Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Receives Patent For Accessing Sets of Apps With Different Passcodes

Posted by Unknown on from the here-comes-another-decade-in-court dept.

wabrandsma writes, quoting Apple Insider "The technology, detailed in a patent awarded to Apple on Tuesday by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, deals with so-called 'access inputs' that determine what apps, device services, and functions can be accessed by a user. Apple's U.S. Patent No. 8,528,072 for a 'Method, apparatus and system for access mode control of a device,' describes a system that creates user access modes guarded by predetermined gesture inputs." Reading the patent, it appears Apple managed to patent allowing access to some programs without a passcode from the lock screen of a device while protecting others, so e.g. you can quickly swipe to make a phone call or control your music, but have to enter a code to read your email or access your word processor documents.

12 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yet another trivial and redundant patent...

    1. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prior Art indeed.

      Which is completely unrelated to the patent in question so it is in no way prior art.

    2. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish I would get a dollar every time someone shouts "trivial" in forums regarding patents.
      I would have enough money to buy me a McLaren 12C Spider in a jiffy.

      Listen up. If everything is trivial I have I real good advice for you : patent it yourself and become rich.

      Everyone shouting "trivial" is victim of hindsight bias.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

  2. like different users? by ragefan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So basically they re-invented having different accounts having access to different apps. Only its on a mobile device, and it deserves a patent?!

    1. Re:like different users? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically they re-invented having different accounts having access to different apps. Only its on a mobile device, and it deserves a patent?!

      Well, yeah. Maybe you haven't noticed the furious nerd rage over the past, I don't know... FIFTEEN YEARS about stupid patent law? Anyway... a patent was recently awarded because someone figured out how to use the speaker/mic combo on a mobile phone to transmit data acoustically. You know, like... through the air and stuff. For credit card transactions. You might well guess... they got a patent.

      Nevermind that this technology debuted in the 1960s, pretty much right after the second computer was built and someone got the idea that they should be able to exchange data... and look, here's this phone thingie...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:like different users? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyway... a patent was recently awarded because someone figured out how to use the speaker/mic combo on a mobile phone to transmit data acoustically. You know, like... through the air and stuff. For credit card transactions. You might well guess... they got a patent.

      Nevermind that this technology debuted in the 1960s, pretty much right after the second computer was built and someone got the idea that they should be able to exchange data... and look, here's this phone thingie...

      I'm pretty sure they weren't using mobile phones in the 1960s for communicating credit card transactions, and the acoustic couplers they used were really sensitive to environmental noise, hence the data rates measured in baud. Maybe - and I'm going out on a limb here - just maybe, this is a different implementation than they had in the 1960s?

      "But the basic idea is the same!" you cry... to which I point out that in every Slashdot story when someone talks about patenting an idea, people rush to correct them and exclaim that you can't patent an idea, just an implementation. Well, if the implementation is new and nonobvious and you're not trying to claim the idea, then who cares if the idea came before. Shiat, we've had "ideas" for teleportation, warp drives, and time travel for decades. Are you trying to claim that any successful implementation of those would be obvious?

  3. P.A.T.E.N.T by RedHackTea · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Prevent Any Tangible Evidence of New Thought
    or maybe
    Penetrate Anally To Ensure No Talent

    I don't know, just spitballing here. Any takers?

    --
    The G
    1. Re:P.A.T.E.N.T by jeti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prevent Any Truly Empowering New Technologies

  4. Enough Already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    News flash, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, HTC, Google, and others apply for and receive patents for literally THOUSANDS of concepts every year. It really isn't news-worthy. Sorry. Let me know when they (and I don't just mean Apple - I mean anyone) actually IMPLEMENTS the patent or decides to otherwise use the patent. Otherwise, it amounts to "company came up with an idea that the lawyers were able to write up into a patent so they did as lawyers do and patented it".

    So entirely NOT newsworthy.

    THOUSANDS of patents, each company, every year.

    Business as usual.

  5. Re:Some day .. by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you don't think there is enough prior art ?

    Prior art never stopped a suit being filed by a shi^H^H^Hgood lawyer.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  6. Crappy patent overview by sootman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1990s: "... on a computer!"

    2000s: "... on the Internet!"

    2010s: "... on a mobile device!"

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  7. True. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    True, this isn't a trivial patent, it isn't a patent AT ALL.

    NOWHERE does it explain how to make this. Only what non-implemented mechanoids (i.e. the user) would do.
    The illustrations are not indicating the method of patent, only indicating "the sort of thing".

    Would you be able to patent "A car engine using petrol to make it go round faster when you push petrol in quicker" then put a picture of a lego car to show where it could be used?

    No?

    That's what this "patent" is doing.