HTC Defeats Apple In Slide-To-Unlock Patent Dispute

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."

Comments

Obvious

[Hazelfield]

I think it was pretty obvious that it was obvious. "Slide-to-unlock"? Aargh! The stupidity of the patent system is staggering.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cdn.techpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/apple-slide-to-unlock.jpg

Re:Obvious

[macemoneta]

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.

Re:Obvious

[LordLucless]

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.

Re:Obvious

[Fjandr]

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.

Shysters

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shysters

[tonywong]

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.

Re:Shysters

[0123456]

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.

Same patent used in Galaxy Nexus ban

[another random user]

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?

Re:The real Travesty here is...

[Missing.Matter]

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.

Re:Is someone keeping track of all this?

[White Flame]

Doesn't matter. They'll just claim the innovation was the gestalt of putting it all together, not the individual parts.

Re:patent? how?

[Daniel Phillips]

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".

Re:Is someone keeping track of all this?

[Terrasque]

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.