Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday September 5, 2012 @07:51AM 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.'"

24 of 194 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good facial recognition by i+kan+reed · 2012-09-05 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good facial recognition has existed for several years now. Using that tech for authentication is obvious. Patents continue to suck.
1. Re:Good facial recognition by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-05 08:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not just "facial recognition" that they were awarded the patent on. It's the method of recognition and the technology suite behind it.
  
  I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps. Normally these are the people who are made fun of around here but really, Slashdotters aren't that much better for the most part.
  
  How long until one of you wanna-bes post something like "But I thought scientists said coffee was good fer ya!?!? These scientists don't know nothing!!!"
2. Re:Good facial recognition by h4rr4r · 2012-09-05 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Blink to unlock is a standard part of Android Jelly Bean. It has nothing to do with samsung, other than that they make at least one phone that has Jelly Bean.
3. Re:Good facial recognition by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-05 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  blink to login. ok.
  but to get to root, you have to do a full sneeze. and I can't always do that on command.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4. Re:Good facial recognition by icebike · 2012-09-05 08:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps.
  
  Wait, Gimp now has facial recognition too?
  He said gimp!, right? I read it on the intertubes!
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
5. Re:Good facial recognition by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-09-05 09:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Don't Blink. Don't even blink!
  He said "Jelly Bean", not "Jelly Baby".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
6. Re:Good facial recognition by Cacadril · 2012-09-05 09:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Patents are supposed to disclose enough to enable a person skilled in the art to recreate the invention. But the problems that a person skilled in the art must overcome to recreate this invention, are thousands of times more demanding than coming up with the details of this claim. How can it be obvious to the person skilled in the art how to implement this invention if the standard of "obviousness" is such that the invention itself is not obvious to the person skilled in the art?
  
  This patent, like most modern, computer-related patents, do not describe, much less patent, the actual solution to the problem. They patent the problem itself.
  Consider, for instance, claim 12 (for increased legibility, I have added some punctuation, numbering, and line breaks):
  A computer program product
  - stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium
  - and comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to:
  1. receive an image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device;
  2. determine an identity of the first user based on the received first image;
  3. if the determined identity of the first user matches the first predetermined identity,
  - then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the first predetermined identity,
  - log the first user in to the computing device;
  4. receive a second image of a second user via the camera operably coupled with the computing device;
  5. determine an identity of the second user based on the received second image;
  6. and if the determined identity of the second user matches the second predetermined identity,
  - then, issue a prompt to confirm that the first user should be logged off of the computing device
  - and that the second user should be logged on to the computing device;
  7. receive a valid confirmation from the first or second user in response to the prompt;
  8. in response to receiving the valid confirmation,
  - log the first user off of the computing device
  - and log the second user in to the computing device.
  
  --
  There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
7. Re:Good facial recognition by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-09-05 11:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Google has learned how to game the system, same as the rest. The entire patent is junk and is expected to be junk. Being novel or innovative is not its purpose. Its purpose is as a defensive weapon, which the summary mentions in passing. The entire point of this piece of idiocy is in-before-Apple. And they succeeded. Now Apple can't claim they "invented" any of this shit and sue them when the iPad 3 does it. (Ok, that's not true. Apple can and probably still will claim they invented it and sue somebody using Android for it, somewhere along the line. This is just a piece of paper that a dumbshit lawyer can understand.)
8. Re:Good facial recognition by andydread · 2012-09-05 14:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  THIS ^^
My lenovo laptop by sgent · 2012-09-05 07:54 · 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 matt007 · 2012-09-05 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yep I also have a Lenovo since more than a year, it was delivered with VeriFace pre-installed.
  This shit is a bit slow to load however, Faster to just type the password...
2. Re:My lenovo laptop by Scragglykat · 2012-09-05 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Prior art is too confusing and will only slow everyone down, therefore you must throw it out!
3. Re:My lenovo laptop by icebike · 2012-09-05 09:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.
  But you forgot Claim #9:
  
  9. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes a phone.
  
  Further, the pictures may be stored elsewhere (on the network or in your google account for example). So you buy new android phone, and hold it in front of your face and it automatically logs you into your account, using a comparison against photos the phone doesn't actually contain.
  Or you borrow a phone, the owner of which has unlocked it for you, and you go thru the face-unlock (again) and for the duration of that login it is your phone with your account on it. (claim 1 and Claim 20)
  Further, fall back methods are specified in case the images don't compare, or the environment is not conducive to photos (dark).
  Google cited many if not all of the relevant patents in this field. Then they added claim 9, and claim 20, which both specify a phone.
  Its a narrow patent (not that you would ever learn that from the Slashdot summary), that applies to phones and has the added wrinkle of allowing off-device storage of the comparison set of photos which are used to make a 3d model of your face).
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Doesn't work unless... by PhantomHarlock · 2012-09-05 07:55 · Score: 3, Informative

...you do it with a stereo camera and verify that it's the person in person and not a photo of that person. There have been previous articles here showing that the technology has been broken using that method, simply holding up a photo of that person to the camera.
Amazing by Dan+East · 2012-09-05 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Only muiltibillion dollar companies like Google and Apple could come up with such original, clever, and non-obvious uses for existing technologies such as this. Facial recognition?? Whoduthunkit? Logging in? Never tried that before, but it sure sounds neat.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Amazing by Solandri · 2012-09-05 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is the new reality that Apple has created. No matter how mundane, obvious, or silly an idea is, you have to patent it to protect yourself. If you don't because you think it's obvious, you could be sued by someone who does patent it. And if the jury is headed by someone who is gung-ho about patents, you could lose. In the coming years, I expect to see squares, rectangles, circles, ovals, triangles, etc. all being patented because the ~$10k filing and attorney's fees are a heckuva lot cheaper than fighting a patent lawsuit.
  
  Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
2. Re:Amazing by Dupple · 2012-09-05 08:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is the new reality that Apple has created.
  
  I think Nokia got $600 million from Apple for some fairly 'obvious' stuff, before Apple started suing for 'obvious' stuff.
  Not that it matters who started it really, the Patent system needs some serious reform and hopefully all these law suits will draw some scrutiny on the process.
  If that's a world where scrutiny is bought to system that doesn't work properly then I don't care who made that world. I'm just happy that they did.
  
  --
  Watch those corners
3. Re:Amazing by sootman · 2012-09-05 08:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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?
  October 1999: Amazon.com Receives Patent for 1-Click Shopping
  May 2006: Amazon One-Click Patent to be Re-Examined
  October 2007: USPTO Rejects Amazon's One-Click Patent
  November 2007: Amazon Sneaks One-Click Past the Patent System
  March 2010: Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed ... to trot out just one example.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
4. Re:Amazing by tlhIngan · 2012-09-05 09:09 · 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.
Cease and desist by puddingebola · 2012-09-05 07:59 · Score: 5, Funny

This story has been posted in violation of my patent 9336.121.354 (European Union patent 983123.4120.123.31234.412), patent on the posting of information on patents using patented or nonpatented electronic devices. I will settle for the sum of $54.24 or a used Samsung Galaxy SII. Also, please see my earlier post regarding your violation of patent regarding the posting of stories over the Web regarding patents.
I have prior art by hawguy · 2012-09-05 08:01 · 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 · 2012-09-05 08:27 · 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
Eye for an eye. by metrometro · 2012-09-05 08:10 · 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!
Really? by gman003 · 2012-09-05 08:13 · 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.