, seeing as this is a UK case and the USPTO has nothing to do with this patent.
  
  HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London.
2. Re:The real Travesty here is... by SirAstral · 2012-07-04 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I know that judge's should not make snap decisions, it was mainly said TIC but you are right about the High Court in London having nothing to do with USPTO. I got carried away, however the UK IPO has very similar rules. My complaint is not readily dismissed because I failed to identify the proper authority in my post.
  http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-requirements.htm
3. Re:The real Travesty here is... by Roujo · 2012-07-04 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think his point is that hasty decisions, justified or not, are more error-prone than thought out ones. I've seen a lot of witch hunts on the Internet that were caused by hasty judgements and were followed by awkward apologies when exonerating evidence was later unearthed. Your post, while (IMO) correctly underlining the failings of the patent system, contained an error because you "got carried away". While an error in a /. post is generally of little consequence, judicial rulings tend to have more far reaching consequences, and I would also like them to be the result of careful thought rather than knee-jerk, error-prone reactions.
4. Re:The real Travesty here is... by SirAstral · 2012-07-04 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Did you not read my response? I said it was tongue in cheek, which means that I did not seriously expect that the Judge should make a snap decision. However, an easy decision we very reachable for any judge who actually read about what they were presiding over. Additionally, you guys are taking this a little too seriously.
5. Re:The real Travesty here is... by Roujo · 2012-07-04 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, right, TIC. I was not familiar with that acronym. Sorry! =)
6. Re:The real Travesty here is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  >I think I'd prefer Judges to not be hasty and make snap decisions
  Lawyer: Your honor, my client was on the other side of the planet, at a recorded press conference, at the time of the alleged assult
  Judge: As recognised by the Slashdot community, a member of the courts should never make a rash decision. I will allow the case to be heard. Overruled. Prosecution - you may continue.
  Q: At what point is something so blatantly obvious to anyone, that it should be dismissed instantly??? The grandparent poster had it right. Obvious IS obvious.
patent? how? by CheshireDragon · 2012-07-04 06:14 · Score: 1

I am not a programmer or software designer. Can someone explain to me why something as mundane as this can be patented?

--
"That's right...I said it."
1. Re:patent? how? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  Patent office issue patents for everything nowadays as long as you write it in a vague enough language. IBM had a patent on the progress bar as far as I can remember.
2. Re:patent? how? by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-07-04 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I am not a programmer or software designer. Can someone explain to me why something as mundane as this can be patented?
  Say "Troll" then say "Apple".
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
3. Re:patent? how? by CheshireDragon · 2012-07-04 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  not trying to argue, but it seems to me that if something as simple as this is patented then why don't we see more patent disputes? For example: I have a Motorola Droid 4 and it has a power button on what would be considered the top/center of the phone. I have a few other phones from a few other companies that also have power buttons on the top/center of the phone. Why don't they go after each other for that type of design? Apple went after other tablets for a similar design..
  
  It just seems like this is a completely mundane issue and shouldn't of even been allowed to be patented.
  
  --
  "That's right...I said it."
4. Re:patent? how? by SirAstral · 2012-07-04 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Here is how it happens. Governments participate in your regular everyday scams just like any other business. It is more profitable for a Patent Office to issue Patents easily encouraging companies to file for multiple patents hopping they stick like spaghetti on the wall so that they troll cash out when a competitor employ's "their idea" in a way that takes their customers away from them or to just to collect a nice paycheck. Meanwhile the Patent Office rakes it in on the fees.
  The Patent office does not care if the patent they just approved looks 99% like another patent just so long as they can claim enough difference to allow it pass. For example, "Swipe to Unlock" could seriously be considered different enough from "Slide to Unlock" to grant a patent that effectively is the same thing to 2 separate entities.
  It is all about the Money and nothing else.
5. Re:patent? how? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not every company is as irresponsible as Apple or Samsung when it comes to suing others for "patent infringement". Some just hold the patent so that companies like Apple can't sue them as easily.
6. Re:patent? how? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  I am not a programmer or software designer. Can someone explain to me why something as mundane as this can be patented?
  1. Lots and lots of money bribed^H^H^H^H^H^Hspent.
  2. Status as a trend-setting media darling.
  3. Reality Distortion Field.
  Note that none of those involve innovation, invention, or the advancement of the sciences.
Rant by Dan+East · 2012-07-04 06:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is the perfect opportunity for me to rant on HTC's slide to unlock implementation. Their phones use a custom (non-stock android) lock screen that must have been designed be a total idiot. Instead of sliding to the side, you slide straight up and down. Further, the slider bar is the width of the entire screen, so it is huge. Now, this is stupid beyond belief because millions of people carry their phone in their pocket, so of course as the phone is pulled in and out of the pocket.... it unlocks.
Worse, when a call is coming in, sliding up ignores the call, sliding down answers the call. I have answered or ignored literally DOZENS of phone calls by accident because of this garbage. I actually have to put my phone in my pocket either upside down or right side up in anticipation of which way the slider will go if I take my phone out to answer a call.
Their locking implementation really has to go down in the annals of GUI design as one of the worst designs ever.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Rant by SirAstral · 2012-07-04 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Here is your chance to file a "Circle to Unlock" patent before 1 of a billion people with a brain beat you or a corporation to it!
2. Re:Rant by CheshireDragon · 2012-07-04 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  too late...I just did
  
  --
  "That's right...I said it."
3. Re:Rant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  So change it?
  That's the beauty of Android. If there's something you don't like, something some other phone does, or something you want to do more efficiently, there's usually a replacement application for it.
  i.e. You want Face Unlock on a 2.1/2.2 device? Look up Visidon App Lock (which incidentally functions as a lock screen replacement, if I recall)
4. Re:Rant by Frankie70 · 2012-07-04 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is the real reason Apple patented it - to save customers of other implementations from bad implementations. Too bad the stupid judge didn't realize it.
5. Re:Rant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  I've never had issues with this.
  First, you don't need to slide it -all- the way, like the apple implementation. Simply move the circle from the dock and let go.
  Second, I've never unlocked it pulling it out of my pocket because the screen is dark. I would need to turn it on first for that to happen.
  Your phone call comment I can't really refute though - I have never had it happen to me, but then I grab the phone by the back/side when removing it (the phone's screen is against my thigh, or face down as it were)
  My pants are insufficient to unlock the phone or answer/ignore calls for me. Maybe less conductive pants?
6. Re:Rant by Bert64 · 2012-07-04 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  The unlock screen was probably designed that way to try and avoid the slide to unlock patent...
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
7. Re:Rant by SirAstral · 2012-07-04 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? The Judge was stupid for other reasons, but patenting something to save people from something else seems to be a little illogical. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean.
8. Re:Rant by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-07-04 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Most probably they were trying to cover themselves in case Apple's stupid patent was held valid. Now they can do it in the way that is best for the customer and Apple can fuck themselves. At least when this decision is mirrored in the US court system, which seems rather likely.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
9. Re:Rant by khipu · 2012-07-04 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Now, this is stupid beyond belief because millions of people carry their phone in their pocket, so of course as the phone is pulled in and out of the pocket.... it unlocks.
  Yes, a lot of those "stupid decisions" are an attempt to avoid lawsuits by Apple over Apple's phony copyright, design patents, software patents, or just general look-and-feel. So, go thank Apple.
  Fortunately, smaller app developers don't give a sh*t about Apple, so whatever aspect of the iPhone you like, you can actually get for Android with a click or two.
10. Re:Rant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they copied it from this
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlXjDJt9fL4
11. Re:Rant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  How is parent actually modded up?
12. Re:Rant by oxdas · 2012-07-04 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I think Frankie is being sarcastic.
13. Re:Rant by markdavis · 2012-07-04 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that the slide-unlock design you are complaining about was replaced over two years ago with a totally different lock screen?
  If you want a LEGIT complaint about the non-historic HTC lock screen, it would be that it has absolutely no security. And if you try to ADD security to it (like the pattern unlock), you have to FIRST unlock the screen with the "pretty" HTC interface, and THEN UNLOCK IT YET AGAIN with the security screen.
14. Re:Rant by ougouferay · 2012-07-04 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of sliding to the side, you slide straight up and down. Further, the slider bar is the width of the entire screen, so it is huge. Now, this is stupid beyond belief...
  
  And yet, at 8am in the morning, I am still incapable of either :-
  
  a) sliding it in the right direction
  b) hitting it at all!
  
  Can someone please invent a slide-to-unlock that is both bigger (dinner-plate size should do) and requires zero hand eye coordination.
15. Re:Rant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Well, maybe he could get an Android update....uh, nevermind. Go find some randomly named replacement app that has ads.
16. Re:Rant by markdavis · 2012-07-04 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  1) The phones that had that version don't have enough RAM or storage to run the newer version of Sense.
  2) He has the option to run a different ROM without Sense.
  3) Utility apps addressing many problems are available free without ads or commercially for a few dollars.
  But I guess you would rather just stereotype.
17. Re:Rant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  What? Why would pulling it out of your pocket affect the slider? You'd have to both hit the wakeup button (usually on top the phone and reasonably stiff), AND have something in your pocket conductive enough to affect the screen. I used an HTC device for two years, keeping it in my pocket the whole time, and never had issues like this.
18. Re:Rant by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-07-04 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  See?! Apple was right in trying to stop this travesty from getting into the public's hands!
  I knew Apple were the good guys... *dreamily looking at my picture of Steve Jobs*
  (The above is intended as humor...)
19. Re:Rant by Inda · 2012-07-04 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  WidgetLocker is what he needs.
  
  Not only can you add custom sliders to the lock screen, you can also add widgets. Calendar and battery widgets on the lock screen are nice.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
20. Re:Rant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  I quite like it, never had an issue with it. Go figure.
Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. by Dan+East · 2012-07-04 06:17 · Score: 4, Funny

You must feel like you're caught in a landslide, with no escape from reality.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. by Baloroth · 2012-07-04 06:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Unfortunately, that feeling will pass as soon as he opens his eyes.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
2. Re:Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. by AcMNPV · 2012-07-04 07:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  But what will he see? Is he just a poor boy and get's no sympathy?
3. Re:Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. by jez9999 · 2012-07-04 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  These judges are just easy come, easy go.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
4. Re:Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously guys, will you let it go?
Apple=Evil by esten · 2012-07-04 06:31 · Score: 0

Everybody knows it.
Apple evangelist only qualify it as less* evil.
Most of Apples Patents are hogwash in that most individual features were already present somewhere else before they put together in a device by apple. Don't take me wrong taking the best parts from a wide array of devices and assembling them into a single product takes a lot of skill.
And really most of apples cutting edge features are invented by others but solely available from apple because they have the capital to buy an entire supply chain for a new product to delay others from making use of the new technology.
So now that other companies have caught up and are turning out products that bet apple to market on new technology all Apple can do it go to court with their bogus patents to keep their monopoly.
1. Re:Apple=Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Is there some link you can point that shows every single Apple patent, and how most of them are prior art? Then we can send it to the USPTO
Popcorn by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-07-04 06:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think at this point I've mentally checked out of the patent wars. 'Mutually assured destruction' was supposed to be a deterrent, not a gameplan. Time to make some popcorn, sit back, and watch the carnage.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:Popcorn by Truedat · 2012-07-04 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Except it didn't turn out that way. Before apple decided to not to play ball the big players operated an old boys club of shared patents with a license fee stake high enough to keep newer upstarts out. I would much rather they all went to war with each other than cooperate in a cosy cartel, but I'm open to changing my mind if I hear any decent arguments as to why thats less evil.
Slides to unlock the gate every workday by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 08:17 · Score: 0

Got a nice bolt at my daughters kindergarten. An old fashion slide to (un)lock in the form of a bolt lock.
So whats so new about Apples slide to unlock patent? It's just the digital version of the cold iron thing.
Proof that Apple stole ideas from Android by walterbyrd · 2012-07-04 09:54 · Score: 1

http://team-nocturnal.tumblr.com/post/26388747742/proof-apple-stole-from-google-boycottapple
#BoycottApple is still trending strong on Google+, and elsewhere.
Maybe #BoycottApple has momentum by walterbyrd · 2012-07-04 09:57 · Score: 1

Worth a quick look, just for the graphics.

Google Fanboys Furious Over Apple Getting The Nexus Phone Banned, Flock To Google+ And Start A #Boycottapple
July 2, 2012
Maybe this will put to bed the idea that Google+ is a ghost town.
After Apple won an injunction against the Nexus phone for violation of a search patent, Android fans took to
Google+ to express their outrage. The topic #boycottapple was trending this weekend. The #boycottapple posts are still flowing in.
The gist of the complaints are that Android has been evolving on its own, and Apple's complaints are silly. We've rounded up some of the funniest graphics to come out of #boycottapple.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-fanboys-furious-over-apple-getting-the-nexus-phone-banned-flo
ck-to-google-and-start-a-boycottapple-trend-2012-7?op=1
1. Re:Maybe #BoycottApple has momentum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  So google fandroids are going to not buy Apple products to hurt Apple? Good luck with that.
  Those of us in the real world will continue buying Apple products.
2. Re:Maybe #BoycottApple has momentum by cboslin · 2012-07-05 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  Those of us in the real world will continue buying Apple products.
  Which is the only reason companies, entities, people can pull this crap with anyone. The only rational solution is to choose not to play. Take your business elsewhere. If everyone did this, the BS would stop tomorrow.
  I have suggested it before, will again, when any company does BS like this, start a 3 year "no purchase anything" from them clock. If they do any additional 'badness' (of which you are the sole determiner of what is bad for your) increase that clock to a 7 year clock, "no purchase anything".
  For each additional incident that is anti-freedom, anti-society, anti-family, anti-capitalism, against your life code (what is important to you) restart your 7 year clock.
  If a company knew a significant number of potential buyers would stop purchasing their products for seven years because of their bad behavior, their bad behavior would stop. They might actually consider the long term ramifications of their actions.
  Best of all, you are no longer basing decisions on what anyone says, avoiding lies. You are basing your purchase decisions based on their actions, the only things that matter.
  The same thing can be done with politicians, how did they vote on legislation that matters to you...forget what they say as we all know the majority of them lie...base your decision (in this case your vote) on their ACTIONS ONLY.
  This is 100% capitalism as the bad players go out of business and go away, newer, smaller, more responsive (to you) businesses will emerge to fill the gap, thus economic activity is increased. All you have to do is care about yourself and others benefit indirectly
3. Re:Maybe #BoycottApple has momentum by robsku · 2012-07-10 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  And those actually wanting a product that is good for their needs, from company they can trust and respect, or at least not have anything against their actions, etc. will be evaluating their choices on such terms - sometimes leading regular people to decide to not support a company at all (ie. boycott them) not necessarily because of their fanboism for another company having anything to do with it.
  But if you think that your "real world" has only people who want to buy Apple products, then "Hello fanboi" to you...
  As for people who think a company is doing something so wrong that it should not be supported - well, obviously it should be boycotted by such people, unless they are hypocrites and bitch about something being wrong but support it anyway. Isn't this obvious?
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
4. Re:Maybe #BoycottApple has momentum by robsku · 2012-07-10 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  *thumbs up*
  Really liked your reply, you said it way better than I could :)
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Physical vs Virtual by aaronb1138 · 2012-07-04 13:43 · Score: 1

Pretty much any on-screen display of an interface meant to mimic a physical device should go straight into the "not patentable, prior art" pile at every patent office. There is nothing original, novel, or non-obvious regarding user interfaces which are similar in operation to physical devices.
Patent offices are funded by the application fees and tax moneys in most jurisdictions. I suggest they add an additional revenue stream for patent spamming. Start really examining the patent applications and if a company makes over X number of applications per year with more than some threshold percentage denied for prior art or otherwise not meeting a high standard of patentability, begin charging a punitive fee for the additional scrutiny their patents will need due to patent spamming.
1. Re:Physical vs Virtual by robsku · 2012-07-06 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much any on-screen display of an interface meant to mimic a physical device should go straight into the "not patentable, prior art" pile at every patent office. There is nothing original, novel, or non-obvious regarding user interfaces which are similar in operation to physical devices.
  Agreed, though I'd allow such patents if they pass some extra scrutiny in case it would actually need special innovation to implement "virtual emulation" of physical device in question - but even then I only accept this as long as software patents, which I don't accept, are still allowed in patent law.
  
  Patent offices are funded by the application fees and tax moneys in most jurisdictions. I suggest they add an additional revenue stream for patent spamming. Start really examining the patent applications and if a company makes over X number of applications per year with more than some threshold percentage denied for prior art or otherwise not meeting a high standard of patentability, begin charging a punitive fee for the additional scrutiny their patents will need due to patent spamming.
  Agreed mostly, but I would allow patent as long as it's owner has even at least one application for it, even if still under work - but if someone came up with application for it after patent was given but no work on application for it had begin yet the patent should be denied. Also if the patent owner did have application for it but they are not selling it or making money with it anymore then the patent should be denied too.
  I would ban any business models that use patents themselves, not applications of them, to make money.
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Open Your Eyes, Look Up To The Skies And See... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 17:19 · Score: 0

There is clearly prior art here....

I wonder how many replies with lines of lyrics it will take before the MAFIAA gets involved?
Apple don't employ techy-types? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 22:32 · Score: 0

Do they only employ idiots who think this idea is novel and non-obvious?
Because if not, if Apple employe technically capable people and not only idiots, then Apple would know this is non-obvious. And, since the requirements for patents include "non obvious to those skilled in the art", they knew that they were asking for something that wasn't patentable.
Apple are far more at fault. The PTO don't have the manpower to employ "those skilled in the art" for all the different types of art that people can patent.
Apple's "Siri" is now subject to court litigation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 23:30 · Score: 0

Register Story
Can't be asked to summarise more than a Chinese company says it did it first, and Apple copied them!
And us techy-types are "skilled in the art". by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 00:04 · Score: 0

And since patents must be non-obvious to those "skilled in the art", then being obvious to "us techy-types" should invalidate the patent.
Apple too have techy-types. It should be obvious to them it was obvious. Therefore they should have known it was invalid and not applied for it. They are more responsible than the PTO.
physical slide to unlock by stoatwblr · 2012-07-05 10:49 · Score: 1

My ~2003 UIQ2 Motorola A1000 has a physical "slide to unlock" button (slide up to lock, down and then toggle down to unlock) and had haptics plus handwriting recognition that worked far better than Newton's ever did. Moving from that to a screen slider isn't that big a leap. I'm glad the court ruled the way it did.