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."

38 of 149 comments (clear)

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 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!
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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?
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
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 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.
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
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 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 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.
2. 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."
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 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!
2. 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?
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.
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.
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?
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)
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?
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? :)