Slashdot Mirror
German Court Finds Apple's 'Slide To Unlock' Patent Invalid
New submitter anderzole writes "Germany's Federal Patent Court on Thursday invalidated all of Apple's claims for its slide-to-unlock patent. They death blow for Apple's slide to unlock patent was likely a Swedish phone called the Neonode N1m that launched well before the iPhone and featured its own slide to unlock implementation. The N1m was released in 2005 while Apple's own patent for slide to unlock wasn't filed until December of 2005."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonode
Now Apple should pay 1/10th of it's value as a penalty.
Result: no more stupid patents filled by thieves.
Hello Slashdotters, I'm looking for the code to implement features of this now invalidated patent. I know we have hackers who can output this code fast and I know I'm not alone.
"... and boy your patent is invalid."
Youtube used to have a redirect bug so I have seen youtube goatse links on slashdot. And there's plenty of gag-inducing content on wikipedia, even without someone maliciously editing it.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
How did this nonsense patent even get granted in the first place? I've worked on getting patents filed, and we usually meet with all sorts of resistance even when there is actually something to the patent. Who is getting paid off to grant nonsense patents like this?
I know Apple are Patent rapists, but should we care. The iPhone is still the second most popular phone range in the US but it is doing badly everywhere else. I have seen this video...I have seen this prior art mentioned...now 6 years later its invalidated...in one country, Android have already worked around this patent, and pretty nifty it is too, we even have some very fun alternative unlocking methods including fingertips and facial recognition.
Why are we not discussing the great technology from other manufacturing companies like IR being reintroduced to phones...or waterpoofing phones, or the ever growing screen size. Hell even compare two screen phones DS style to electronic paper/led screen phones. Lets discuss relevant electronics companies that innovate, in fact lets talk about that technology.
How many bytes can you take out of an Apple?
That something like this even comes to court.
What's sad is something like this was awarded a patent. I have two (physical) slide to unlock buttons on the base of my laptop. Why were they awarded a patent for doing the same in software?!? How much time, money, and effort has that stupid decision sucked out of the numerous justice systems where this raised its head?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd infringed a key portion of an Apple Inc patent by including a text-selection feature in its smartphones and tablets, an International Trade Commission judge said in a preliminary decision.
South Korean-based Samsung did not infringe portions of a second Apple patent that allows a device to detect if a microphone or other device is plugged into its microphone jack, the judge said in a decision that was issued on March 26 but kept confidential until late Thursday to allow the companies to redact sensitive business information.
The full commission must now decide if they will uphold it or overturn the judge's decision. A final decision is expected in August.
If it is upheld, the ITC can order any infringing device to be barred from importation into the United States. Apple has alleged that Samsung's Galaxy, Transform and Nexus devices, among others, were among those made with the infringing technology. Apple had filed a complaint in mid-2011, accusing Samsung of infringing its patents in making a wide range of smartphones and tablet.
ITC Judge Thomas Pender said in a preliminary decision in October that Samsung infringed four Apple patents but did not violate two others listed in the complaint. There had been seven listed initially, but one was dropped during litigation. The full commission then said it wanted the agency's judge to take a second look at portions of two patents where he had found that Samsung infringed. That remanded decision, issued in late March, was unsealed on Thursday.
Samsung is the world's largest smartphone maker, while Apple is in second place, according to Gartner Inc, a technology research firm. Apple is waging war on several fronts against Google Inc, whose Android software powers many Samsung devices. The legal battles between Apple and Samsung have taken place in some 10 countries as they vie for market share in the booming mobile industry.
Google's Android software, which Apple's late founder Steve Jobs denounced as a "stolen product," has become the world's No. 1 smartphone operating system. Apple's battle against Google's Android software has dragged in hardware vendors that use it, including Samsung and HTC. Samsung is also a parts supplier to Apple, producing micro processors, flat screens and memory chips for the iPhone, iPad and iPod. Apple has reduced orders from Samsung for chips and screens. The case at the International Trade Commission is No. 337-796
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-apple-samsung-patent-idUSBRE9340NI20130405
http://thedroidguy.com/2013/04/the-never-ending-samsung-vs-apple-infringement-case/
I agree. Look and feel patents should not have be granted in the first place.
I am sure that there are many more pieces of software that did the same thing, just not on a "phone".
Long before 2005, there were software installers that required you to scroll a license agreement to the bottom before it unlocked the button that allowed you to proceed with the install.
What kind of widget control do you use to scroll a document with? A type of slider of course.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Problem is if apple didnt patent it someone else would have filed a patent years later and sued apple like that patent troll suing for podcasts. It's a no win for apple, patent and they're the bad guy, don't patent and they get sued
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
My great grandmother had slide-to-unlock locks on her luggage. I have a 100+ year old prior art for "slide to unlock." And I doubt that was the first. Deadbolts in castles from 1000+ years ago likely employed the same mechanism.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm fairly sure the Sumerians already had slide-to-unlock on their doors. They even had their own version of the tablet after all, the veritable clayPad.
--frank[at]unternet.org
Yes.
No. Patents are not like trademarks. If you don't defend them you don't lose them. Maybe Apple is forced to patent silly stuff. Nobody would complain if this was all they do. But nobody forces Apple to be an ******* and actually use the silly patents to sue other companies. This makes them the bad guys.
Very few companies abuse patents as much as Apple, although there are a few NPEs that are in the ballpark.
That has got to be the lousiest Markov chain yet posted. Put some effort in.
... whatever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain
But your grandmother's slide-to-unlock idea allows the edges to move apart in space around an axis to reveal physical objects stored inside.
Apple's applies to a cover which uses liquid crystals to block most of the light waves until the slide mechanism is triggered alters the crystals such that the user gains visual access to the screen.
Can't you see how revolutionary Apple's idea is!
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Some many million odd years ago there was an ape like creature sliding some dirt to reveal the precursor of the potato.
"Problem is if apple didnt patent it someone else would have filed a patent years later and sued apple
Yes."
No.
Very few use patents offensively. Apple is among the few worst offenders. Furthermore, patenting this "years later" would clearly be invalid.
Apple IS the patent problem, not the victim of it.
You see it in any thread discussing Apple. Anything that reflects badly on Apple, no matter how true and accurate, gets down modded. Usually there are more than enough upmods to offset it, but it happens.
There are Apple fanboys that just cannot, will not, accept that Apple has every done anything wrong, every been anything but 100% innovative, etc. So they just to Apple's defense at every opportunity. Same thing with your post, same thing that is likely to happen to my post. They'll "defend" Apple by trying to silence people who say things unflattering.
The USPTO is more or less a "deny first, accept later" kind of place. They deny patents out of hand when they are first filed. So, modify, refile, modify, refile, etc, etc eventually you get one. Of course that is easy to do for a big company, not so feasible for a small guy.
s/veritable/venerable/
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Patents are not like trademarks. If you don't defend them you don't lose them.
Did you forget about estoppel by laches?
... I read in a German article was that Apple was quoted saying that that patent wasn't important for them ... yeah, right, which is why you patented it and used it to sue Android makers ...
Don't be a fucking retard. Companies sue other companies for patent infringement all of the time. Apple is hardly the inventor of the concept and at least they use the technologies that they sue over (unlike patent trolls).
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
I know a lot of people consider patents "broken" for one reason or another, and here is yet another example where it seems the patent should never have been granted in the first place, let alone been something Apple could use to bully other companies.
So, I agree that patents are broken and easily/often abused. Now, what is the "fix"? Should the patent office be held to task for granting these things when obvious prior art exists? Or should the barrier for going after a supposed patent infringement be raised? Or should patent violation rewards be reduced to where pursuing supposed violations is only profitable in extreme cases? Or something else I can't think of at the moment?
How do we change the world so that companies like Apple cannot do this anymore?
-Lod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJUuxouy1Fg
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Apple win = consumers lose.
Why did they need prior art to invalidate this patent? It's bloody fscking obvious and trivial. I thought that using an long-established technique, slapping "on a computer" on and patenting it again was not sufficiently inventive.
Companies sue other companies for patent infringement all of the time. Apple is hardly the inventor of the concept and at least they use the technologies that they sue over (unlike patent trolls).
And the more profit a tech company makes, the more likely it is to get sued by patent trolls looking for a quick payout and competitors trying to block the company from growing its business. I'd love to see a chart that compares the rise in Apple's profits over the last decade with the number of patent lawsuits that it's had to defend over time. And this chart suggests that among to the top 10 tech sector litigants, Motorola (Google) is filing easily as many patent lawsuits as Apple.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/08/business/Fighters-in-a-Patent-War.html?_r=0
There have been slide to unlock on outhouses for so long.
Now that is sick. It looks like a hot dog that someone put in the microwave too long and it exploded. [pukes]
I knew I shouldn't look. Why? Oh God why?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
They could have filed it as a "defensive" patent, and I doubt most people would have cared. But they're using it for offense, which is what makes them the bad guy.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
So who put the gun to Apple's head and made them actually sue over it?
I don't see why this even needs prior art to invalidate. It's obvious as fuck. Trying to patent something like that reeks of greed and general prickishness.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.