Court Sides with Apple: Motorola's Slide-to-Unlock Copycat in Trouble?

[Mopetar]

Da fuck!? Waits for someone to patent controlling the volume of a device by moving a slider back and forth along a predefined path....

Probably wouldn't work out too well. Of course you could argue that you're doing it in software so it's different.

Oh wait, that's been done for ages now. Okay, let's just go one step further and pretend that doing it with touch gestures is novel enough for it to work.

Unless the first person to implement it filed for a patent several years ago, it'd be far too late to get one at this point. Perhaps it would be entirely possible to get a patent on something like this, but the first people to implement it didn't think it would be worth their time or that it wouldn't hold up in court. Who knows.

 

[akugami]

slide to unlock existed on a phone prior to the iphone, apple didnt invent it, all they did was put a graphic on it and make it more popular

I think you have to see the details of Apple's patent in this case. Their "slide to unlock" is a very very specific form of "slide to unlock" and this is why the Xoom tablet does not infringe while most current Android phones do. Not that I necessarily agree that Apple should have been granted such a patent in the first place due to the prior art of there being a "slide to unlock" already.

 

[Phynaz]

Ars coverage.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/itc-hands-apple-another-patent-win-against-htc.ars


I'm merging this with another thread as part of a new policy to reduce the number of legal threads as response to the ~80% of people who voted in the poll that there are too many legal threads. Sorry, Phynaz.

Moderator PM

 

[3chordcharlie]

which ones are obvious and have been done on previous devices?

everyone always screams obvious a few years after someone makes something really cool for the first time

Slide to unlock is both obvious, and pre-existing. In fact almost everything in human history - including other electronic devices - which could be locked had a slide to unlock feature. The level of specificity needed to make Apple's implementation unique is so high, that changing the slider between square and round should be enough to get around it. If it isn't a direct per-pixel ripoff, I just can't see how it would be infringing any original work.

I don't claim that everything is obvious by any stretch:

The magnified-view for moving your cursor precisely is absolutely brilliant. I honestly don't know if it's an Apple invention, or Apple-only, or whatever. I do know that my BB doesn't have or need it (due to having a trackpad); but if it were touch-only, I sure would wish it worked like that. It makes a lot of sense once you see it, but it's definitely not 'obvious'. A feature like that, to me, is worthy of patent protection.

But I think the standard should be high:

Pinch-to-zoom may have been much harder to implement, and some of the heuristics may be patent-able, but the concept is obvious: no patent needed.

 

[Anubis]

which phone? apple first submitted this back in late 2005

the neonode n1, released in 2004

 

[alent1234]

Did it have a capacitive touch screen?

 

[Medu]

which ones are obvious and have been done on previous devices?

everyone always screams obvious a few years after someone makes something really cool for the first time

Take Apple's patent on clicking on a phone number- it's obvious. On non mobile OS's it didn't make sense to store a phone number- although one could argue that it would be nice be able to 'store' a number on your desktop browser and sync it with your phone or call that number on your phone automatically- I assume it's doable on a iPad as it's obvious. This has been done for years with email address and web link as it made sense, Apple just expanded that idea to include what made sense on a mobile OS.

For example- let me 'patent' something from the future. Someone invents a time machine(remember Apple didn't invent the phone, or even mobile phone!). While browsing on a future OS one should be able to click on an event from the past and get the option to travel to that time and place.

With the current system I would probably get that patent even though I spent about 4s thinking of something daft that I could patent.

 

[Selenium_Glow]

Take Apple's patent on clicking on a phone number- it's obvious. On non mobile OS's it didn't make sense to store a phone number- although one could argue that it would be nice be able to 'store' a number on your desktop browser and sync it with your phone or call that number on your phone automatically- I assume it's doable on a iPad as it's obvious. This has been done for years with email address and web link as it made sense, Apple just expanded that idea to include what made sense on a mobile OS.

For example- let me 'patent' something from the future. Someone invents a time machine(remember Apple didn't invent the phone, or even mobile phone!). While browsing on a future OS one should be able to click on an event from the past and get the option to travel to that time and place.

With the current system I would probably get that patent even though I spent about 4s thinking of something daft that I could patent.

Don't patents come with a validity period... like 20 years from the date of filing? If such is the case, then something from the future needs to be only some idea that can be possible within 20 years...

Which again reminds me, don't we need to show a working prototype or something to file a patent?

Sorry for so many questions, but somehow, the patent systems is sounding a lot different that what I have in mind... however, on a side-note, your idea does sound like what people have been doing with web domain names for the past 20 or so years. Buy a domain name that can become popular... and sell it off to the highest or the most desperate bidder.

 

[senseamp]

Fine testament to our patent system that the two top tech companies are spending huge efforts on "inventing" multiple ways to unlock a phone.

 

[Jodell88]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24046

12. The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the user interface is characterised in, that an active application, function, service or setting is advanced one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from left to right, and that the active application, function, service or setting is closed or backed one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from right to left.

I don't know anything really about patents, but is this enough for Apple's patent to be invalid?

Merging this with the main thread about the unlock patent.
Moderator PM

 

[bearxor]

Just reading it, it sounds like methods of navigation to me, not "unlocking". A differently worded patent that specified a method of unlocking a device for use seems like it could easily get around this.

It would sound like webOS violates this more than Apple with the touch sensitive area for moving forward or back in an application.

 

[Aikouka]

I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw that headline on DailyTech. It's not like the analysis is coming from someone who's actually versed in patent law.

I noted how it said "an active application, function, service or setting is advanced one step", which I guess the most you could do is use a bit of a far-reaching argument to state that the next state/step in a lock/unlock scenario is to go to an unlocked state, and the lock mechanism is a service. Therefore, swiping from left to right is advancing the lock/unlock service one step.

Honestly, it's a bit of a reach and I think it's using the terms in the patent a bit too generically. It feels like this would apply more to something like a web browser where using gestures on a touch pad would do things like switch tabs, etc.

 

[bearxor]

Yeah, if I was writing for Dailytech, I would have at least tried to make several phone calls to patent attorneys. If I couldn't get comment, I'd present it as a question for discussion and not reached a conclusion.

Very sloppy "reporting" but its not really reporting is it?

 

[Bateluer]

Only Apple invents things, guys. Nobody else invented or patented anything before Apple, so any claim that Apple's patents are invalid is nonsense, obviously. Prior art and demonstrated use be damned!

 

[MrX8503]

Only Apple invents things, guys. Nobody else invented or patented anything before Apple, so any claim that Apple's patents are invalid is nonsense, obviously. Prior art and demonstrated use be damned!

I think android fans claim Apple invents things more than Apple does itself. Something is always an evolution of something else and whatever that evolution is is something Apple is trying to protect.

GM didn't invent the wheel or the combustible engine, but there are certain aspects or technologies in a car they would like to protect too.

The Neonode has the patent for the slide gesture, which is similar to the slide unlock. I'm not sure if it's enough to invalidate Apple's patents. I guess it's up to the court system to determine that and AFAIK, Moto didn't present this information to the judge.

 

[senseamp]

This what Jobs meant by great artists steal. You don't just copy someone else's invention, you make it your property and stop others from using it.

 

[Brian Stirling]

This what Jobs meant by great artists steal. You don't just copy someone else's invention, you make it your property and stop others from using it.

Yep, Jobs got a peak into Zerox PARC and drove forward to the MAC. What Jobs didn't expect was the Gates got a peak as well and gleaned the same lesson. Decades later Jobs didn't want another company to be allowed to do what M$ did back then and went flat patent happy.

Apples strategy is to prevent the competition from being allowed to sell smartphones or tablets. To that end they have developed a plan to use the patent system to box the competition out AND in...

Sooner or later the DOJ will put the smack down on them but while they are on a roll and millions masterbate to every product release by them they will get away with this nonsense. Just remember, using your iPhone may make you go blind!


Brian

 

[Phynaz]

Yep, Jobs got a peak into Zerox PARC and drove forward to the MAC.
Brian

You missed the part where Apple licensed Xerox's patents.

 

[J-Money]

You missed the part where Apple licensed Xerox's patents.

Apple haters like him tend to miss a lot of things, unless they can use it to make Apple look bad.

 

[alent1234]

Only Apple invents things, guys. Nobody else invented or patented anything before Apple, so any claim that Apple's patents are invalid is nonsense, obviously. Prior art and demonstrated use be damned!

there is no prior art for capacitive touch screens. slide to unlock on older screens with a stylus is not the same

 

[Phynaz]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57382524-17/microsoft-sues-motorola-mobility-claims-patent-abuse/

 

[bearxor]

Why would Microsoft have to pay for every laptop sold? Shouldn't they just be charged for every license sold?

 

[alent1234]

the h.264 software is in windows media player so MS pays

 

[Brian Stirling]

You missed the part where Apple licensed Xerox's patents.

Not the point...

Apple saw what SOMEONE ELSE did and went with it. Apple went flat nuts when another someone else did the same thing. The lesson Apple learned back then and are applying now is -- patent first and ask questions later. It doesn't matter to Apple that others have gotten there first (Swipe to unlock) as they have $Billions to shop for favorable legal venues to play there game.

Will Apple license ANY of there patents?

Apple doesn't want others to be allowed into the sandbox they claim they invented and will spend $Billions on lawyers to make sure that they alone are left to play.

They will fail at that goal but it will cost ALL OF US lots of money -- them lawyers don't work cheap ya know, and every penny they get we pay for, one way or another...


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

Apple haters like him tend to miss a lot of things, unless they can use it to make Apple look bad.

I've owned two iPhones (iP3G, iP4) and two Android phones (HTV EVO 4G, Samsung Galaxy Nexus LTE) -- how about you? It's easy to throw out the "Apple hater" or "Android hater" and all too often those that do chose to ignore the points made if it conflicts with there fantasy...

When I comment on the problems with Android I get a similar, lame, flame from the other side of the aisle...


Brian