Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent

Posted by Soulskill on from the slam-your-face-into-it-until-it-unlocks dept.

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that Google was awarded a patent yesterday for logging into a computing device using face recognition (8,261,090). 'In order for the technology to work, Google's patent requires a camera that can identify a person's face. If that face matches a "predetermined identity," then the person is logged into the respective device. If multiple people want to access a computer, the next person would get in front of the camera, and the device's software would automatically transition to the new user's profile. ... Interestingly, Apple last year filed for a patent related to facial recognition similar to what Google is describing in its own service. That technology would recognize a person's face and use that as the authentication needed to access user profiles or other important information.'"

7 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. My lenovo laptop by sgent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.

    1. Re:My lenovo laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everyone seems to have a laptop that did this several years ago for one person to log in. As I read the google patent, this is for multiple people who use the same device.

      On my old dell laptop, it recognizes my face and logs me in, no problem. When my wife sits down in front of that laptop, though... I am still logged in and she can view my, um, facebook relationships, browsing for a hookup history, gambling history, online dating site history ... you get the idea.

      What this patent does is deny access to one users resources when another is sitting in front of the computer. So when my wife sits in front of my laptop, she gets to see her facebook relationships, browsing for a hookup history, gambling history, online dating site history, WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON MY PART. That is what google is claiming is unique to their patent.

  2. I have prior art by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.

    When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.

    Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?

    1. Re:I have prior art by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?

      You misunderstand patents; It's not what the apparatus does that's patentable, it's how it does it. There are a few other conditions as well; However it goes about its business has to be in a non-trivial, non-obvious fashion. In other words, if it took 20 electrical engineers to build the device, if I take 20 electrical engineers and tell them what the device does, they shouldn't come back with a nearly identical device; If they do, then no matter how complex it is, it shouldn't be patentable.

      At least, that's the theory. In practice... Patents in the United States and most other countries are simply rubber-stamped and then the validity of the patent is contested in costly legal battles.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. Eye for an eye. by metrometro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lemme see if I get this: Google has a patent on face recognition to access a device, but Apple is seeking a patent on face recognition to do anything useful on the device. Both of which are for concepts that are so obvious I can understand it without RTFA.

    So we either have a de facto OS monopoly (via interlocking licensing), or no product at all. Innovation!

  4. Really? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My Asus M50vm had that ability, back in '08, '09, one of those years.

    It sucked, of course, but "working commercially-available implementation" should be hell of prior art.

  5. Re:Amazing by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rocketing up to +5 with an anti-Apple post, I see, but this kind of stupidity in patent-land has been going on a long time. I mean, come on--Slashdot has had a knife-fork-spoon icon for "patents" for quite some time, and for a reason. 1-click purchasing, anyone?

    That's 21st century. This patent nonsense has been around since the 19th. It's not new. Just new to high-tech. In the 19th century it was patent fights over stuff like telephones, internal combustion engines (in particular, the 4-stroke cycle), 20th century had others, and so on. And heck, the car keeps generating patents as well - hybrid vehicles - between Toyota and Ford, they've got it pretty much all locked up (Toyota and Ford only cross licensed because they ended up suing each other over hybrid vehicles).

    Also, I don't think the "non-practicing entity" lawsuits (aka patent trolls) are a new concept either.

    Interestingly, some patents are long lived - intermittent windshield wipers had a lawsuit that started in the mid-50's and only ended up resolved in the early 80s, well after the patent expired.

    Everything old is new again.