Slashdot Mirror


Apple Receives Patent For Accessing Sets of Apps With Different Passcodes

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.

109 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Some day .. by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll get a patent for posting on an Apple story.

    then y'all will be screwed!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Some day .. by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only the top left corner of each slashdot story is round though. Don't forget to specify that.

    2. Re:Some day .. by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only the top left corner of each slashdot story is round though. Don't forget to specify that.

      Whoa! You posted to a slashdot story! East Texas here I come!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Some day .. by gutnor · · Score: 1

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

    4. 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
    5. Re:Some day .. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      That is not how first to file works.

      First to file only comes into play when more than one entity files for the same patent. At that point the first one to get to the patent office wins. My preference would have been if two folks try to patent the same thing it is considered obvious enough to not get patent protection.

      Prior art still applies as it always had.

    6. Re:Some day .. by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Prior art no longer matters: FIRST TO FILE wins.

      Over a century ago Thomas Edison understood this, taking out patents in the US and Europe on work pioneered by others. He right bastard, but for over 100 years we still can't seem to get the patent system to work for the People, only for the weasels who steal others ideas and then arm themselves with lawyers

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:Some day .. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      My preference would have been if two folks try to patent the same thing it is considered obvious enough to not get patent protection.

      Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. Everyone knows there's a market niche, but nobody could make it work, and then suddenly
      -- two people happen to come up with two different ways of doing it - or they THOUGHT they were different, until the examiner compared both patents.
      -- a group was working on it and had a falling-out about credit or something.
      My point is there could be a legitimate race involved.

      Of course this assumes that a patent is only granted for demonstrating a working solution, not just a concept.

    8. Re:Some day .. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      the correct usage in this case is "all y'all"

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:Some day .. by mzungu · · Score: 1

      Prior art: Blackberry phones can be setup to allow phonecalls without a password but not access to the contents of the device.

    10. Re:Some day .. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Sure that's prior art (though I doubt Blackberry was first with it.) But it's prior art that's listable within the patent, not prior art that excludes the patent. This patent adds more to that idea. It adds configurable, multiple levels of access. And the idea that different unlock gestures will not only give access to a particular app, but actually start the app, possibly in a certain mode.

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

    Yet another trivial and redundant patent...

    1. Re:Prior art by halfEvilTech · · Score: 2, Informative

      no kidding my current HTC Rezound has the ability to put apps on the lock screen to view without unlocking the phone. Otherwise unlock for full access.

      Prior Art indeed.

    2. Re:Prior Art by MrManny · · Score: 2

      While I agree about the.. questionable nature of the patent, it was filed in 2010 -- i.e. before that functionality became part of Android. (Though if you could access the camera from the lockscreen with third-party apps, feel free to disregard my silly comment.)

    3. Re:Prior art by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Yet another trivial and redundant patent...

      So how would New Zealand's anti-software patent handle this - Is this an ordinary sort of process simply moved to software or is it revolutionary technology, worthy of a patent (I know what it smells like, but to me it's about as revolutionary as the guard shouting "AUS PASSE!" in the old Castle Wolfenstein, where some guards don't care (or can be bribed.))

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Prior art by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      no kidding my current HTC Rezound has the ability to put apps on the lock screen to view without unlocking the phone. Otherwise unlock for full access.

      Prior Art indeed.

      Maybe they could patent a phone which would let you have access to things if you bribed it

      I live a poor, miserable existence, but once the NSA found out I had a mobile phone, it's been living like George, Prince of Cambridge

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Prior Art by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      While I agree about the.. questionable nature of the patent, it was filed in 2010 -- i.e. before that functionality became part of Android. (Though if you could access the camera from the lockscreen with third-party apps, feel free to disregard my silly comment.)

      I'm pretty sure that even my Treo let me answer the phone while the screen was locked and a few other features, too. And that was long before Android or iOS.

    7. 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

    8. Re:Prior art by meerling · · Score: 2

      The only thing I see different from various pre-existing things is the input method, and that's not new either, so the whole thing falls under the pre-existing and bloody freaking obvious category. Again the patent system fails to follow it's own rules.

    9. Re:Prior art by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Umm . . . isn't this comparable to having different passwords for different things? Like email or /. accounts?

    10. Re: Prior art by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Version 4.3 of the same software on a tablet can even have restricted user profiles with own postcode that can access a whilst of applications.

    11. Re:Prior art by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Passwords on accounts don't stop you accessing the software. Nor does it prevent access to apps that don't have a natural concept of accounts. Nor does it have the concept of groups or hierarchies of apps which are accessed with different unlock procedures.

    12. Re:Prior art by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Examples?

    13. Re:Prior art by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Nope. This more like a boss-screen, one gesture gets you to one simple layer of apps, a different one gets you deeper into the phone. Unlock one profile for when the cops demand access, another for normality could be one use.

      Innovative it ain't as we've had limited/full/admin access on computers for ages based on passwords, e.g UAC, sudo etc.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    14. Re:Prior Art by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I can log in to a computer via a guest account and be given access to a subset of the installed applications, I can then log in as a user and be given access to another set.

      That's been standard functionality for about half a century

    15. Re:Prior art by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      "Everyone" is not a victim of hindsight bias.

      Trivialness (i.e. whether something is self-evident) is an important test. Some things are trivial and must be treated as such.

      The novelty (i.e. whether something is new to the world) is another important test.

      This patent fails on both of these aspects, I won't detail how since dozens of others have already done so in this thread.

    16. Re:Prior art by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      "Examples?"

      Examples of what?

    17. Re:Prior art by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The "preexisting things" he's referring to.

  3. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why the USPTO is broken. Code like this should not be granted a patent. This is not some remarkable invention, nor is it very difficult to implement. Just doing an activity on a mobile device that is already done on a desktop, or other device, should not deem this activity patentable. Absurd.

    3. Re:like different users? by Dupple · · Score: 1

      It sounds rather a lot like an Access Control List to me. I fail to see what's new about it

      --
      Watch those corners
    4. Re:like different users? by Kumiorava · · Score: 2

      I think the novel idea here is that if you enter different passwords into same account you get different functionality. Especially useful on shared home iPad or computer or tv where you don't have need for separate accounts. Don't know if there is any prior art to this, but it sounds like a clearly different compared to user accounts in traditional sense.

    5. Re:like different users? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Purely to play devil's advocate, because I agree that it sounds like a stupid patent ...

      If you get access to a different set of apps based on which passcode you enter, it's more like a context aware ACL -- when you're fully logged in you get everything, when you're 'partly' logged in you only get a subset.

      Of course, I'm pretty sure the last release of Android lets you have profiles in which your kids can only access some of the apps, and you can access all of them. So I'm not entirely certain this is any different than that.

      But it can definitely be likened to something like sudo, which we've had for years. This doesn't sound like it's much more than things we already have, but with a tablet. Which pretty much sums up my opinion of software patents -- a system and methodology for doing something exactly like a well-known real world analog, but with a computer.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:like different users? by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      I was watching "Men that Made America" this weekend. It was covering JP Morgan and how he forced George Westinghouse to give up his rights to A/C by threatening him with patent litigation after Westinghouse (and Tesla) won the Niagara Falls power generation project. Westinghouse was 100% in the right...but, he knew he didn't have the financial resources to beat JP Morgan in court. He turned the rights over to JP Morgan. That is how GE became synonymous with A/C power production.

      Even if this is prior art or an invalid patent, who has the resources to challenge Apple? And, it's possible that while portions may be thrown out, would enough be thrown out to invalidate the patent?

      Yes...firmly agree that software patents should be abolished.

    7. Re:like different users? by Twylite · · Score: 1

      Sounds more specifically like Role Based Access Control (RBAC). You can define RBAC with a Subject (identity-based access control with roles) or without a subject. In the latter case authentication is tied to authorising a role, rather than authenticating a subject who has (or can authorise) a role.

      --
      i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
    8. Re:like different users? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Oh look, more "X but on a Y!" patents. So innovative.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:like different users? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      It sounds rather a lot like an Access Control List to me. I fail to see what's new about it

      Because Apple said it's new, that's what.

    10. Re:like different users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That mobile phone thing was here some time ago and it was some microsoft crew, that did that. I don't remember anything about patents, though.

    11. Re:like different users? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Fine, grant the patent.
      But if it is ever used in litigation by the holder it should be subject to re-certification by the USPTO. The USPTO will have to verify to the court that it meets current eligibility criteria. If it does, the law suit may proceed, if it does not the patent is revoked there and then.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    12. Re:like different users? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Purely to play devil's advocate, because I agree that it sounds like a stupid patent ...

      If you get access to a different set of apps based on which passcode you enter, it's more like a context aware ACL -- when you're fully logged in you get everything, when you're 'partly' logged in you only get a subset.

      Of course, I'm pretty sure the last release of Android lets you have profiles in which your kids can only access some of the apps, and you can access all of them. So I'm not entirely certain this is any different than that.

      But it can definitely be likened to something like sudo, which we've had for years. This doesn't sound like it's much more than things we already have, but with a tablet. Which pretty much sums up my opinion of software patents -- a system and methodology for doing something exactly like a well-known real world analog, but with a computer.

      That would assume that you are logged out when your phone's lock screen is displayed. If that were the case, then you wouldn't receive all of the various notices and alerts from your account. But, since you do, then you are still logged in. It would be more akin to having to access a higher level password in an application to access certain functions. The user id hasn't changed, just the access level. For normal use, these functions are available (receive calls, control music, etc.) To access other applications/more features, you need to enter a passcode. Compare that to any SQL type database, for normal use, you use your password, for advanced use you enter an administrator type password, but you are still logged in, your access level has been temporarily raised.

      This ability has existed since the 1960s. What is a bit novel is that Apple is using gestures for entering passcodes. That's fine, then patent that process, but not the whole ACL thing.

    13. Re:like different users? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..they're separate accounts just with different word for "account".

      or they're just accounts with secret names and no password.

      or they're just passwords which protect certain functionality.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:like different users? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      They essentially put a password on parental controls.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:like different users? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Its a permission list, nothing more. Walk up to a machine on my network, and as a guest you have limited access to my network. Enter some credentials and you get full access to my network. Please explain how this patent is different from that process.

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:like different users? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      This ability has existed since the 1960s. What is a bit novel is that Apple is using gestures for entering passcodes

      Of course, my problem with that is we're treating gestures like they're different from a password or any authentication token.

      I'm of the opinion that password, fingerprint, security token, gesture are all substantively reduced to "sequence of bits which can be used to verify access".

      So if the USPTO gave a patent to do this with each of these approaches as a separate patent, we'd end up with a bunch of identical patents in which the "authentication token" becomes the patentable part of the 'invention'. I don't think the specific authentication token is relevant to the patent.

      To me, it's the functionality of granting granular access, which we've had for a very long time. It doesn't become a different mechanism because you use a fingerprint, a picture of your face, a gesture or whatever.

      To me if I could already do this with a password, WTF difference does it make if it's suddenly using a gesture?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:like different users? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How is that enforced?
      What network layer device does that?

      Or by network do you mean windows shares? Services are not a network.

    18. Re:like different users? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      It would be more akin to having to access a higher level password in an application to access certain functions.

      sudo make me a sandwich http://xkcd.com/149/

    19. Re:like different users? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      It certainly didn't seem like a terribly novel idea to me when I was writing code to implement it a few years back. The project never went anywhere but, it seemed to me to just be the most obvious way to implement a "duress" password that could be used to set off an alarm. Slightly clever but, I assumed it had already been done since it was so freaking obvious.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    20. 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?

    21. Re:like different users? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1
      I can access the camera app without using my passcode, because it's among the list of apps that I've made available on my lock screen. I can take pictures from the app without unlocking my phone. If I want to manage my photo album, I have to sign in. Two levels of access. Similarly, I can sign into my phone and queue up some music. Then, from my lock screen, I can control the playback of the audio. If I unlock the phone and go to buy some music, it prompts me for a text password. That seems like three levels of access to the same app. What apple has done is to make those levels persist between different apps (If I'm allowed to buy some music, maybe I should be allowed to buy some apps too, for instance).

      It's a neat idea, but it feels more like a "refocusing" of ACLs, multi-user login, or the lock screen app access I already have than it does a completely new thing. Basically, it's not revolutionary, and I think that's what most of the naysayers in the thread are complaining about.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    22. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No. Different accounts would mean that the apps would have different context depending on which account you used. For example if I had a document open in a word processor when logged in as Bill, then logging in as Ted would not have that document open. Even if the two accounts happened to have edit permissions to that same document.

      That is not what's happening here.

    23. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Parental controls already have passwords. This is not that.

    24. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The guest and you have different contexts. e.g. You and the guest might both have access to the word processor. But when the guest uses that computer, the word processor won't open with the last document YOU had open.

    25. Re:like different users? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall at least one Star Trek TOS episode where giving an alternative countersign alerted the Enterprise crew that you were in some kind of trouble such as being held under duress. Isn't that the same thing, more or less?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    26. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You describe having open access to some apps, and password protect for all other apps. And then you describe account passwords, a different thing again.

      This patent allows different passwords (actually gestures) for different apps. And more than 2 categories.

      It's a neat idea, but it feels more like a "refocusing" of ACLs, multi-user login, or the lock screen app access I already have than it does a completely new thing.

      Inventions are never "completely new things". It's always building on the shoulders of giants. And "prior art", far from being a disqualifier for a patent, is actually included as a list in nearly all patents. Patents have to include some novel addition to what already exists, not be "completely new".

    27. Re:like different users? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which has nothing to do with the network.

      You said you limited access to a network.

    28. Re:like different users? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick, but "alternating current" is usually abbreviated as "AC", whereas "A/C" is used for "air conditioning". Took me a minute to figure out that you actually meant the former.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    29. Re:like different users? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They are not network based credentials. They are credentials for access to resources running either locally or on some server. The fact that you cross a network to get to them does not make them network based.

      They are not running on the router or switch or cabling.

      I want the water headed MS certified can count to potato folks to stop mixing the two up.

    30. Re:like different users? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, I am attempting to change the way morons speak.

      Trolling would be if I said all people who used microsoft software are like that. I did not.

      I want them to at least learn the OSI model.

    31. Re:like different users? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I don't remember the episode, but if there was one, it was likely where the kernel of the idea made it into my wetware. Of course, its not even original for them. There was a controversy just a few years back where some US soldiers were photographed with Hillary Clinton and one or two of them (I forget) was showing a hand signal which is intended to convey that same message.

      In fact, looking for the article on that shows that this idea is so unoriginal, there is a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress_code

      Alternatively, the signal may be incorporated into the authentication process itself, typically in the form of a panic password, distress password, or duress PIN that is distinct from the user's normal password or PIN.

      Though I particularly like this one:

      A simple but effective duress code used over the telephone by SOE agents in occupied Europe during World War II was to give a coded answer when someone checked whether it was convenient to visit a safe-house. If it was genuinely safe to visit, the answer would be "No, I'm too busy." However, if the safe-house had been compromised (i.e. the Nazis had captured it, forcing the occupants to answer the phone at gunpoint in order to lure in other members of the SOE network) the captured agent would say "Yes, come on over."

      I have a couple of friends who are Freemasons. While none of them has divulged the actual secret, I am assured that they have a similar sort of conversational code that can be used to allow one member to signal to another that he is in some form of distress without announcing it to casual observers.

      The fact that this could be used for more than just duress situations is also pretty obvious. As I remember my first cut at an implementation had 3 defined passwords, normal, duress, and admin for admin users, but, as implemented I left it open to have as many as needed, as it was just using the username and hash outcome to join sql tables to reveal the access type.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    32. Re:like different users? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Which has nothing to do with the network.

      You said you limited access to a network.

      His computer is connected to a network and has limited access to that network based on the access it has on the computer.

      You do realize that being connected to a network with your computer is the norm now, right? This isn't the 1990's anymore?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    33. Re:like different users? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      And then you describe account passwords, a different thing again.

      I disagree that they're fundamentally different. They're both "information I need to know to access a capability" (that is, I'd consider my unlock pattern to have the same purpose as any of my account passwords that are used to access functionality built into my phone).

      And more than 2 categories.

      Right...and I acknowledged that already.

      Inventions are never "completely new things".

      ([etc etc])
      I never said that a patent or invention needed to be "completely new" or revolutionary; I was speculating on one reason that other posters' are whining about the "obviousness" of this particular example. A reinterpretation of features that already exist can certainly be patentable, especially if they're used in a new configuration or for a new purpose.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    34. Re:like different users? by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      For patent protection the implementation and idea must both be new. E.g. I can make a new machine that makes bullets. I can't patent the generalised process of making bullets or bullets themselves, these ideas and physical implementations already existed. I can patent the specifics of my implementation of a new machine though, because there are very different new ideas that have gone into my machine.

      Software patents are by definition ideas. There is nothing physical there, only lines of thought transcribed into mathematical instructions for a computer. This is a major reason that software does not deserve patent protection.

      Since this idea is not new, they should not have been granted a patent on it. Trivial changes to the idea or implementation of something do not make it novel.

    35. Re:like different users? by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      So if he used the OSI model to describe his network topology how would it change the gist of his argument?

      I could argue that there is a network running within your pc (because there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_(computing) ). It's just local, and the devices communicating to each other are only millimetres apart. It won't change anything if anyone does or doesn't acknowledge that.

    36. Re:like different users? by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      On a PCs, for several decades now, you can allow access to any resource, e.g. applications, files, local networking, internet access, etc. to any arbitrary level in any arbitrary combination.

      If one can allow totally arbitrary combinations of access then Apple's patent is covered by preexisting software.

      Changing "password" to "gesture" does not make it novel. Each gesture is the exact equivalent to a password, and it unlocks (or locks) predetermined resources.

    37. Re:like different users? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Now you are stretching.

      The point is what he meant was if you don't auth against AD you can't get some services.

      The reason I hate this use of the work network is that it totally ignores an entire class of security problems. Speaking that way leads to thinking that way. I know of places you can walk in off the street, and plug into the physical network and have lots of fun. From outdated servers to wide open devices to dbs with no auth for local users. Yet, that admin too claims you can't do anything without logging into the "network".

    38. Re:like different users? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No it does not. It limits only his interactions with those services. It does not for example prevent him from using nmap or send out arbitrary packets. You realize that those are different right? That an unprivileged user on your computing devices can still do damage that way?

    39. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      2 decades.

      And you're not understanding the fact that different users mean different contexts in traditional OS users schemes.

      Changing "password" to "gesture" does not make it novel.

      Nobody said it was. But you not understanding the difference between this patent and traditional OS user permissions doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

    40. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I disagree that they're fundamentally different. They're both "information I need to know to access a capability" (that is, I'd consider my unlock pattern to have the same purpose as any of my account passwords that are used to access functionality built into my phone).

      So is a lock and key. And yet each different form of lock and key will have been separately patentable at the time of invention. (for those that didn't predate patent laws.) Yet they are less different than an alphanumeric password and a gesture are.

    41. Re:like different users? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      OK, fine. I can also use a text password, a pin, or my face to get past the lock screen. I use the pattern because it's easy to do quickly. The lock mechanisms are separately patentable, and I didn't ever argue that they weren't. I argued that they have the same purpose....which they do. Different designs of folding chairs are separately patentable too. What's your point?

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    42. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      My point is, it ain't the same. That you can think of similar things does not invalidate a patent.

    43. Re:like different users? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      When have I said *anything* about invalidating a patent?? I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing (or at least not understanding it). All that I've done this whole time is: examine how Apple's patent is similar to functionality that I already have access to, and to what degree I see a similarity. I haven't been trying to say that something similar isn't patentable, or that something based on something else isn't patentable. From the things you've said, that's how you're trying to interpret my meaning, though.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    44. Re:like different users? by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      That's fair enough that you don't like that, but it's pretty much a different topic and doesn't really change his argument.

    45. Re:like different users? by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Suggesting someone else doesn't understand some non-defined statement of "different contexts" is poor form. You firstly define what you mean by "different contexts" and then I'll tell you if I understand it or not.

      "Nobody said it was."

      Really, because the patent itself does.

      Stop it with the "you don't understand" bullshit - it's a pathetic ploy employed by people insecure with their own arguments.

      They have several levels of user space that are defined by different gestures. Each user space is logged into by a predetermined gesture. To iOS this can be either a totally different user or the same user and differing levels of access - it's arbitrary because the result is the same - they . Resources allocated as per the registered gesture.

      From the patent:

      The abstract - "A method, apparatus, and system for accessing at least a portion of a device based upon an access input. An access input is received. The access input includes information for gaining access to one or more functions of the device. A user access mode of the device is changed from a first access mode to a second access mode based upon at least in part on the access input. An application is selected in the device in response to changing from the first access mode to the second access mode. At least a portion of the output of the selected application is provided."

      Please not the use of terms first access mode and second access mode. These are equivalent to a user space. They are further defined below as modes having restricted "access" (i.e. permissions) to resources.

      "In some embodiments, particular gestures can be associated with various operating access modes wherein a category of applications may be made readily available for access, while other categories of applications may be restricted until a full log-in is detected by the device. For example, based upon a first detected gesture, access to a set of entertainment applications (e.g., games, music applications, etc.) may be provided. Likewise, based upon a second gesture, access to communication applications, (e.g., email application, SMS application, etc.) may be provided. In this manner, access to particular applications may be restricted due to the security restrictions provided by the device, wherein the security may be overcome based upon the predetermined pattern of gestures or other access inputs, without the burdens of a complete log-in to the device. In this manner, different accesses to different applications (or categories of applications) may be provided to different users. For example, a parent may provide access to a minor child for only the entertainment category of applications, e.g., gaming applications, music applications. etc. Moreover, further restrictions can be maintained with regard to other applications types, such as productivity applications, e.g., word processing applications and the like."

      and

      "In this manner, various types of gestures or access input signals may be provided to a device 100 to gain access to the device 100. The access may include an unlocking feature, a display of one or more selectable applications, initiation of an application, etc. Further, in one embodiment, the device 100 may display one or more application-representation graphics, e.g., an icon, that may be selectable by the user based upon an access input. In one embodiment, the user may touch one icon while performing a second gesture, e.g., a touch gesture, such as a particular pattern on the touch screen, or enter a voice gesture, such that immediate access to the selected application may be provided. These access functions may be performed without requiring a full log-in to the device. In this manner, secondary restricted users may only be allowed certain applications, while the primary user(s) of the device will have further enhanced access, or complete access, to any application based upon the specific access input detected by the device 100."

      All of these features have been available in unix for over 30 years. The only differen

    46. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Suggesting someone else doesn't understand some non-defined statement of "different contexts" is poor form. You firstly define what you mean by "different contexts" and then I'll tell you if I understand it or not.

      Why didn't you understand what I said the first time?
      "The guest and you have different contexts. e.g. You and the guest might both have access to the word processor. But when the guest uses that computer, the word processor won't open with the last document YOU had open."

      It's pretty clear. Different user spaces don't simply apply a different set of permissions, they alter the entire working state of the machine. It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed. It does that because the assumption behind the user system is that a different user is a different person. It was designed for multi-user computer systems.

      Apple's patent does not necessarily do that. It's still carrying the assumption that this is a phone, and thus belongs to one person. Yet that person has various different levels of security he want's to apply to different applications. Thus increasing the access mode doesn't change the user context. The same apps will have the same context, even when the access mode is increased. Increasing access mode just adds to what's available - it doesn't take anything away, as changing user does on traditional OSs.

      It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me.

    47. Re:like different users? by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      "Why didn't you understand what I said the first time?"
      I'm saying you don't know if I did or didn't. The word "context" has a specific meaning in computing, and you're not using "context" in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(computing). So I repeat, if you think I don't understand, define the scope of your usage of the phrase "different context" and I'll tell you if I've interpreted it correctly or not.

      "Different user spaces don't simply apply a different set of permissions,"
      No, different user spaces will apply different sets of permissions. I.e. they will arbitrarily allow access to, or restrict access to data (executables are data, access to hardware is data, etc.).

      "they alter the entire working state of the machine."
      No, it is simply a graduated access level (but, as per the patent, it's not necessarily always more access). The general working state of the machine will be the same, (everything still 100% works), what is restricted is access (arbitrarily). In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.

      "It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed."
      That is possible if they want to do implement it like that. Please note, the patent doesn't give specific implementations, instead it gives generalisations. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.

      "Increasing access mode just adds to what's available - it doesn't take anything away, as changing user does on traditional OSs."
      Changing access modes arbitrarily changes what's available to the user - it can add or take away features. It's in the patent. If you haven't already, I suggest you go read it. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.

      "It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me."
      I'm firmly of the opinion that you haven't read the patent. I hesitate to say you don't understand it because for all I know you may well understand it and just be trolling, but you are not displaying acumen in interpretation of the patent or how the patent claims are achievable in existing OSs (or not achievable as per my challenge).

      "It's a very obvious difference. And I'm sorry that you don't understand it. Whether you like me pointing that out or not is irrelevant to me."
      Bwahahahahahahaaha, so ironic, so funny.

      You're boring me. If you can't meet my challenge (and you haven't) then I don't care to engage in further conversation.

    48. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I'm saying you don't know if I did or didn't. The word "context" has a specific meaning in computing, and you're not using "context" in this context.

      I've been a programmer for more than 30 years. The use of the word "context" in computing is far more widespread than that stub wiki page suggests.

      "It the "bill" user is looking at this page in Slashdot, logging in to the "ted" username will do many things including starting a different web browser context, with no page or a different page displayed."
      That is possible if they want to do implement it like that. Please note, the patent doesn't give specific implementations, instead it gives generalisations. In any case, this is already doable in linux or unix.

      WTF? I'm describing the limitation of linux, other unixes and Windows for that matter. The limitation that means it is NOT the same as this Apple patent. And you then claim that Linux can be made to do that?

      How much simpler can I make it? Log out a user and the applications close. Log in another user and the applications may reopen. But not in the same state as the were under the first user. That's different from this Patent. This patent allows the existing user access to more applications without losing the state of the already open applications.

      (Now of course you don't NEED to log out one user to log out another in most OSs. But the key point that the applications will not be in the same state for the new user remains.)

      I'm afraid this is simple stuff, and you're coming across as an idiot. Or a troll.

    49. Re:like different users? by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      You can't meet the challenge = ignore.

    50. Re:like different users? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I haven't ignored any of your posts. I've explained and re-explained the difference, and concluded that you either can't or won't understand it. But I certainly haven't ignored.

      The conclusion that you are a troll is becoming more likely.

  4. Thank God for patents! by Laxori666 · · Score: 2

    Constantly protecting and promoting innovation! Why, without patents, there's no way Apple would be going out on a limb to develop such advanced technology as needing one type of access method for some functionality and another type of access method for others! And if anyone should dare to steal this brilliant idea, or to develop the same exact one by accident because it is bleeding obvious, then let them be sued into oblivion for unfair whatevery. This will surely help us consumers by giving us less choice and higher prices.

  5. Conceptually different by MrLint · · Score: 1

    Is this really any conceptually different than different privileges for different accounts? Or account exclusion on different tables in a database?

    It would also seem to just be moving the privileged chain to another level from UN/PW to current user/passcode.

  6. Touchdown for Android? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My Android smartphone has my employer's email available via Touchdown's sandbox and to access it, you need a separate password (which works great as I can hand my phone to my 10 year old and let him play games with it, but not violate any rules about other people accessing my email.)

    1. Re:Touchdown for Android? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      And unless Touchdown pay Apple royalties now, no more games for your son.

  7. 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 IHTFP · · Score: 1

      Patent Attorneys Totally Eliminate New Technology

    2. Re:P.A.T.E.N.T by jeti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prevent Any Truly Empowering New Technologies

    3. Re:P.A.T.E.N.T by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Previous Art Transcription to Establish Newfangled Theory

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  8. 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.

    1. Re:Enough Already... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      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".

      This one sounds quite useful, so I would think that Apple is going to implement it. It might even be novel, because I haven't seen anyone doing it before. On the other hand, I surely disagree with the USPTO on the meaning of "obvious".

    2. Re:Enough Already... by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Also Kid's Corner in WP8. Unlock to use anything, swipe left without unlocking to access user selected programs (games). This patented thing does extend this a bit.

      --
      It is what it is.
    3. Re:Enough Already... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      the newsworthiness isnt the patent itself. its the obvious nature and blatant abuse of the patent system that is the newsworthy aspect.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  9. Prior Art by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 2

    On Android, I have a lockscreen widget and the camera app is accessible without unlocking.

  10. Mobile is different by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Mobile and cloud computing present special challenges. Google is a particular problem for me. Consider chromebook. I have one password, my google password, and that logs me into the computer but it also gets my e-mail, and my google wallet. Anyone can remotely access my google docs if they have my password. Even worse is that I use my google mail account for all my banking and purchases (amazon) and other sites. So anyone who gets in can do a password reset on those, which will send the new password to the google mail account, and I'm destroyed.

    So what about two facto ID. Well this is where mobile compounds things. Usually your mobile device is your second factor. So your mobile device not only can access your gmail but it gets sent the 2nd factor as a text message. So if you loose your phone there's no benefit for two factor ID. If you toss last-pass or some pasword wallet into the mix, again losing the phone can be your undoing.

    What I try to do to ameliorate this is to maintain a separate password recovery e-mail account that is not hooked to the phone. But that really doesn't work. most sites don't have the ability to have regular e-mails sent to one e-mail address but password recovery go to another. For example, you probably want to get all yout paypal receipt or amazon receipts sent to your regular e-mail so you will see them immediately if there is activity. So there's no way to do that if you also want the password rest e-mail to go to an off-mobile-device account. Likewise Sites that want two-factor ID don't have the facility to prevent the mobile device from playing the role of both factors (password input device and 2nd factor generator).

    Thus there is a lot of room for innovation in the cloud and mobile arena. Segregating authority and access in a more fine grained way is the path forward. Apple is pushing the ball here. It's not a complete solution yet.

    I suspect what apple is doing is trying to breakdown the inconvenience of entering a password. right now we have one gate to the castle. Once you are in you have the run of kingdom. So that gate has to be secure, and therfore inconvenient. It would be nice to be able to trade weaker levels of security for convenient access to some applications. that would make it easeir to have some security, not all or nothing. so for example, perhaps my message notifications could be guarded with a gesture whereas my e-mail is secured more tightly.

    if they could extend that so that some senders messages were secured even more tightly it would be on the way to solving my problem on the client side even if the servers don't cooperate with segregating password resets from regular e-mail.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Mobile is different by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      This is off topic but your points about having "all your eggs in one basket" are well taken.
       
      I ran in to a similar problem about a year ago when I lost control of a couple of domains that I no longer used. I had been using those domains for years, tinkering with various Google services and whatnot and unfortunately for me, I didn't unlink those domains from those services before they were picked up by someone else.
       
      Over a period of about a week, I was in a battle to wrest control of my Google and other accounts from the hands of someone who was using my old domains to reset password on my accounts. It was a very sobering experience to say the least.
       
      I now do exactly as you outlined in your e-mail, which is to say that I have a separate "vault" account that I have specifically for the "password reset / alternate" e-mail fields of all the services I use.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  11. It's about the Children by eckertbt · · Score: 1

    I'd venture to say that this is a way to allow you to give your iPad to your kids, let them use their own login and have access to their own set of apps. Everyone is jumping on the kiddie tablet bandwagon.

  12. Gotta be more to it than that by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    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.

    I doubt that highly, as this is excatly how Windows has behaved since Vista in 2006.

  13. I wonder.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Either the patent office has the most computer-illiterate patent reviewers or there is an intentional just approve anything mentality there, at least where Apple is concerned. I wonder if Samsung had applied for this patent if it would have been approved?

  14. patent ? by Torvac · · Score: 1

    patent for accessing something without access code on a mobile device? or stuff that kinect does, but on a touchscreen instead of air ? and instead of "gesture" its now an access code represented by a gesture ?

  15. 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.
    1. Re:Crappy patent overview by TechNeilogy · · Score: 1

      I think we've getting to: 2013+: "...!"

      --
      "The wisdom of the Patriarchs was that they *knew* they were fools." --Master Foo
  16. Prior Art from about thirty four years ago by cstacy · · Score: 1

    @enaBLE (capability) wHEEL
    Password: ******

    There are other (and even older) examples; that is just the one that occurred to me first...
    Some versions of Unix support capabilities, of course. Here we are using the word "capability" in a more abstract sense like the non-technical word "permission"; the system need not be capability-based. So it seems to me that all that Apple has patented is the use of the lock screen and PIN as the UI to enable the capability: the password determines which capabilities will be unlocked. And lock screens and PINs are nothing new. And inputting different passwords to cause different effects is not new, either. A good modern example of such security-through-obscurity is TrueCrypt hidden volumes. I haven't read the patent, but it seems like every element is old hat, and the combination seems pretty much "...on a mobile device".

    1. Re:Prior Art from about thirty four years ago by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      But its iNnovation to replace the password with a gesture!

  17. Yet another useless patent... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I know my android already has some of this for alarms and music, and I would indeed like to see it expanded - I want my email to be protected, but I want to be able to hit pause on my workout program easier.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  18. Uh oh by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    So I need to throw away all my devices that support parental controls and multiple user accounts?

  19. This is not a technology. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    "The technology, detailed in a patent..."

    It's a simple algorithm, not a "technology". Calling it a technology makes it sound like they actually created something new versus just stringing together existing ideas in a simple and non-novel way.

  20. Hardly new by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Pre touchscreen phones often allowed you to direct dial emergency services even if the phone was password locked.

    --
    John_Chalisque
    1. Re:Hardly new by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that this is obvious to anybody with half a brain.  The US patent system is idiotic.

      --
      John_Chalisque
  21. Apple Receives Patent For Accessing Sets of Apps by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    On netbooks, I was doing this for years. (since 2009 in fact). So the only change is how the non-password software program is initiated.

    With the netbook, it was simple. No initial password. Use the unprotected apps as you wish, When you need access to the protected ones, its just one access/password to enter. Thereafter, all code is free, subject to Linux rules.

    La de da to Apple. See the lawsuits fly. Time to buy made in New Zealand products before the trade barriers go up.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada