Slashdot Mirror
Apple: Dumb As a Patent Trolling Fox On iPhone Prior Art?
theodp (442580) writes "GeekWire reports that a Microsoft researcher's 1991 video could torpedo Apple's key 'slide to unlock' patent, one of 5 patents that the iPhone maker cited in its demand for $40 per Samsung phone. Confronted with what appears to be damning video evidence of prior art that pre-dates its 'invention' by more than a decade, Apple has reportedly argued that the sliding on/off switch demoed by Catherine Plaisant is materially different than the slide to unlock switch that its 7 inventors came up with. Apple's patent has already been deemed invalid in Europe because of similar functionality present in the Swedish Neonode N1M."
The toggle widgets demoed in the video (attached below) support sliding across the toggle to make it more difficult to swap state (preventing accidental toggling). The video itself is worth a watch — it's interesting to see modern UIs adopting some of the idioms that testing in the early 90s showed were awful (e.g. Gtk+ 3's state toggles).
This same crap keeps coming up on slashdot, where someone takes some 'evil patent' that's 'so obvious', hunts down an example of something vaguely similar, and shouts 'look, prior art, prior art! it's invalid!'. This isn't how prior art (or patents) work. These are the same kind of idiots that seriously think apple patented a rounded rectangle, or call microsoft a patent troll, or whatever... if you don't like (software) patents, that's great, but take the time to understand them before flinging fud.
In the case of that video, the sliding was really because you were "dragging" a representation of a physical object on-screen - and it wasn't unlocking anything, it was just toggling a state in a switch.
The iOS slide to unlock is not a physical counterpart for anything, it's a gesture. There is other prior art that uses wholly virtual gestures to unlock something, which seems much more relevant than anything in this video.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple were also caught violating the Deal Leader's original MAC OSX widgets in IOS.
The only thing worse than granting ridiculously obvious, simple, overly broad, or just plain stupid patents (and the companies trying to enforce them) is the absurd state of copyright protection in the USA.
Now lets patent using three images and doing it on an automobile touch screen. That will make it so uniqe and non-obvious that it deserves patent protection and then US and foreign car companies can sue each other over it. Serious innovation there!
Wow! That's pretty innovative! I mean, even my dog could come up with that, but if you made the USPTO's examiners immortal and chained them to typewriters, they would never write something like that.
In other words, stop hiring retarded people for functions where cognition is required!
I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent in the first place.
It's an intuitive action for unlocking because it mimics the motion of using a sliding deadbolt... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
To show a patent claim is not new, you have to show that a single piece of prior art shows everything in the patent claim. This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device. But that's just one of the requirements for validity - 35 USC 102. Incidentally, this type of prior art is called "anticipatory prior art," because it anticipates everything in the patent. It's what laymen usually mean when they say "there's prior art for X patent!" That statement doesn't mean anything, because there's always prior art for something - Neanderthal Ug's wheel is prior art for all-terrain run-flat tires. Just not anticipatory prior art.
Another requirement is non-obviousness - 35 USC 103. Under this requirement, you can show that a patent claim is obvious by showing that a combination of prior art references together teach each and every element in the claim and that they could be reasonably combined. So, if the Claim is A+B+C+D and one reference shows A+B and another shows C+D and they could be combined, that shows that the Claim is obvious.
So, for example, if you can find other references that show a hand-held device, continuous movement of an image, and unlocking a device, those combined with this may be enough to show that the Claim is obvious. That should be pretty easy to find.
One caveat there is that if a reference teaches away from the combination, it may not be available to use in the rejection. So, if the C+D reference says "never combine me with A+B, because bad things happen", then it may not be obvious to combine it with A+B (there may also be an unrecognized E element that makes it work with C+D). Here, the usability study at the end of the video seems to argue away from using sliders as touch-screen switches. But that may not be a strong enough disparagement of their use, nor does it necessarily argue away from its combination with an unlocking system.
Disclaimer: I am a patent attorney, but I am not your patent attorney. The above is not legal advice and is merely for (my own) amusement purposes. I have not spent any serious time looking into this patent, the specification, or any of the dependent Claims.
Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image.
Android's slide to unlock works from both left to right and right to left; so its completely different too right?
And if I implement Apple's slide to unlock EXACTLY, but put it on a screen built into a fridge, they can't touch me?
Yeah. Right.
This Windows Phone video is a lot closer to what the iPhone does, though the issue that one has as prior art is that it seems to be on a narrow touch-pad area (like a palm pilot) and not on the touch screen.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
(1) the slide-to-unlock patent isn't the only one in the complaint
(2) Samsung chose to infringe on the patent, whether you believe the patent is valid or not
(3) Apple can ask whatever price they want for licenses to non-FRAND patents (unlike Samsung with its FRAND patents)
(4) whether the patent is valid or not will probably shake out from this trial
(5) Being able to demonstrate its devices have everything an iPhone has was worth a lot to Samsung
... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
Respectfully, and without necessarily disagreeing with your fundamental point, those terms don't mean what you think they do, legally.
"Prior art" is "anything in the relevant art, that's prior." The Wright Brother's plane is prior art for the Space Shuttle. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Model S. That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim. So, for example, even though the Model T is prior art for the Model S, it wouldn't invalidate a patent on the battery pack, for example. Similarly, sliding deadbolts are prior art for the virtual slide-to-unlock, but they alone don't show everything in the patent.
"Obvious" is a legal conclusion, like "guilty". It's different than just the "duh" gut feeling that we typically mean when we call something obvious. And just as you show someone is guilty by showing that they committed each and every element of a crime, you show that something is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art exist that, alone or in combination, teach each and every element of the patent claim. So, again, sliding deadbolts show unlocking something... but they alone don't show all the other bits of the claim, like a handheld electronic device. That means you'd have to at least combine "deadbolts" plus "mid-90s Palm smartphone" to show that element.
Using the right terms - anticipatory prior art when you mean that, or obvious when you have a combination of prior art references to invalidate a claim - will increase your credibility with people who are in power to make changes to the patent system.
Actually, they are right.
A Patent is technically REQUIRED to not be obvious to a person 'skilled in the art' when given information of the prior art.
So, a phone UI developer would have to still not find the apple slide to unlock patent obvious given knowledge that a
UI idea to unlock the phone was needed, and knowledge of is video.
All of this of course should make the whole 'on a capacitive multitouch screen' approach, etc laughable - but again the
rules are being VERY selectively enforced.
Of course Apple, and several others, have managed to blatantly hijack the patent system, and basic patent law is not being
applied in their cases - could it PERHAPS have something to do with the huge number of patents they (and several notable others)
fine with them, and therefore the percentage of the patent offices total revenue they generate?
How do I know the requirements above? I have at times spent years arguing with the patent office trying to get patents accepted
which were ENORMOUSLY less obvious that what passes for acceptable from certain major cooperated. With little to no success.
The rules are simply being blatantly flouted by a certain select group.
Corps throw their "IP" wads of shit against the USPTO dartboard and sees what sticks.
Some shit ALWAYS sticks.
In recent years it seems like there has been a fairly obvious effort by early posters on a story to direct the discussion in a certain way. For example, an anti-Microsoft story pops up and within minutes at least 2 or more not very subtle pro-MS posts are submitted, usually by accounts with relatively low UIDs for maximum impact. The same is true here with Apple. I have to wonder if various companies actually have bots (or interns) scraping all the popular sites for any possible negative mention of their brand and alerting the next-level of folks whose job it is to try to get in early with comments in support of the company. Very early ones tend to be quick statements criticizing the posting while later ones take a little more time to compose and are slightly better reasoned. Of course, on sites like Slashdot these often get buried pretty quick, but on some other sites they really do seem to influence the whole tone of the discussion throughout.
Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image. The video does not demonstrate a portable device, nor is it done using a single image. Notably, as shown in the screen capture or TFA, two different images represent ON vs. OFF.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8046721
To be clear...you are stating why this video may not apply to show that the Apple's patent may be non-novel, because it may be an improvement over the prior art, however, that certainly doesn't mean it's nonobvious, right?
Note: I haven't read the actual patent's claims so I have no idea if there's anything nonobvious in there (patent claims != title, unlike what most /.'ers think), but your points of "on a portable device" and "done using a single image" sure don't seem nonobvious.
the patent office assumes when a patent is filed for that company did the work to see if it was done before. Which Apple has a clear history of stealing others work and claiming it as their own. Its left up to the court and someone to fight it to make it invalid. Problem is if its used against people that have no $ to spent on court cases they just pay even if the patent is bogus and invalid.
you have basically 2 options. touching in one spot, or touching and then sliding your finger. regardless if its prior art, its like saying making a noise for some duration to do a function is patentable. its literally the only option you have
Looks exactly the same to me. Take your finger, touch the slider, and move your finger to drag the slider to change the state. If you think Apple's implementation is fundamentally different, then patent trolls have taught you well, young lawyer.
Sue me for this example but here goes ...
Even since I was 3 or 4, almost every time I had to go #1 I used an apparatus that I called a "zipper" and used its "slide to unlock" feature.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Anyone else think the video doesn't even compare? Not even close to being the same thing.
Go Maryland!
the patent office assumes when a patent is filed for that company did the work to see if it was done before.
That's simply not true. Don't spread misinformation.
I thought most of us had moved past this some time ago.
Or is that you again Mr. Cook?
I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent in the first place.
It's an intuitive action for unlocking because it mimics the motion of using a sliding deadbolt... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
The sliding deadbolt that Apple used to model the action had rounded corners.
Patenting something so small for a software shouldn't be allowed. This isn't 1980, that kind of "feature" can be done in a few lines of code.
Don't you have interns to post these sorts of things for you though?
I speak french all day, I listen to english TV shows and movies all the time, and I'm having an incredibly hard time understanding what the hell she's saying.
Unsurprisingly Vulcan tech is ahead of our time.
In the original Predator film with Arnie, the alien monster activates the self destruct device by sliding his talon across the face of the gadget on his wrist triggering the countdown leading to the final explosion. This fulfills most of the conditions of the patent. Not necessarily a display device (apart from the characters that form the countdown) but since the creature sees in infrared, it may well have been.
BTW, I hear they are inventing the large touchscreen phones now, sort of like the Samsung Notes.
Was '91 really that long ago? The video reminds me of the DHARMA Initiative videos from Lost. All it needs is the fake film reel effects.
Here's the argument for non-obviousness from the patent:
One problem associated with using touch screens on portable devices is the unintentional activation or deactivation of functions due to unintentional contact with the touch screen. Thus, portable devices, touch screens on such devices, and/or applications running on such devices may be locked upon satisfaction of predefined lock conditions, such as upon entering an active call, after a predetermined time of idleness has elapsed, or upon manual locking by a user.
Devices with touch screens and/or applications running on such devices may be unlocked by any of several well-known unlocking procedures, such as pressing a predefined set of buttons (simultaneously or sequentially) or entering a code or password. These unlock procedures, however, have drawbacks. The button combinations may be hard to perform. Creating, memorizing, and recalling passwords, codes, and the like can be quite burdensome. These drawbacks may reduce the ease of use of the unlocking process and, as a consequence, the ease of use of the device in general. Accordingly, there is a need for more efficient, user-friendly procedures for unlocking such devices, touch screens, and/or applications.
Apple was trying to come up with a way to prevent butt-dialing and other unwanted device actions. The point of using a sliding motion is that it's unlikely to happen via random touches, but is reasonably intutive.
Microsoft's video doesn't really show a slider. It shows touch buttons that look visually like sliders. But you can trip them just by touching in the active area for the desired state. This is shown in the video where the demonstrator runs their finger down a column of switches and they all switch. Apple requires an explicit "click and drag" operation to unlock.
It may seem trivial, but if nobody did it before the patent, and everybody wanted to do it after the patent, it's a valid invention. "Obvious" does not mean "obvious in hindsight".
It slides like a deadbolt and is used to "unlock" the phone, so it is functionally similar to a deadbolt.
Such deadbolt predate the iphone by over a hundred years. Apple, it seemed, was hell-bent on copying well known ideas that people are already extremely familiar with in real life, virtualize them, and then would go and try to claim that *THEY* invented them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There's no patent on display size.
Samsung can't design hardware or write software--it sucks to be them, always having to copy or use Google's code to achieve any success.
I still can't figure out the state of those on/off toggles in the menu.
This is very cool. Seriously, if only she had discovered this 20 years later, she would be a millionaire!
"...they can't touch me?"
Yes, they can. But only from left to right.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Seriously?
At least that proves you're for real. Not even Apple would be stupid enough to hire someone who posts like that.
But it makes me sad.
That's the precise problem with the patent system; it's unintuitive, nonsensical garbage.
The patent system in the US is a sick and twisted joke. Its intent so badly skewed and twisted that it actually impedes progress now rather than enhance it. Judges cherry pick who wins and who loses, its worth millions of dollars each time, and the minutiae over which the balance tips is so small and insignificant as to be laughable. Math was never supposed to be patented, yet software --which is all easily reducable to basic math-- is all fair game. Now prior art shows up which threatens a very rich patent for Apple, and a judge is now pondering winners and losers. Depending on how the judge goes shows exactly how the rules are played. It *sure looks* like prior art, but Apple could claim a subset of what is shown in the video, but if the video doesn't show prior art, then does Apple's now more-limited patent cover Samsung phones? Congress critters paid or not, patent office looking for more patent money or not: this is all very political. That patent lawyers go chasing all over demanding things more outrageous is bizarre. Perhaps if it gets even more crazy, politicians and judges will get a clue and make reforms. In the mean time, its the most obtuse, feckless system on earth.
I've read interviews where patent clerks said precisely that. I'm not motivated enough to look for them, but it IS true.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I've read interviews where patent clerks said precisely that. I'm not motivated enough to look for them, but it IS true.
No, it's not. And in fact, that post is the first hit on Google for that combination of words, making any such claim of a previous published interview suspect.
Furthermore, here's the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure". As noted in section 704.01:
After reading the specification and claims, the examiner searches the prior art.
No mention of "don't bother, because you can just assume that the company did the search." Sorry, you're simply incorrect, and your alleged interviews do not exist.
Notably, as shown in the screen capture or TFA, two different images represent ON vs. OFF.
If you actually watched the video or looked at TFA you would see it's a slider
... if you don't someone else does and sues you. so of course you attempt to be first in with the patent.
... have been burned badly by people stealing their IP before.
That shit was in LabView 20 years ago.
Whatever, dude. You're biased as hell and I don't care. If I found the interview, you'd say he was just a bad egg who should be fired and that it wasn't systematic. I'm not American and I have no desire to start a business and be your servants, so I can just casually infringe on all this shit as though it didn't exist while your country implodes on an overdose of poorly thought out ideology.
Back in the day, it was necessary to entice people to reveal their guild secrets because forcing them wasn't practical and running them out of business wasn't either. Now, both options are practical, and that's what I support.
I've often thought of building a shopping cart with a 3D scanner in it and going down to the shops to wander around indecisively putting things into and out of my shopping cart, before buying a stick of gum and going home to upload them all to thingiverse. Even things I have no interest in personally possessing. Just to put the screws to people who enforce these artificial scarcity measures. Perhaps the act of typing this out will be the trigger that causes some 16 year old geek to do it tomorrow. If not, I'll probably get to it eventually,
I really do want you guys to suffer, though. I try not to think that way, but some part of me would be upset if you change before you pushed the rest of the world to the point of taking violent steps against you. I know that on a systematic level justice is wrong, and that I should try to have compassion for you even though you're evil fucks... but it IS emotionally gratifying, and I'm not as nice a guy as I try to be.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The patent system is intended to help engineers and inventors. It is their understanding of "obvious" and "prior art" that is relevant, not the understanding of (imitation) lawyers with a stick up their ass, like you.
Yes, slide-to-unlock has plenty of prior art in every sense of the word, and the arguments people have been making here are relevant: (1) it's a simple simulation of a familiar physical paradigm, and (2) it has been implemented numerous times before Apple patented it.
Furthermore, even in legal discussions, it is legitimate and reasonable to talk about "prior art" and "obviousness", just like in science and engineering, we also use convenient shorthands and aren't 100% precise every time we talk about some concept. If you have trouble following such discussions, the problem is with your understanding.
You're going to great lengths to find some way in which this is different to justify Apple's position
No, I'm going to great lengths to justify my analysis. And why should I not? Why would I post an observation I couldn't (or wouldn't) defend?
You posting AC have no real thoughts, because anything you say can never be tied back to you. Your thoughts are literally worse than useless.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are not supposed to be able to patent that, that is just an idea. The patent is on how that idea is implemented and i am quite sure apple and google implemented that same idea but very differently however since apple does not disclose its implementation we don't know.
The patent system is supposed to be there to share implementation details that otherwise would not be known because otherwise anybody could just copy that implementation however this patent simply documents exactly what you see when you use the 'invention' it does not disclose the implementation at all and thus the patent should be invalid, it is just an idea.
no one should have ever had to show prior art...the patents for UI elements like "pinch and zoom" are absolutely ludicrous & are a product of ignorance and manipulation
I think this goes to the core of your understanding of this issue...this you describe here, this should not be at all patentable:
if this is "what is patentable" then its so broad nothing matters...it's a complete waste of time to think about these issues
what should be patentable? I don't have the answers, but that doesn't mean we can't conclude that the status quo is waaaaay too broad to be consistent from one patent to the next
Thank you Dave Raggett
"handheld electronic device"
(hint: the most magical word is the first one)
The fundamental problem with US patents is the same as with parking tickets. The worse the legislation there is to control them, the better business model it is for the state. Don't expect legislation that reduces gross profit, no matter how unfair everyone can see it is.
And just as you show someone is guilty by showing that they committed each and every element of a crime
You went overboard with this statement.
You don't show each and every element of a crime to get a conviction. There's means, motive and opportunity. Often proving just two of those can get a guilty verdict.
it's interesting to see modern UIs adopting some of the idioms that testing in the early 90s showed were awful (e.g. Gtk+ 3's state toggles).
Interesting but unfortunately not uncommon. I worked with the Gnome UI design group for a short time during the early days and basically gave up because of people with more enthusiasm than knowledge dominating the mailing list.
User interface design is a typical bikeshed problem. Everyone things it's not that difficult and he can do it and few people realize just how much effort and expertise goes into it. Heck, "Human-Computer Interaction" (Dox, Finlay, Abowd, Beale) is 800 pages.
I wish IArchitect's user interface hall of shame were still around.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Let's let TOM speak shall we:
"I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Tom *tried* to libel me & failed after I destroyed him in a technical debate on hosts files... result?
Tom ended up "eating his words" here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... spiced with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" + HIS FOOT IN HIS MOUTH
... apk
"Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image."
That device was portable. Just not as portable as a phone from 17 years later. As everyone knew it would be (so no innovation there).
You're interpreting single image incorrectly. The Microsoft implementation is "single image". Apple's animation is smooth, Microsoft's animation reflects the state of computer resources of the day and is jerky.
Prior art is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Please note the opening line: "Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."
Obvious is the corollary of non-obvious, a requirement under US law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note: there is no point in arguing with me on this - go argue with wikipedia.
"Simply because I know the law doesn't mean that I'm biased."
You have a very limited knowledge of the law.
You are biased in favour of patents, just as I'm biased in favour of getting rid of patents - that much is obvious (and there is nothing wrong with that of course - it is how it is).
It took a decade for Bozos to wear down the Canadian Patent office to grant him a patent for "One Click" but he did it. It doesn't make him right of course..
Apple Trademarking "Startup" internationally:
One of many abuses that I've noted lately: Apple is playing some games to get trademarks on the term "Startup" in many countries. They started with Jamaica and then are leveraging that to get a copyright in The U.S., Canada, Europe etc... despite the obvious generic use by a multitude of companies in the use categories they have registered. Do they just have to leave their registration there for some time to be able to start to enforce it? I thought they'd lose it if they didn't defend it? It'll be interesting to see what they are planning to do.
What's interesting is how other handsets have been forced to circumvent the patent. Samsung currently uses a screen image and lets the user slide any direction to be rewarded with a sparkly effect & noise to unlock. Vanilla Android allows users to draw a dot from the center of the screen to the perimeter of a circle to unlock. Windows Phone (and GNOME 3) have a weighted screen saver which must dragged up to remove it.
So in a sense devices have innovated to circumvent a stupid patent, but the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
Think about the consequences for a bit. If Apple had been granted the rather obvious ‘keyboard near the screen’ patent, we would all have had a worse computing experience: either you'd be forced to use Apple or you'd be forced to use an inconvenient computer design: pick your poison. Any patent system that would have granted that patent is not worth having.
Here's your prior art. Seriously, taking a common real world design and making something on a touch-screen that looks like it should never be patentable. It would be like patenting an on-screen control that looks like a dial or an on-screen meter that looks like a galvanometer.
> "Obvious" is a legal conclusion, like "guilty". It's different than just the "duh" gut feeling that we typically mean when we call something obvious.
Yes, I get that. "Obvious" as in the seemingly formal (in reality quite shaky" mental mess a law person has.
I'd propose an experiment: when submitting something to patent,
(1) state the problem in a "clean room way", i.e. giving as little hints to the solution under scrutiny as possible;
(2) present this statement to N "experts in the field" (to make numbers up, let's assume like N=10).
(3) The amount owed by the entity requesting patent protection is proportional to b*a^N (with properly chosen b and a; for example,
let b=10 dollars and a=8: then, if none of the experts come up with the solution, you get the patent for 10 dollars, if all ten come up with the solution, you owe 10 * 8^10 dollars, i.e. roughly ten billion).
(4) After step (3) you are allowed to back out: then you just owe b*a^(N-1) dollars -- that would be a step less in the "pain scale".
I wish the courts would address Apple's patent trolling by actually making Apple pay out. In this case, they should transfer Apple's slide to unlock patent to the Swedish Neonode N1M and make Apple pay royalties for all iPhones.
Agree with you 100%
Patent monopolies are a *tremendous* gift to inventors, and they should be granted (if ever) only for tremendous gifts to the world. The broken patent system has brainwashed people into thinking that every you ever do needs to be patented so that no one else can ever do it.
The pharma patents always get pushed to the front of the class in these discussions. Fine. Cure cancer & patent your cure. We'll pay you for the favor, and we'll pool money to make sure that all the poor people with cancer can also afford it.
But the relative position of a trackpad and keyboard?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I'd flavor your comment with this:
The term "obvious" in the patent world has been significantly watered down in recent times. Consider for example that adding an eraser to the back of a pencil was considered "obvious" and therefore, not patentable in its time.
Common Sense (+1)
Sockpuppeteer Tom, You're not trusted as honest on slashdot http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
GUI from Xerox, iPhones from TV, and 'they thought of it first'...
My first $25 Palm Pilot had a slide to unlock feature. I think it came out in 1997.
Note: there is no point in arguing with me on this - go argue with wikipedia.
I believe there's no point in arguing with you on it, because we're in agreement. Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Even all three elements isn't enough to convict.You can prove all three, but a good jury also needs evidence the accused actually did it. I.e. You can have means motive and opportunity and still not be the actual criminal. That's not to say people don't get convicted for as much, but logically you need more.
I'd flavor your comment with this: The term "obvious" in the patent world has been significantly watered down in recent times. Consider for example that adding an eraser to the back of a pencil was considered "obvious" and therefore, not patentable in its time.
That's the same test as now, though - pencils are known, erasers are known, it's trivial to combine the two, therefore it's obvious.
Jeez, you missed the opportunity to say ./, dumb as... well there is no proper end. There's not much around that dumb.
Slide to unlock is a several centuries old invention, often used on toilet doors.
BTW, iPhone/iTab HW design is originated from Nokia Display Products (it was a mobile entertainment center / TV), rights owned by ViewSonic now. And iPhone/iPad GUI is a descendant of HP VUE.
I think your point is off if you are arguing for Apple. The only thing I think that they might try to use is in their Claim 1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display. Remember, a patent abstract means NOTHING. You need to look at its claim only. They specified that it is to unlock a hand-held electronic device which is quite specific, and that is different from the video which is a touch screen in general. Other than that (the part of unlocking functionality, using image to do it, the way that the touch must continuously stay on the screen, etc.), nothing is really non-obvious for the method because it is very similar to the video. If Apple is trying to argue on their image use, then they need a design patent for that because I am not sure that a utility patent could represent the case well.
This bring up a need. We have Creative Commons so people can license an otherwise copyright text for common use. We need something similar for patents. We need a database for ideas such as slide to unlock. Those who come up with the ideas could post them, where they'd be date-stamped as prior art. Those with a problem to solve could consult the database for ideas and know that they can be used freely. Those who come up with an improvement, could attach it to the idea.
We might even call this project Creative Ideas.
I guess ST TNG was right.. again - Vulcans did land on planet Earth but in France.
Damn Hollywood, twisting the truth like that...
Let's let TOM speak shall we:
"I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Tom *tried* to libel me & failed after I destroyed him in a technical debate on hosts files... result?
Tom ended up "eating his words" here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... spiced with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" + HIS FOOT IN HIS MOUTH
... apk
it's interesting to see modern UIs adopting some of the idioms that testing in the early 90s showed were awful (e.g. Gtk+ 3's state toggles).
Actually, expectations for a GUI change over time. Gtk's state toggles are actually accepted state of the art today, and not a problem for users. I've been following this guy's blog and his GNOME usability test, and sliders wasn't an issue.
> Microsoft's video doesn't really show a slider
At 2:57 in the video, it clearly shows the slider tracking with the finger's sliding motion.
This reminds me of Mystery Men for some reason regarding toggles...
Apple of course being in the role of Captain Amazing because we're obviously "morons."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Hallo. TaoPhoenix here. I'm replying as AC because I already modded down a couple of trolls and stuff. But you'll recognize the name.
I'm hoping you at least see this reply because I tend to only work with a slashdot story for about a day. But I got really close on searches for reasons close to "patent office assumes/runs out of time/other" about prior art.
So send me a hello email at TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com as a note that you're interested and we can poke at that a bit. I agree I didn't get *exactly* the language that other guy used, but maybe halfway there.
--Tao
Computers are known, "anything" plus computer is not obvious, according to all the patents filed for and granted. You re trolling us.
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid." vs "That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
To a lot of people here, Apple is just rehashing an already existing technology in it's entirety.
"In the United States, there is a duty to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office any known prior art that is material to the patentability of any claim of a pending U.S. patent application. " from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa...
You are a lying troll. The examiner examins the prior art, but doesn't search for more, because the duty is on the applicant to disclose. Even from your own link " then searches the prior art as disclosed in patents" So they "search" for the prior art that's disclosed, and are not instructed to search for new or undisclosed prior art. You are 100% wrong, and have been corrected on this multiple times, so I can only assume you are a lying troll (a genuine error would have been recognized and corected - even your own cite proves you wrong).
Posted anonymously because I also modded your lying trolls as such.
Learn to love Alaska
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid." vs "That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
It would help if you actually read the rest of my post rather than just one sentence. For example, that sentence follows this one: "The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Model S. That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
Do you disagree with that? Or do you really think that the existence of the Model T means that Elon Musk can't get any patents?
"In the United States, there is a duty to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office any known prior art that is material to the patentability of any claim of a pending U.S. patent application. " from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa...
Yes, any known prior art. There's no duty on the patent applicant to search for any art. See MPEP 704.01. And accordingly, the statement "the patent office assumes when a patent is filed for that company did the work to see if it was done before" is false. As I said.
You are a lying troll. The examiner examins the prior art, but doesn't search for more, because the duty is on the applicant to disclose.
You're absolutely wrong. Abusive, too, which is hilarious, given how wrong you are.
Even from your own link " then searches the prior art as disclosed in patents"
I find it amusing that you call me a "lying troll", and then two sentences later quote out of context. Here's the full quote: "The examiner, after having obtained a thorough understanding of the invention disclosed and claimed in the nonprovisional application, then searches the prior art as disclosed in patents and other published documents, i.e., nonpatent literature (NPL). Any document used in the rejection of a claim is called a reference."
They search all published documents, including via Google Scholar.
So they "search" for the prior art that's disclosed, and are not instructed to search for new or undisclosed prior art. You are 100% wrong, and have been corrected on this multiple times, so I can only assume you are a lying troll (a genuine error would have been recognized and corected - even your own cite proves you wrong).
The part you clipped out from that quote actually proves you wrong, as it explicitly describes how they search beyond just patents.
But here's the best part of your post:
Posted anonymously because I also modded your lying trolls as such.
Re:I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent i (Score:2)
by AK Marc (707885)
BWAAHAHAHAAAA!
I'm simply pointing out the subtle differences in definitions. You're welcome to edit wikipedia to reflect a more exact or correct view in their opening sentence.
I'm simply pointing out the subtle differences in definitions. You're welcome to edit wikipedia to reflect a more exact or correct view in their opening sentence.
There's actually no difference in the definition from what I said. Here's wiki:
"Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality"
and here's me:
"Prior art" is "anything in the relevant art, that's prior."
That's same thing.
Then you jumped ahead to the next sentence. Again, wiki:
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."
and me:
"[A]nticipatory prior art... is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
In other words, anticipatory prior art is prior art that describes an invention. If an invention is anticipated, it is not valid. That's also the same thing.
Wiki is correct, I am correct, and you seem to be confusing the matter by comparing parts of one sentence to parts of a different sentence. Hope this all helps.
My apologies I haven't expressed this well. I'm talking about how you have expressed something and the name you have called it. I'll try again.
Wikipedia says if an invention has been described by "prior art" it is invalid, while you say that everything in the patent must be taught and it is called "anticipatory prior art". You took someone up on their use of the phrase "prior art" and said he had to refer to "anticipatory prior art". I think that wikipedia shows otherwise. I don't see anywhere on the wiki as it being described specifically as "anticipatory prior art". I don't see anywhere on the wiki that every claim must be described - it simply says it must sufficiently described.
My apologies I haven't expressed this well. I'm talking about how you have expressed something and the name you have called it. I'll try again.
Wikipedia says if an invention has been described by "prior art" it is invalid, while you say that everything in the patent must be taught and it is called "anticipatory prior art". You took someone up on their use of the phrase "prior art" and said he had to refer to "anticipatory prior art". I think that wikipedia shows otherwise. I don't see anywhere on the wiki as it being described specifically as "anticipatory prior art". I don't see anywhere on the wiki that every claim must be described - it simply says it must sufficiently described.
Ah. Wiki has attempted to dumb things down a bit, but unfortunately, appears to have created confusion. Here's the real definition:
A claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is “not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as prior art. To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must teach every element of the claim.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Thanks. That does make things clearer in that regard for US law.
The wiki well may be valid as a generalised international version though - would you think so? (a lot of us on /. are not from the US).
Is the Federal Circuit jurisdiction nationwide in the US?
Thanks. That does make things clearer in that regard for US law.
The wiki well may be valid as a generalised international version though - would you think so? (a lot of us on /. are not from the US).
It is, with very slight glosses... Instead of being "obvious", Europe and a few other countries say that something "lacks inventive step". And there are also a few registration-only systems, in which patents are not presumed valid, and no examination occurs. But generally, the various tests for whether something is "new" or whether it is "nonobvious"/"has an inventive step" are identical everywhere. That's a result of the Paris Convention treaty, decades ago.
Is the Federal Circuit jurisdiction nationwide in the US?
Yes, but it's really specific to patents. Like, patent appeals only go to the Fed. Circ., rather than, say, the 9th Circ. or the 1st Circ. Basically, the numbered circuits are regional; the Federal Circuit is subject matter based. They handle patent appeals, other article I appeals (federal claims, trademarks, government contracts, veterans stuff, etc.), and some weird article III stuff, like natural gas and petroleum .
How did Romulans infiltrate the University of Maryland in 1991?
"That's a result of the Paris Convention treaty, decades ago."
Is that this one: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/e... ?
Let's let TOM speak shall we:
"I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Tom *tried* to libel me & failed after I destroyed him in a technical debate on hosts files... result?
Tom ended up "eating his words" here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... spiced with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" + HIS FOOT IN HIS MOUTH
... apk
You are http://slashdot.org/comments.p...