Apple Awarded Gesture-Control Patent

So.... by Lab+Rat+Jason · 2015-01-13 10:53 · Score: 5, Funny

... they have a patent for waving?

--
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?

Re:So.... by Em+Adespoton · 2015-01-13 10:56 · Score: 5, Funny

... for hand waving. Although it might encompass the "These are not the droids you are looking for" gesture as well.
Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 11:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Or jacking off... it does say along the 'selected' axis... y-axis here we cum!
Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 12:30 · Score: 1

I used to watch that often in episodes of "Lost in Space".
Aliens always waved and hovered hands over some industrial equipment lights which would pose as "controls". Was in the episode with Mr. Golden or was it in the one of The Keeper?
Boy, that was a lil' while ago... come to think, I loved to watch Dr. Smith and now I'm an Anonymous Coward. Wow! The circle is complete!
Re:So.... by Em+Adespoton · 2015-01-13 12:30 · Score: 1

I'm glad at least one person with mod points enjoyed my attempt at subtle humour :)
For those that missed it: think "You're holding it wrong!" and a certain competitor, with a dash of reality distortion field.
Re:So.... by cas2000 · 2015-01-13 14:58 · Score: 2

patenting particular methods or specific inventions is such an old-fashioned and obsolote view of patents.
no, these cunts don't patent a particular method for doing anything - they claim ownership of the entire fucking idea so that nobody can come up with any alternative non-infringing method.
Re:So.... by gl4ss · 2015-01-14 01:16 · Score: 1

their crap is so vague that stuff from years ago infringes it.
it doesn't explain how they do the detecting as such even, it doesn't explain how the device itself works...

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:So.... by gstoddart · 2015-01-14 02:23 · Score: 1

Only when seen and acted upon, apparently.
So those guys with the orange flashlights at airports telling the plane where to park? Those suckers are gonna have to pay some royalties.
Hey, Apple, I'm making a gesture now, can you see what it is?

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:So.... by DickBreath · 2015-01-14 02:24 · Score: 1

This year, Apple will introduce an app for Apple Watch to track and produce graphs of masturbation efficiency. The app will have social network features allowing the sharing and aggregation of these vital statistics. Android users will have no need for such an app. Then in 2016, Apple will ban its own app for violating unwritten parts of Apple's TOS. In 2017, Microsoft will copy Apple's now banned app hoping to attract users fleeing Apple because of the removal of such an important application from the iTunes store.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:So.... by unixisc · 2015-01-14 06:46 · Score: 1

I was gonna show them my middle finger, then I got scared that they may have patented that as well!

Re:As far as I can tell... by Lab+Rat+Jason · 2015-01-13 11:01 · Score: 3, Funny

It's for detecting masturbation.

--
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?

Ridiculous++ by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 11:04 · Score: 1

It's blatantly obvious that the way the world deals with patents, copyright, and trademarks is in desperate need of an overhaul. We are nearly all sufferers of these now somewhat ridiculous legal systems, even though the basic premise of them was fairly well-intentioned. Now they simply belong to the corporations with the biggest bank balances, which in turn are some of the most powerful lobby groups, swaying various authorities, policy makers, lawmakers, and governments in the directions they desire, effectively controlling things as long as their line of credit remains solid.

I'm not suggesting burn it all down, but surely some smarter people than me can figure out a way to fix this giant mess.

posting the abstract is click bait. by perlface · 2015-01-13 11:06 · Score: 1

This is the novel bit they have: "...the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed; and transitioning the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture" Every other gesture is still fair game.

Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-13 15:16 · Score: 2

The whole point of patents is to drive innovation. Being able to patent things like this is clearly not in the spirit of that goal. The question we should be asking is:

If a patent was not granted for this "invention" (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention not granted), would it still have been invented (i.e. would a company still be willing to perform the R&D necessary to invent this invention without the reward of a monopoly).
It's pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is yes.
If this is the case, then granting a patent (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention) actually stifles innovation.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 04:16 · Score: 1

The whole point of patents is to drive innovation. Being able to patent things like this is clearly not in the spirit of that goal.
Why not? Clearly, it's not so clear to Congress, so what's your reasoning as to why this is not in the spirit of driving innovation?

The question we should be asking is:

If a patent was not granted for this "invention" (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention not granted), would it still have been invented (i.e. would a company still be willing to perform the R&D necessary to invent this invention without the reward of a monopoly).
It's pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is yes.
If this is the case, then granting a patent (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention) actually stifles innovation.
Respectfully, that question is a bit naive. Patents aren't really about encouraging innovation, they're about encouraging public disclosure of innovations, as opposed to keeping them under trade secret or restrictive contracts. Without patents, would a company still invent this? Sure, it seems to be a commercially valuable advantage over a device lacking it. What would they do instead? Have purchasers sign non-reverse engineering contracts, non-disclosure agreements, restrictions on sales, etc. And those contracts could actually grant more rights than patents, since there's nothing to say they'd have to expire after 20 years or wouldn't include the first sale doctrine or patent exhaustion, nor could they be invalidated by prior art, etc., etc.
The question "is it more valuable to make this than not" drives innovation. Patents drive adding those innovations into the public domain, which eliminates the need for every competitor to waste time reinventing the same thing.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-14 05:31 · Score: 1

You'll notice that I was not arguing against patents in general. I was arguing that patents like *this* one do not drive innovation, specifically because "inventions" like this one are so obvious that they would have been invented without the incentive of a monopoly.

The question "is it more valuable to make this than not" drives innovation. Patents drive adding those innovations into the public domain, which eliminates the need for every competitor to waste time reinventing the same thing.
This particular "invention" would already be in the public domain by default had it not been patented because it is obvious.
This "invention" was already more valuable to make than not before the patent, and the right to sue other people on top of that simply makes it even more lucrative for the patent holder and lawyers on both sides, but these profits come as a cost to society with no additional benefit.
I am for granting patents that actually drive innovation (i.e. the ones that turn inventions from being less profitable to make to more).
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by perlface · 2015-01-14 05:34 · Score: 1

How does this stifle innovation? To me it seems it will force inventors to find different ways to use gestures to unlock computers. That is encouraging innovation. Not Nobel Prize winning stuff to be sure, but innovation nonetheless.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 05:47 · Score: 1

You'll notice that I was not arguing against patents in general. I was arguing that patents like *this* one do not drive innovation, specifically because "inventions" like this one are so obvious that they would have been invented without the incentive of a monopoly.
Is it? If so, why don't we have it already in products?

The question "is it more valuable to make this than not" drives innovation. Patents drive adding those innovations into the public domain, which eliminates the need for every competitor to waste time reinventing the same thing.
This particular "invention" would already be in the public domain by default had it not been patented because it is obvious.
Prove it - explain why it was so obvious that people already knew about it, but no one bothered making it.

This "invention" was already more valuable to make than not before the patent,
Then someone would have made it. Free money on the table, right? They already have the idea, it's valuable to make even without a patent, so you should be able to point to at least one product including it...
Unless, of course, it wasn't obvious.

I am for granting patents that actually drive innovation (i.e. the ones that turn inventions from being less profitable to make to more).
Patents only on things that aren't valuable to produce? Why would people buy them? Or are you suggesting that with a patent will also come a mandate forcing the public to buy products they don't want? Please, we don't do that in this c-... well, we don't do that for anything except insurance.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-14 06:15 · Score: 1

1. I think inventors will try different ways to use gestures regardless, but it will be based on their merits rather than whether they are simply different than the current patented ways.
2. Some money that could have been spend on innovation must now be spent on lawyers to analyze whether their new and different way of using gestures is different enough from the ways that are patented. Innovation would better thrive under an environment that isn't a legal minefield (i.e. one with a higher engineer:lawyer ratio).
I'm not saying this isn't innovation. It is. What I am saying is that it is not the kind of innovation that patents should protect. Patents automatically come with an innovation stifling cost. The way that patents drive innovation is by overcoming this cost by incentivizing innovations that would not have otherwise happened. The way to maximize innovation is to disseminate patents only to those that would not have been invented otherwise.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Is it? If so, why don't we have it already in products?
For the same reason we didn't have smartphones until processors, batteries, screens, etc were at a level to make smartphones possible.
Once we had sensors like the kinect, the necessity for good ui drives the innovation.

Prove it - explain why it was so obvious that people already knew about it, but no one bothered making it.
Something doesn't need to exist for it to be obvious. I can make a smartphone that is some color that no one has ever used to make a smartphone. Should I be able to patent smartphones of a particular RGB value? Or was it obvious that it this was always possible to make a smartphone of any arbitrary color regardless of whether or when anyone actually did it?

Patents only on things that aren't valuable to produce? Why would people buy them? Or are you suggesting that with a patent will also come a mandate forcing the public to buy products they don't want? Please, we don't do that in this c-... well, we don't do that for anything except insurance.
Things that aren't valuable to produce can still be things that people want to buy. Things with extremely high R&D costs (e.g. pharmaceuticals, etc), are not cost effective to produce without patent protection. Why would you spend millions or billions of dollars to create and test a drug only to have some other company copy it and undercut you.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 06:41 · Score: 1

Is it? If so, why don't we have it already in products?
For the same reason we didn't have smartphones until processors, batteries, screens, etc were at a level to make smartphones possible.
Once we had sensors like the kinect, the necessity for good ui drives the innovation.
Kinect came out in Nov. 2010. It seems like you're admitting that it wasn't obvious until at least then, no?

Prove it - explain why it was so obvious that people already knew about it, but no one bothered making it.
Something doesn't need to exist for it to be obvious. I can make a smartphone that is some color that no one has ever used to make a smartphone. Should I be able to patent smartphones of a particular RGB value? Or was it obvious that it this was always possible to make a smartphone of any arbitrary color regardless of whether or when anyone actually did it?
Was it? Here's the thing - you already admitted this was valuable. If making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you knew it, wouldn't you do it? Of course you would, you're a smart guy who likes money.
Or, conversely, if making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you didn't know it, then that would explain why you didn't do it.
So, when someone subsequently comes out with a gold and blue polkadot phone and their sales shoot up, you can't very well say "pff, that's obvious, I knew about that all along... I just didn't do it because I hate making money" and expect to be believed.

Why would you spend millions or billions of dollars to create and test a drug only to have some other company copy it and undercut you.
Why would you spend hundreds of thousands or millions on UI design to create and test a UI only to have some other company copy it and undercut you? In fact, why would you spend any money on research, if someone can just steal yours freely (and you can steal theirs)?
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-14 09:29 · Score: 1

Kinect came out in Nov. 2010. It seems like you're admitting that it wasn't obvious until at least then, no?
In the same way that it wasn't obvious to have blue and gold polka dot smartphones before the first smartphone was created. However, if one was to suggest the possibility of smartphones before they existed, then I would think that the possibility of them being blue and gold polka dot should be obvious.

Was it? Here's the thing - you already admitted this was valuable. If making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you knew it, wouldn't you do it? Of course you would, you're a smart guy who likes money. Or, conversely, if making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you didn't know it, then that would explain why you didn't do it. So, when someone subsequently comes out with a gold and blue polkadot phone and their sales shoot up, you can't very well say "pff, that's obvious, I knew about that all along... I just didn't do it because I hate making money" and expect to be believed.
You seem to be reasserting the claim that something can not be obvious if no one has done it yet. It is this very claim that I am disputing.
While it may not be obvious that people will like a blue and gold polkadot phone, it should be plainly obvious that such a phone could be made and how it could be made, even if no one ever makes one.

Why would you spend hundreds of thousands or millions on UI design to create and test a UI only to have some other company copy it and undercut you? In fact, why would you spend any money on research, if someone can just steal yours freely (and you can steal theirs)?
Ask the people that do it. The fact is that plenty of people spend money on R&D for UI design knowing that it will be copied (assuming it's good), and drug companies are not willing to spend the money on R&D to make drugs without patent protections. Clearly it is still profitable to spend money on most UI design without patents, and it is simply not the case with most drugs.
Look at all the UI design that is created out there without any patent protection (i.e. a lot). Look at all the drugs that are developed without patent protection (i.e. almost none).
If X is the the price of R&D and Y is the price of copying it, we should allow patents on products with a high X:Y ratio.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 09:57 · Score: 1

Was it? Here's the thing - you already admitted this was valuable. If making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you knew it, wouldn't you do it? Of course you would, you're a smart guy who likes money. Or, conversely, if making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you didn't know it, then that would explain why you didn't do it. So, when someone subsequently comes out with a gold and blue polkadot phone and their sales shoot up, you can't very well say "pff, that's obvious, I knew about that all along... I just didn't do it because I hate making money" and expect to be believed.
You seem to be reasserting the claim that something can not be obvious if no one has done it yet. It is this very claim that I am disputing.
While it may not be obvious that people will like a blue and gold polkadot phone, it should be plainly obvious that such a phone could be made and how it could be made, even if no one ever makes one.
Not exactly... I'm asserting the claim that if no one has done something yet and it's commercially valuable to do so, then it's likely not obvious. Evidence of that is the fact that if it was obvious, someone would have taken the free money. Because no one has, that implies no one thought of it.
You're disputing this by saying "no, it's plainly obvious." Well, that's a fine conclusion, but where's your evidence?

If X is the the price of R&D and Y is the price of copying it, we should allow patents on products with a high X:Y ratio.
Sure, let's go with that - the price of copying software is negligible, while the price of designing it is comparatively huge. In fact, the copying price is so small - a click and drag, in one scenario - that the ratio approaches or exceeds that of pharmaceuticals, where at least you have to make a physical product. So, software should be patentable, and expensive machines may not be patentable, depending on how closely the cost to build them approaches or exceeds the design cost.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-14 10:28 · Score: 1

Not exactly... I'm asserting the claim that if no one has done something yet and it's commercially valuable to do so, then it's likely not obvious. Evidence of that is the fact that if it was obvious, someone would have taken the free money. Because no one has, that implies no one thought of it. You're disputing this by saying "no, it's plainly obvious." Well, that's a fine conclusion, but where's your evidence?
I think you are confusing the idea of an invention being obvious and the idea of the popularity of an invention being obvious.
I am not saying that it is obvious whether any idea will be popular.
What I am saying is that patents should be granted to incentivize inventors to incur the costs of invention when they would not have otherwise.

Sure, let's go with that - the price of copying software is negligible, while the price of designing it is comparatively huge. In fact, the copying price is so small - a click and drag, in one scenario - that the ratio approaches or exceeds that of pharmaceuticals, where at least you have to make a physical product. So, software should be patentable, and expensive machines may not be patentable, depending on how closely the cost to build them approaches or exceeds the design cost.
The price of copying software verbatim is negligable, which is partly is why selling pirated software is illegal (i.e. copyright infringement). Why would someone go to the trouble of designing software, if someone else can just copy it for no cost and sell it at > $0 and profit.
But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about copying the design of a piece of software, and incorporating it into your own software in order to sell. The cost of this is not negligible at all. In fact it is probably pretty close to the actual cost of designing it in the first place in many cases.
Go ask someone to recreate IOS or android or windows UI for use in your own product to sell. This cost will not be negligable. Nor can you just drag and drop some files to have that UI magically appear in your own application.
All of these UIs have copied the best aspects (from their point of view) of the others, which is why there is a lot of co-evolution happening among UI design. It is not unprofitable to come up with new UI ideas even with the possibility of being copied, because of the relatively low ratio of R&D costs to the cost of copying.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 11:04 · Score: 1

I think you are confusing the idea of an invention being obvious and the idea of the popularity of an invention being obvious.
I am not saying that it is obvious whether any idea will be popular.
I'm pointing to the idea of popularity of an invention being nonobvious as an indicator that the idea was also nonobvious. And as of yet, you have pointed to no indicators as to whether something is obvious.

We are talking about copying the design of a piece of software, and incorporating it into your own software in order to sell. The cost of this is not negligible at all. In fact it is probably pretty close to the actual cost of designing it in the first place in many cases.
Tell that to Zynga, or any of the indie designers they've ripped off.

Go ask someone to recreate IOS or android or windows UI for use in your own product to sell. This cost will not be negligable. Nor can you just drag and drop some files to have that UI magically appear in your own application.
On the contrary, it's pretty easy.

All of these UIs have copied the best aspects (from their point of view) of the others, which is why there is a lot of co-evolution happening among UI design.
But they also come up with new aspects, which is why the UIs are evolving. Those new aspects that others copy, because they believe they're the best aspects, must not have been obvious, or they would already have been incorporated - since, as you say, they're acknowledged as the "best".
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-14 11:30 · Score: 1

I'm pointing to the idea of popularity of an invention being nonobvious as an indicator that the idea was also nonobvious.
I don't see why the burden of proof is not on you for this claim.

And as of yet, you have pointed to no indicators as to whether something is obvious.
The indicator I am using is the metric that the invention in question could have been invented even if the patent had not been granted. We can never know this in the absolute sense that we can't change the past and see how it affects the future, but I think reasonable people can agree that a blue and gold polka dot smartphone could be invented even without a patent (i.e. the R&D costs of figuring out how to do it are negligible compared to a phone of any other color)

Tell that to Zynga, or any of the indie designers they've ripped off.
If this were not true, then no one would ever design any games or software seeing as how unprofitable it would be.

On the contrary, it's pretty easy. [youtube.com]

Writing an application that mimics some very small subsection of a much larger UI is not very hard. If this was all there was to Apple's UI, then they *really* don't deserve a patent. This software is an "easy copy" of Apple's UI like how a picture of a Ferrari is an "easy copy" of a real Ferrari. Is it easy to copy a Ferrari? Maybe yes, maybe no, but a picture of a Ferrari is not proof that it is easy (unless you have a very low standard for what counts as a Ferrari).

But they also come up with new aspects, which is why the UIs are evolving. Those new aspects that others copy, because they believe they're the best aspects, must not have been obvious, or they would already have been incorporated - since, as you say, they're acknowledged as the "best".
By this definition of obvious, *nothing* would ever be obvious because for anything, there was a point in time at which it didn't exist.
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 11:49 · Score: 1

I'm pointing to the idea of popularity of an invention being nonobvious as an indicator that the idea was also nonobvious.
I don't see why the burden of proof is not on you for this claim.
First, because of the way the patent act is written - it says that if a patent application can't be shown to be obvious, then it will be issued. That makes sense logically, because proving that something is nonobvious after having disclosed it is going to be nigh-difficult if not impossible. What are you going to do, wipe everyone's memory and then quiz them?
Second, even disregarding that, I've already met the burden of proof - I provided evidence in the form of "you admitted this is valuable" and "this didn't exist". Together, that indicates it was probably not obvious, or someone would have done it. It's your turn to rebut it, with evidence, not just saying "it's clearly obvious".

And as of yet, you have pointed to no indicators as to whether something is obvious.
The indicator I am using is the metric that the invention in question could have been invented even if the patent had not been granted. We can never know this in the absolute sense that we can't change the past and see how it affects the future, but I think reasonable people can agree that a blue and gold polka dot smartphone could be invented even without a patent
Of course the invention in question could have been invented - it was invented, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. Your indicator is essentially "this was invented, therefore it could have been invented, and since it could have been invented, no one had to invent it because it was obvious". That circular logic applies to everything from the space shuttle to cancer vaccines.

(i.e. the R&D costs of figuring out how to do it are negligible compared to a phone of any other color)
The implementation costs are negligible... the R&D costs - figuring out that it is an improvement, doing user testing, etc., are quite high compared to the implementation costs... and, I believe, that ratio was your metric indicating it should be patentable.

Tell that to Zynga, or any of the indie designers they've ripped off.
If this were not true, then no one would ever design any games or software seeing as how unprofitable it would be.
Well, there's a lot of shovelware out there, and not much in the way of new designs, you'll notice. It's starting to become like Atari in the 80s.

On the contrary, it's pretty easy. [youtube.com]
Writing an application that mimics some very small subsection of a much larger UI is not very hard. If this was all there was to Apple's UI, then they *really* don't deserve a patent. This software is an "easy copy" of Apple's UI like how a picture of a Ferrari is an "easy copy" of a real Ferrari. Is it easy to copy a Ferrari? Maybe yes, maybe no, but a picture of a Ferrari is not proof that it is easy (unless you have a very low standard for what counts as a Ferrari).
However, once you can buy a Ferrari and take it apart, it's pretty easy to copy with a machine shop and some skilled workers. And since we're not talking about the engine, but the UI, it's even easier to make a body case of a Ferrari and build a fiberglass look-alike. I'd give a Hollywood special effects shop a week, tops.
Similarly, I'd give a team of Russian hackers a week or two to reverse engineer any UI you build, even if it took you months and months of trial and error and alternate designs to come up with the best one.

But they also come up with new aspects, which is why the UIs are evolving. Those new aspects that others copy, because they believe they're the best aspects, must not have been obvious, or they would already have been inco
Re:posting the abstract is click bait. by TsuruchiBrian · 2015-01-14 12:34 · Score: 1

First, because of the way the patent act is written - it says that if a patent application can't be shown to be obvious, then it will be issued. That makes sense logically, because proving that something is nonobvious after having disclosed it is going to be nigh-difficult if not impossible. What are you going to do, wipe everyone's memory and then quiz them?
I am making a normative claim (i.e. "this is how we should do it") rather than a descriptive claim (i.e. "this is how we do it now").
I am saying that a world where things are assumed to be obvious until proven non-obvious is a better world than one where things are assumed to be obvious until proven non-obvious. You so proving non-obviousness is next to impossible (I disagree), but just out of curiosity, how might one prove obviousness in your view? It seems to me to be at least equally difficult.

Second, even disregarding that, I've already met the burden of proof - I provided evidence in the form of "you admitted this is valuable" and "this didn't exist". Together, that indicates it was probably not obvious, or someone would have done it. It's your turn to rebut it, with evidence, not just saying "it's clearly obvious".
I am saying that I don't find this evidence convincing. What if an invention was both obvious and non-valuable, and the reason it was never invented was because it was non-valuable. Then all of a sudden this invention becomes valuable and it is quickly invented. Does it really make sense to assume it is non-obvious simply because it was just invented?
At a deeper level I have a fundamental problem with your logic. You say that if something were obvious it would have already been invented by someone. How can something *not* be "already invented by someone"? Whether something was invented by someone, going to be invented by someone, or never going to be invented, it could never be considered obvious because it didn't exist before it was invented.

However, once you can buy a Ferrari and take it apart, it's pretty easy to copy with a machine shop and some skilled workers. And since we're not talking about the engine, but the UI, it's even easier to make a body case of a Ferrari and build a fiberglass look-alike. I'd give a Hollywood special effects shop a week, tops.
Right and this would be a pretty thin copy. It would certainly not be a functional copy of a Ferrari, because copying Ferrari's is hard. If you actually did a functional copy it would probably be even more expensive than what a real one costs because you don't have all the machines that make it efficient for Ferrari to mass produce them.

Similarly, I'd give a team of Russian hackers a week or two to reverse engineer any UI you build, even if it took you months and months of trial and error and alternate designs to come up with the best one.
Firstly I don't know why you think Russian hackers (as opposed to software engineers trained in UI design) would be good at creating a functional copy of a UI design. Secondly, there is more to a UI than simply what you can see, and that's what makes it hard to copy cheaply. It is precisely because a team of Russian hackers *can't* copy your UI design in a couple weeks, that keeps Apple willing to spend money on their UI.
Maybe Google can copy your UI, but it is not that much harder for them to simply make their own, and they probably will if they think they can do it better.
Yeah, you can cheaply hack together some shit that looks nice until it sucks when you actually try to use it. Why bother? Who is in the market for cheap shitty software that looks nice at first glance?

You're confusing "new" and "nonobvious" - they're actually two different statutes. If something has never been done before, then it's new, by definition. However, if all of the pieces of it had been done separately and they could be readily combined, then it's obv

Not very broad by cliffjumper222 · 2015-01-13 11:11 · Score: 4, Informative

This patent covers how to unlock a computer by raising your hand vertically about 20 cm. It's limited to that, so it's hardly "broad".

Quick Analysis of the independent claims (the broadest ones):

Claim 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed; and transitioning the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture.

Summary: Covers raising your hand to unlock a computer.

Claims 2,3,4 & 5 add additional specifics around this.

Claim 6. An apparatus, comprising: a sensing device; and a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface and configured to receive, from the sensing device, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of the sensing device, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed, and to transition the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture.

Summary: Same as #1, but it's for an apparatus. It's still to unlock a computer.

Claims 7,8,9,10 just add detail to Claim 6.

Claim 11: A computer software product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a computer executing a non-tactile user interface, cause the computer to receive, from a sensing device, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of the sensing device, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed, and to transition the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture.

Summary: This makes the invention a machine rather just an algorithm, because that like makes it patentable.

Claim 12: A method, comprising: receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space; determining whether the gesture of the hand included a rising of the hand by at least 20 centimeters; and transitioning the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture, wherein the transitioning of the user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state is performed only if the upward gesture included a rise of the hand by at least 20 centimeters.

Summary: The cherry on top claim that just sums up all the others into one that is actually what the invention most likely does in real life.

Re:Not very broad by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 12:46 · Score: 1

All the same, it's hardly an invention. Just an obvious application of existing ideas and technology.
Re:Not very broad by Greyfox · 2015-01-13 17:58 · Score: 1

Bah! I want to unlock my device by doing a sexy dance for it. Stupid Apple...

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Not very broad by t0rkm3 · 2015-01-14 03:10 · Score: 1

Just so you know... ppl have been doing this for a while using webcams or motion sensors or mice...
The sensing device, which is not part of the patent provides the input, essentially the patent boils down to "Move the mouse in an axis 20cm and the computer will unlock."
There are a lot of patents on the software and hardware in the sensing device that determine object, distance, vector, size, and shape. Those patents are super spiffy awesome sauce. The software to interface with said sensing device should be copyrighted if the owner wishes that protection but the action of unlocking a computer with a sensor input, should not be patentable... because it is fracking obvious. We can power on/off, run scripts, do whatever we like in response to any number of sensors right now.
Re:Not very broad by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 04:21 · Score: 1

Just so you know... ppl have been doing this for a while using webcams or motion sensors or mice...
The sensing device, which is not part of the patent provides the input, essentially the patent boils down to "Move the mouse in an axis 20cm and the computer will unlock."
Mice are certainly sensing devices, but they don't receive "a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device" as recited by the patent claim.
By "doing this for a while", you may mean "doing something vaguely similar, but lacking the steps explicitly recited in the patent claim", which is why those don't invalidate the claim.

The software to interface with said sensing device should be copyrighted if the owner wishes that protection but the action of unlocking a computer with a sensor input, should not be patentable... because it is fracking obvious.
Sure, it is, because you just read a Slashdot story telling you the idea. If I tell you a joke, then turn around and tell you the setup again, the punchline is "obvious" because you just heard it. The question is not whether something is obvious after it has been explained to you, but whether it's obvious before. Or specifically, whether the invention was obvious at the time of filing the patent application, and not after you've read all about it.
Re:Not very broad by t0rkm3 · 2015-01-14 05:37 · Score: 2

Hopefully, I'm not falling for the bait.
I don't understand how you think this rates a patent.
Using well-known protocols and scripts already out there in the world I rigged my son's laptop to wake when he walks into the room. This constitutes a gesture in 3D space by the loosest criteria. If you read my post, I said that the patent on the sensing device and related firmware is fair, as that is what is determining the discrete actions in 3D space. However, patenting a response to an input which has very broad and very frequently used precedent is dubious at best.
As soon as the kinect came out dozens of people starting working on how to make the gesture capability do everything (even the impractical) via gesture. So the idea is neither obscure nor non-obvious. The code implementation will be unique and thus protected via copyright, and the gestures may be enforceable via trademark or copyright. This patent ranks right up there with "swipe-to-unlock" which again mimics a mouse movement in a different medium, making it stupidly obvious.
IF they did something super spiffy like authenticating the user via Fitbit, audible pacing of footsteps, and a gesture then the patent still would not be on the concept, it would be on the aggregation of the data in such a manner that it constitutes and unique representation of the user. Definitely patentable, but probably more profitable to keep under lock and key copyrighted. The only reason that Apple wants this patent is to "rent-seek" and inhibit competition on an obvious and ubiquitous feature while they can get away with it in court.
For reference:
http://www.sensiblevision.com/...
http://openkinect.org/wiki/Pro...
http://youtu.be/Krcguf4HO8Q MIT demo of gesture navigation in 3D space, sensors are different, concept... the same.
http://youtu.be/UtozGpoDhwk Same sort of interaction via camera.
Re:Not very broad by Theaetetus · 2015-01-14 06:06 · Score: 1

Hopefully, I'm not falling for the bait.
I don't understand how you think this rates a patent.
Actually, I'm trying to guide you towards addressing the patent claims, rather than some vague gist of the idea... The claims are the only part of the patent that matters, not the title, not the abstract, etc. In order to call the claims obvious, you have to show that all of the elements in the claims existed in the prior art and could be reasonably combined by someone of skill in the art. Saying "mice exist and can do gestures" is a useful first step, but the claims recite a sensor that receives "a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device" and I'm sure you'll readily agree that a mouse doesn't do that.

Using well-known protocols and scripts already out there in the world I rigged my son's laptop to wake when he walks into the room.
Did you do that before 2011?

This constitutes a gesture in 3D space by the loosest criteria. If you read my post, I said that the patent on the sensing device and related firmware is fair, as that is what is determining the discrete actions in 3D space.
Probably not after the Microsoft Kinect, actually.

However, patenting a response to an input which has very broad and very frequently used precedent is dubious at best.
Except that you haven't proven it... You've said mice exist, sure, but I'm sure you'll also admit that a mouse doesn't actually read on this. You've said there are well-known protocols and scripts and that it's very frequently used... But just saying "prior art exists" doesn't mean anything unless you can actually name that prior art: which protocols? Which scripts?

As soon as the kinect came out dozens of people starting working on how to make the gesture capability do everything (even the impractical) via gesture. So the idea is neither obscure nor non-obvious.
But was it at the time? The Kinect was released in Nov. 2010. This patent is from early 2011. It may be obvious now, but you can only prove that by showing prior art that existed at the time.

The code implementation will be unique and thus protected via copyright,
Copyright isn't useful for protecting code. See, e.g. Dream Heights/Tiny Tower, Farmville/Farm Town, Candy Crush Saga/dozens of similar games, MS Office/Open Office, etc., etc. It's great when people want that specific thing, like the latest Avengers movie rather than a Bollywood superhero movie, or Harry Potter rather than "Larry Kotter, Boy Wizard", but it's useless when the software is fungible.

... and the gestures may be enforceable via trademark or copyright.
Not sure if serious. You can't get a trademark or copyright on a gesture.

This patent ranks right up there with "swipe-to-unlock" which again mimics a mouse movement in a different medium, making it stupidly obvious.
And yet, no one had anything like it before swipe-to-unlock came out, and lots of people immediately copied it. That indicates it wasn't stupidly obvious prior to Apple's disclosure of it.

IF they did something super spiffy like authenticating the user via Fitbit, audible pacing of footsteps, and a gesture then the patent still would not be on the concept, it would be on the aggregation of the data in such a manner that it constitutes and unique representation of the user. Definitely patentable, but probably more profitable to keep under lock and key copyrighted.
As noted above, if you write your own code to do that, you don't violate copyright. Copyright is useless for 90% of software. It only works in cases where there are proprietary formats of data, so you need to get the specif
Re:Not very broad by macs4all · 2015-01-14 08:28 · Score: 1

IF they did something super spiffy like authenticating the user via Fitbit, audible pacing of footsteps, and a gesture then the patent still would not be on the concept, it would be on the aggregation of the data in such a manner that it constitutes and unique representation of the user. Definitely patentable
If fictional literary works can be construed as "prior art", then no, it isn't.

In the sci-fi novel "When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One" (but don't read the nasty politically-corrected 2.0 version!) by David Gerrold, Harlie (an intelligent computer) recognized who was communicating with him (via teletype) by measuring the human's inter-key typing cadence. This is a hop, skip and a step away from your "walking cadence" identification postulated above.

But I don't know if fictional literature can be construed as "prior art".
Re:Not very broad by t0rkm3 · 2015-01-14 15:03 · Score: 1

I knew I should have deleted that bit as someone would pedant on it. (There's a freebie for the grammar nazis.)
It was more of an aside wondering how Apple thought this was going to fly after this idea had been beaten to death... for years. MIT has prior art, and the basic feature has been reproducible in linux since 2009.
Re:Not very broad by t0rkm3 · 2015-01-14 15:06 · Score: 1

Patenting a gesture? Really?
And yes, I could unlock my linux laptop by sitting in front of it, according some the script detritus since 2009... Around the same time as the guy who wrote the motion utility was making life a lot easier.
So, arbitrary gesture (who gives an eff what the gesture is) unlocks machine... POOF! Magic. Or not.
Re:Not very broad by t0rkm3 · 2015-01-14 15:49 · Score: 1

Mouse=Input Device=Camera
InputDevice provides data (i2c sensor, temperature sensor, mouse, camera, mic, voltage meter) computer responds to said data stream. It's kinda what they do.
Hell, if you count the optic sensors as primitive cameras you can extend the analogy.
Like I said before, I have no problems on copyrighting code, or patenting a specific way to determine motion in a specific context... but the arbitrary gesture parts are where things get hinky, starting at Claim 11.
The guy who wrote motion was doing the same thing... he was just making it easier for other folks.
http://www.lavrsen.dk/foswiki/...
I didn't have time to read the whole page, but I know for certain that he was operational in 2009 as I was hoping that he would have time to work out the kinks to make things a bit more stable.

Prior Art by Douglas Adams by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 11:13 · Score: 2, Funny

A loud clatter of gunk music flooded through the Heart of Gold cabin as Zaphod searched the sub-etha radio wave bands for news of himself. The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive--you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope. It saved a lot of muscular expenditure, of course, but meant that you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same program.
Zaphod waved a hand and the channel switched again.

Claims are in the featured article by tepples · 2015-01-13 11:14 · Score: 2

One of the featured articles is the patent on USPTO.gov. Open it and search for "We claim:". Here's the key independent claim:

1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed; and transitioning the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture.

In other words, move your hand upward in front of a camera to "slide to unlock". Dependent claims 2-5, which are used if prior art anticipating this claim is later discovered, include specific means of visual feedback as well as specifying the unlock gesture as maintaining 4 cm/s over a distance of 20 cm. Claims 6-10 are for a machine that recognizes this gesture, and claims 11-12 are for recognizing it in software on a general-purpose computer.

Re:Claims are in the featured article by fibonacci8 · 2015-01-13 11:28 · Score: 1

So a conductor "sliding" to a start an orchestra. But on a computer / the interwebs...

--
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Re:Claims are in the featured article by whoever57 · 2015-01-13 11:49 · Score: 1

So a conductor "sliding" to a start an orchestra. But on a computer / the interwebs...

And if the orchestra includes a Theremin?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

MIT Put That There (36 years ago) by bennet42 · 2015-01-13 11:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Chris Schmandt did this a while back at MIT. Gestures plus voice recognition. Guess you can get a patent if leave out the voice recognition part. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... ( original demo )

General direction vs. specific direction by tepples · 2015-01-13 11:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Douglas Adams wrote:

now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope

Which means Apple improved on this by requiring the user to first move his hand in a specific direction (up eight inches) to get the radio's attention before signing to it.

Re:General direction vs. specific direction by xaotikdesigns · 2015-01-13 11:58 · Score: 5, Funny

They say 8 inches, but they probably only mean 5 and a half...

--
XDInd
Re:General direction vs. specific direction by spacepimp · 2015-01-14 02:35 · Score: 1

How exactly is the first gesture to "get the cameras attention" an improvement as you state? Are you saying that the previous implementations didn't have gestures to initiate an action/response?
Re:General direction vs. specific direction by tepples · 2015-01-14 03:47 · Score: 1

you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same program.
Apple improved on this by requiring the user to first [make a gesture] to get the radio's attention
Are you saying that the previous implementations didn't have gestures to initiate an action/response?
Apparently, Mr. Adams was saying that the fictional radios confused gestures directed at the radio with gestures not directed at the radio.

inherited the patent by fustakrakich · 2015-01-13 11:19 · Score: 1

So very wrong...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:inherited the patent by Virtucon · 2015-01-13 12:06 · Score: 1

Why? Patents are a tangible asset. Specifically Apple didn't inherit the patent, they acquired a company that was in the process of obtaining a patent.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Im showing apple another common gesture by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 11:29 · Score: 1

Not hard to guess what. Imagine if any of us could patent it!

Also imagine if anyone had a patent of any movement by our hands (fingers), arms or any other body part to interact with devices man made or not.

Would we be today pressing keys on a board or mouse buttons? With luck probably flipping switches and rotating dials or inserting punctured cards for someone had the common sense such should never be filed for a patent much less granted one.

Power Glove by uolamer · 2015-01-13 11:31 · Score: 1

I remember trying the power glove out for Nintendo.. It was terrible. But I figured out in Pinball Quest if I flipped off the TV the right flipper be triggered and if I did the up yours gesture it triggered the left flipper.

--
s/©//g

Apple will control my gestures by Blaskowicz · 2015-01-13 11:42 · Score: 2

supposedly, a predefined set of gestures will be allowed and you will be able to be more by $0.99 a piece. Controversial gestures will be banned from the gesture store unless you jailbreak yourself, but then you may be terminated.

First patent infringement lawsuit...... by dbreeze · 2015-01-13 11:56 · Score: 1

http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

Poor Ubi....... and it was soooo cute.......

--
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11

Re:patent the bird by ArcadeMan · 2015-01-13 12:11 · Score: 1

You cannot patent the bird, because the bird is the word.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Wait, how is this possible? by xaotikdesigns · 2015-01-13 12:11 · Score: 1

Are they patenting a specific sensor apparatus here, or is it just raising your hand? I could understand if it's a specific type of sensor, but patenting something like raising your hand is ridiculous. Especially when we had non tactile motion controls on mainstream things like the PS2 as far back as 2003. If this is just a gesture, how in the hell does that warrant a patent?

--
XDInd

Re:Wait, how is this possible? by farble1670 · 2015-01-13 12:33 · Score: 1

nope, it's just raising your hand :( another user posted a good summary of the patent claims above.

The patent claims you really want to see ... by BarbaraHudson · 2015-01-13 13:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Claim 1: "A method, including receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture including a first motion with a closed fist in a first direction along a selected axis in space, followed by a second motion of raising the middle finger in the same direction".

Claim 2 "As per claim one, where the raising of the middle finger is replaced by raising the the pinky and index fingers in the same direction".

Claim 3: "As per claim 1, except that the first motion of the hand is raised in a closed fist, with the thumb pointing up, then a second motion in a different axis where the thumb ends up pointing down."

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

congrats by ILongForDarkness · 2015-01-13 13:10 · Score: 1

You've invented the wave/nod.

Re:congrats by exomondo · 2015-01-13 13:35 · Score: 2

You've invented the wave/nod.
The patent fad of "on a computer" has passed, now it's taking pre-existing things and doing them "at a computer", that's real innovation!

Re:Stop posting abstacts by exomondo · 2015-01-13 13:20 · Score: 1

These patents are not really an implementation - which is what a patent is supposed to cover - this is just an idea for doing something, not the implementation of doing that thing. The patent is supposed to cover the way in which Apple implements this idea, not the idea itself.

Now if Apple would fix the HID bugs by RogueWarrior65 · 2015-01-13 13:46 · Score: 1

Somebody broke joystick support in Yosemite. Of course, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense given how little Apple cares about joysticks in general.

First to file is for interference, not novelty by tepples · 2015-01-13 14:50 · Score: 1

The "first inventor to file" rule introduced by the America Invents Act of 2011, following a similar change by Canada in 1989, covers only interference between two patent applications. It does not weaken the novelty requirement, which means existing works that teach the same invention still invalidate the patent, even if these works are not patents.

Nope, has to be vertical up and down- jacking off by raymorris · 2015-01-13 15:30 · Score: 1

Their patent covers unlocking the device by moving the and up at least 20cm (7.5 inches), then back down again. Moving your hand up and down a few inches while sitting in front of your computer - something many Slashdot readers have a lot of practice doing.

Obligatory Chocolate Factory quote by lindseyp · 2015-01-13 19:30 · Score: 1

"I am now telling the computer exactly what it can do with a lifetime supply of chocolate"

--
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si

I've done this YEARS ago by Mac+Degger · 2015-01-13 22:24 · Score: 2

Come on. I have used this exact same method on a Windows Mobile 5 device (HTC Touch HD) waaaay back when, using the accelerometer and gravity to determine how my screen was moving and moving a virtual object in virtual space and showing that on my phone's screen.

Not only that, but it's a rather OBVIOUS solution to a problem. Whatever happened to the "non-obvious" requirement?

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?

So, patents by stealth_finger · 2015-01-14 01:52 · Score: 1

Does this cover the general idea of interface control with gestures or a specific way of pulling that off?

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u

Re:So, patents by perlface · 2015-01-14 05:36 · Score: 1

Just one way and one specific gesture for a specific purpose. See claims discussion posted above.

Re:How did microsoft let apple buy Primesense? by opentunings · 2015-01-14 02:22 · Score: 1

Agreed. If nothing else, you'd think that the Microsoft lawyers would've asked "is this thing patented, and if so who holds the patent?" when they started using third party software.

Re:As far as I can tell... by DickBreath · 2015-01-14 02:28 · Score: 1

The Apple Watch has accelerometers which make it a far more effective way to detect masturbation, and then track and plot graphs of masturbation efficiency. Social network features can allow the sharing and aggregation of these vital statistics. Apple's patents for this particular use of technology won't affect Android users, who have no need to detect masturbation.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

Prior art! by NetAlien · 2015-01-14 03:25 · Score: 1

The original "non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface" was implemented as pairs of eyeballs, created by God and in public domain since at least day 6.

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Awarded Gesture-Control Patent

71 of 105 comments (clear)