Micron Lands Broad "Slide To Unlock" Patent 211
Zordak writes "Micron has recently landed U.S. Patent 8,352,745, which claims priority back to a February 2000 application---well before Apple's 2004 slide-to-unlock application. While claim construction is a highly technical art, the claims here are (for once) almost as broad as they sound, and may cover the bulk of touch screen smart phones on the market today. Dennis Crouch's Patently-O has a discussion."
The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:5, Informative)
The USPTO is holding roundtables with software developers to ask for suggestions. If anyone can add to what's there already, I've some suggestions on this wiki:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Suggestions_for_the_USPTO_in_2013 [swpat.org]
(But remember, the patent office has only a small role in patent policy. Most substantial changes will have to come from Congress or the Supreme Court.)
Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a simple suggestion.
MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
This should be pretty simple, but they would never accept that.
Slashdot admins; The caps are supposed to be yelling, that is why I used them. Sometimes yelling is needed.
Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:5, Insightful)
The very first test should be - ask a bunch of software guys - "If you had to do X in software, how would you do it?"
If ANY of them gets even close the patent should be thrown out.
That said, there shouldn't be any software patents. Asking how to improve the process of patenting software is like asking how to improve the process of circumcision. Just because you do it now, and lots of tribal elders say it's a great idea, doesn't mean it's true.
Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:4, Insightful)
Asking how to improve the process of patenting software is like asking how to improve the process of circumcision. Just because you do it now, and lots of tribal elders say it's a great idea, doesn't mean it's true.
I was going to nominate you for some sort of award, but I am puzzled as to exactly how to proceed. Non sequitur of the month? Most inappropriate Off Topic rant of the week?
Were you trying for anything in specific or was this a toss-it-against a Library of Congress to see if it was saluted?
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
Flag down. Bringing logic and reason into an argument about imaginary property. 20 year penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have to be "Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted and before the patent filer has released their own implementation, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious."
Since patents can apparently take 13 years to file.
Re: (Score:2)
That would still kill a lot of patents out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, if between the time it is filed and granted, anyone else either files for or implements the patent, it is presumed insufficiently non-obvious.
Keep in mind that patent applications are made public relatively shortly after they are filed, and usually long before they are granted. I think the standard is 12 or 18 months after filing.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it also takes time to implement a patent even if it is laid out before you. If it can be implemented in a very short time, it probably fails for triviality.
Re: (Score:2)
Cut it all off. The problem will be solved in a single generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, I'm not so sure, especially if the software guy wasn't shown the patent in the first place. In 2000, when Micron first filed for the patent, there were no smart phones and few touchscreen "mobile" devices (like drawing tablets - usually those were tethered like a traditional keyboard or mouse). To draw a squiggly (or even as simple as a straight line) to unlock the touchscreen rather than, say, enter a numeric code or a password would seem rather novel. The touchscreens I used back then all ha
Similar filings should trigger obviousness failure (Score:5, Informative)
First to invent vs. file conflicts could be used to raise the bar on obviousness.
Obviousness is surprisingly difficult to determine because some of the best and most brilliant ideas are also very simple ideas that seem obvious only in retrospect. So the patent office is deliberately reluctant to interpret the obviousness constraint too rigorously.
Recently, the US has switched from awarding priority of similar patents to the first one to be filed instead of the first to be invented. Since there is often a very long delay from filing to patent award, during which filers must not publicly disclose their idea, priority becomes an issue more frequently than one might expect.
It seems obvious to me that instead of struggling with who has priority, the patent office should simply look at two similar patents being filed at about the same time as a failure of the obviousness test because, clearly, two different practitioners of the art came up with similar solutions to a problem. So both patents and any similar future filings should be rejected as obvious.
This doctrine would have disallowed a lot of patents in the past including the light bulb and telephone, which, while revolutionary were being investigated by several inventors who came up with similar solutions and even filed within hours of each other!
Re: (Score:2)
Since there is often a very long delay from filing to patent award, during which filers must not publicly disclose their idea, priority becomes an issue more frequently than one might expect.
Are you proposing that it should be changed to be this way? Currently, that is absolutely not true.
Re: (Score:3)
Right after graduating, the USPTO equivalent here was trying to get people to go work there without much success.
Simply put, it is a boring job. Even worse, it is still a government job (although extremely well paid, it was like double the starting salary of the other well paid job), with all the office politic, policies and general slowness. What they would need is to hire successful professionals, people that have had to actively solve problems, that are continuously learning, ... i.e. the exact same
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
These should by all means patentable, but the physics equations used to prove it does what it does? Those have no reason to be patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
Software is not "just math" in the same way that catapults are not just physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Because none of them are.
Nor would I apply for such a thing of my own volition. It is immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe he has, only to find out it's already been patented. I've run across more than one "how the fuck did they get a patent for that?" moment in my career. "Common business practice X on a computer" sort of shit. It gets downright absurd sometimes.
I regularly come across people that make me wonder how they ever got a driver's license, that does not mean I want to permanently revoke all driver's licenses. I'd just like to send a select group of tardy drivers to get reeducated.
Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it like this, if nvidia comes up with some phenomenal new shader technique in the hardware that blows everything else away, they should be able to patent that hardware technique, chances are if it was easy to come up with ATI would have done it so this patent is worthwhile. ATI can surely do the same thing less efficiently or in software, but the patent gives advantage how it should while not stifling completition because ATI's software that does the same shader technique less efficiently wouldn't land them in court, even a less efficient hardware design (or a more efficient hardware design, which ATI should then patent!). As soon as you take the die apart and find the identical circuit implementation in both chips you have a patent violation.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you take the die apart and find the identical circuit implementation in both chips you have a patent violation.
But (in the case of software) you can't! DMCA forbids reverse engineering so you will never be able to investigate.
Re: (Score:3)
But you will be able to look at the patent which explains how the device works in detail so someone skilled in the art can reproduce it. If it does not, it should not be granted. Part of the problem is that software patents are obscurely worded and deliberately ambiguous to apply to more than what the patent was originally about.
Re: (Score:2)
Just hold software patents to the same standards. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually yes, it does. You can patent the *specific* hardware implementation of a task. Someone else could then do the exact same task with a different implementation and bypass your patent.
Honestly I'd have no problem with software patents if they just followed the same rules as hardware - you patent the implementation, not the effect. Of course the versatility of software means that would render almost all software patents trivially easy to bypass, but I don't see a problem with that. Let's take real world "slide to unlock" functionality - I can think of a half-dozen different deadbolt and related designs offhand, and I bet all of the modern implementations are/were patented, and none of them violated the patents of the others.
Would that mean you can't meaningfully patent your brilliant software idea? Almost certainly, but then ideas are *explicitly* denied patent protection to begin with.
Re:Just hold software patents to the same standard (Score:5, Informative)
Actually yes, it does. You can patent the *specific* hardware implementation of a task. Someone else could then do the exact same task with a different implementation and bypass your patent.
For example, Setuid [wikipedia.org] was patented by Dennis Ritchie in 1972/1979 (applied/granted) based on the hardware implementation, as shown in the patent abstract. [espacenet.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There is already protection for the specific implementation of software... it's called copyright.
"Software patents" are purely about protecting the generic effect, which should be invalid.
Re: (Score:3)
The best example by far is the Mouse Trap. There are literally thousands of patents on various devices to catch a pesky mouse in your house. You can look them all up and develop your OWN physical design that might catch a mouse too.
Software patents are effectively a closed box with a blinky light that "catches a mouse" using various mechanisms and sensors that we don't have to fully explain or even show you. Any "box with a mouse-sized hole" can potentially be infringing.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably think this is such an awesome analogy but what you're really proving is that without a government monopoly on mouse traps, nobody would ever have bothered to build machines to catch mice before. You've heard of the plagues right?
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly I'd have no problem with software patents if they just followed the same rules as hardware - you patent the implementation, not the effect.
We already have laws protecting the specific implementation of software.In software that would be called copyright.
Software patents are double dipping. At the very least, software developers should have to choose. Patent or Copyright. If we choose patent, then the source code should be required to be published with the patent, and receive no copyright protection. If copyright is chosen, then it is the specific recorded form that is receiving the protection and there should be no protection for imple
Re: (Score:3)
I would disagree. Hardware that executes instructions is a physical design, and should be obvious to be patentable.
Hardware CAN have firmware. For the purpose of comparison, the firmware should be classified as software.
With that settled.... software is a list of instructions. It's a process, in written form. Processes can be patented.
The question then becomes "how far do you need to devia
Re: (Score:2)
So if you apply this reasoning to slide-to-unlock, you can patent a specific slider, but neither the sliding nor the unlocking? That would be an interesting line of reasoning for the attorney.
Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a simple suggestion.
MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
Software patents that are just math are not allowed. You'll see that this one involves hardware, which is not just math*.
*unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
Re: (Score:2)
*unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
QED
(and reason #794 that patents are bullshit)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a simple suggestion.
MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
Software patents that are just math are not allowed. You'll see that this one involves hardware, which is not just math*.
*unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
yeah sure, that would apply __IF__ this patent was tied to some hw. if it were, it wouldn't be a problem and nobody would have to care about it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a simple suggestion.
MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
Software patents that are just math are not allowed. You'll see that this one involves hardware, which is not just math*.
*unless you're saying that all hardware can be abstracted as mathematical relationships, and are therefore arguing that all machines are unpatentable too?
yeah sure, that would apply __IF__ this patent was tied to some hw. if it were, it wouldn't be a problem and nobody would have to care about it either.
You have a software-only touch screen? What do you touch it with if it's not tangible?
Re: (Score:2)
You have a software-only touch screen? What do you touch it with if it's not tangible?
General Purpose Computing Devices should not count as the apparatus in "Method and Apparatus For ___" that all software patents use as a loophole.
I can implement this slide to unlock bullishit on paper: A greeting card, for example. It's implemented on my damn door, Already. Those are examples of hardware tied to the software. The idea of sliding to unlock something is not new or innovative. Applying it to general purpose computing devices with general purpose touch input screens whereby dragging or
Re: (Score:2)
You have a software-only touch screen? What do you touch it with if it's not tangible?
General Purpose Computing Devices should not count as the apparatus in "Method and Apparatus For ___" that all software patents use as a loophole.
Why not? Bearing in mind that a general purpose computing device won't help with novelty or nonobviousness, why should it not be a good limitation that anchors an otherwise abstract idea?
I can implement this slide to unlock bullishit on paper: A greeting card, for example. It's implemented on my damn door, Already. Those are examples of hardware tied to the software. The idea of sliding to unlock something is not new or innovative. Applying it to general purpose computing devices with general purpose touch input screens whereby dragging or "sliding" is a well understood, non inventive input method is asinine, obvious at best.
You're confusing three different statutes. Patent eligibility is under 35 USC 101 and defines what subject material is potentially patent eligible - processes, machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter. You're trying to conflate a rule under that with 35 USC 102
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't require particular hardware, any general purpose computing hardware with an appropriate display and sensors will do. It doesn't matter how they're implemented or what they're made of. The hardware could be made of condensed dark matter with darkenergytronic circuits and this patent would still apply. This patent covers math, and not just math, but an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how the slide to unlock on my phone has anything to do with hardware.
Erm...
Re: (Score:3)
All computing has a foundation in math, but not all patents relate to mathematical things. They relate to trying to map physical analogs to digital things.
Swipe to unlock? Pretty much no math there except the graphics libraries. It's a concept, but there's not exactly some mathematical formula for swipe to unlock.
I've never subscribed to the argument that all computing is math, because as much as it affects how efficient your algorithms are, software is not mathematics.
The problem with patents is they se
Re:The USPTO is holding roundtables (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed.
Swipe to unlock for doors == a bolt.
Swipe to unlock for GUI == ?
Patenting GUI analogs of physical devices is an oxymoron - you're copying a user interface that already exists. The very reason you made that analog in a piece of software is because it ISN'T a new and innovative idea. It's familiar and obvious to people or there would be no point.
If you want to patent UI metaphors, you should first demonstrate that no-one understands how to use it without first reading the manual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS! STOP ALLOWING SOFTWARE PATENTS SINCE THEY ARE JUST MATH.
Well let's look at claim 1 of this patent. "A system comprising: a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory."
Certainly some parts of this can be reduced to mathematics. The geometric pattern, obviously, as well as whatever algorithm is used for comparing the input wit
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly some parts of this can be reduced to mathematics. The geometric pattern, obviously, as well as whatever algorithm is used for comparing the input with the pattern. But no amount of math is going to cause a touch screen to appear out of thin air.
Invalid. The components employed are general purpose touch input screens, and a general purpose computer. These are allowed to NARROW the patent field, but should not be the basis of whether or not the thing is patentable. Screens made for touch input were developed well before year 2000. General purpose computers existed as well. These general purpose devices could implement a wide range of algorithms to implement a myriad of User Interfaces based on Touch and Computing and Geometry. What the patent
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if Internet RFCs were patents instead. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
What part of software is not math?
What languages are you using exactly?
Re: (Score:3)
The parts you have to hire sweaty bags of meat to write.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am simply point out that it is math.
Go to your local university and ask the CS dept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, my degree is in math and comp. sci, and while it's all expressable as math, writing software is in most ways nothing at all like math.
I've known several mathematicians who couldn't ever grasp the basics of programming, and I've known more than a few guys with Master's degrees in comp. sci who didn't know much more -- because all they learned was math for theoretical stuff.
Knowing which libraries to use, writing readable code, release management, configuration management, debugging, and dozens of o
Re: (Score:3)
Knowing which libraries to use, writing readable code, release management, configuration management, debugging, and dozens of other things involved in writing code takes it beyond being "just math".
Yet these are not the parts which get patented.
What gets patented is math.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? What gets patented is ideas, not math (because you can't actually patent that).
Nobody patented the mathematical formula for swipe to unlock. Nobody patented the mathematics of the Zev-Limpel algorithm, they patented the idea of using it for compression of data.
Other than the fact that it's describable in math, if I patented something like file-sharing, I'm not patenting a single mathematical concept. I'm patenting an implementation, or the idea for an implementation of
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What gets patented is ideas, not math (because you can't actually patent that).
Except you aren't supposed to be able to patent ideas, either. Specific implementations of ideas, in the form of a logical or physical process, yes, but not the raw idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What gets patented is ideas, not math (because you can't actually patent that).
Of course, you can't patent ideas either (de jurem, that is, de facto you can, because of the ridiculously lax system that allows software patents, business patents, and other ridiculous process patents like swinging on a swing to pass through).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard_correspondence [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
software isn't "just" math. that's like saying you can't patent a can opener because can openers are "just" atoms of iron and "you can't patent iron!".
No, it's more like saying that you can't patent a can-opener and then have patent control over all methods of using cans regardless of what they're made of. Computation is an abstraction. An algorithm is essentially a function. A function assigns, to each element in one set, an element from another set. Any function which will assign the same the same elements from the two sets to each other is mathematically equivalent to any other function that does the same thing. An algorithm is a function from the set
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could agree with that smartass and just get rid of patents all together.
Yelling is useful in a text medium, much like punctuation.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure hope their "roundtables" are not rectangles with rounded corners.
Oh, please. Every day I pray to hi Noodliness to toss this bit of rancid Parmesan Cheese in the garbage disposal and give him a big buzz.
Enough with the rounded rectangle meme already.
Re: (Score:2)
But but it's even a Trademarked look at their stores now. Windows with rounded corners on the store front and all that (-;
cheers
p.
Everyone is screwed... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They will only be screwed if they pay you use fees.
Other than that, they legally wont be allowed to be screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
processing circuit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My droid has a fixed slide direction for unlock. My ICS Nook Color has a fixed slide direction. The JB unlock on my AndroVM is one direction to unlock, the other direction for camera.
Of course, the lock on my garden shed has a fixed slide direction for unlock as well.
Android slide-to-unlock not covered by this patent (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not a patent expert, although I did once watch a very informative video about how patents work. This makes me eminently qualified on the subject by slashdot standards.
Looking at the independent claims, it looks like at least the lock screen as implemented by Samsung (starting at the unlock button, drag a certain distance in any direction to unlock) and possibly other Android phones out there is safe from this patent.
Since the system on Samsung phones works no matter which direction you drag, it looks like the "slide to unlock" implementation in Samsung phones is clear.
However, I think this patent may very well be applicable to the "pattern lock" of android phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Dirty little secret - Google actually intentioned things to be like that to AVOID any patents held by Apple, Microsoft, etc!
And yes, Android is better for it - like the home screen and app launcher that Android has over the springboard that iOS has, which add
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the TFA states that Samsung already had a 10yr deal with Micron re: this
And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
It's different because it's Google, and this is Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
In that way that he just said?
The claim seems to imply that it covers a mechanism whereby you drag your finger in a specific direction to unlock the screen. On iPhones, slide to unlock works by moving your finger along a set little path- which that claim would cover. On a Galaxy, you touch a designated spot and drag your finger in any random direction you like; so not what the claim would appear to cover. As a sibling post mentioned, the Android "draw a pattern on a grid of nodes" thing presumably would be
Re: (Score:2)
And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
It was described pretty clearly already, but in case you come back to actually read this I'll try to elaborate a bit:
iPhone - there's a designated line and an arrow. You hold on the arrow and drag along the line.
Samsung (as described by GP): Hold on spot, drag in any direction
Patent: Draw a geometric pattern in a specified direction, specifically a line.
iPhone is clearly infringing.
Motorola Droid is also probably infringing on this patent, as it specifies a direction and has you slide in a line, though it
Re: (Score:2)
Patent law is all about semantics. The specific implementation is to replicate a known pattern on the screen, probably with a fixed orientation. Samsung's implementation could be a distance-from-start-point, which is very different in that a specific geometric pattern isn't even required. Sadly, I don't have a Samsung phone with this system to test on, so I don't know if it's true that I could spiral out (for example) and still unlock. If so, though, that would very clearly show that a specified directi
Intention to unlock (Score:2)
I have an application to patent "intent to unlock" comprising mind-reading and intentional software.
However, bugs in the dynamics of intentional flaws intended to unlock locked the unlocked locks tight. I always managed to unlock my neighbor's lock but my locks tended to become more locked. My intention is to lock the unlock code into the cloud to create a crowd-sourced intentional unlocking mechanism locked into a plurality of metaphoric intentions.
just wondering -- Win8 ? (Score:3)
Disclaimer: I have never come within 1.6 km of a machine running Win8. But I've seen the slick TV commercials showing people logging on by drawing shapes on the screen. If this patent in fact covers "slid[ing] in any direction" does it cover Win8 ?
Re: (Score:2)
this might be a good thing if they get someone like microsoft into the battle
Reading the patent, it shouldn't apply to phones (Score:2)
Reading the patent this shouldn't apply to phone lock screens, the patent seems to be for a multi-factor unlock system that uses several different kind of user authorisation interactions (password followed by finger print scan followed by a gesture pattern for example), where mobile unlock screens are universally just a single action.
If this patent actually covered mobile phone unlock screens then it would also cover screen-saver wake passwords etc.
May not read on Apple devices (Score:2)
All of the claims in the Micron patent refer to the user "drawing" the geometric pattern. The term "drawing" is not defined in the patent, so a court would likely give the term its ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 [google.com], 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). But I don't think "drawing" has a particular technical meaning in this context. The Oxford American Dictionary defines it as to "produce (a picture or diagram) by making
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that the patent office clearly forgot to purchase a stamp with the word "Declined" on it. So, everything is "Approved" because that is the only stamp they own.
idiots (Score:2)
you shouldn't be able to patent common sense. Simple as that.
Sliding deadbolt obvious prior art? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've never been to Alabama (Score:2)
Practically every residential structure is mobile.
might be ok (Score:2)
More of the same (Score:2)
Physical Vs. Virtual (Score:2)
So a physical slide-lock is not covered by a patent because it's age-old technology. However, a computer emulation of such a lock is automatically covered by this patent-troll, regardless of implementation?
How the hell does the legal "logic" work out for this?
Mere emulation of an age-old physical concept should NEVER be patentable, period. (Implementation of different emulation techniques is another matter.)
I should have patented the emulation of "running around with guns", then the video game industry and
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. One can argue that no software should be patentable ever. Thats ok. But if you DO allow patenting software, I don't think that 'no allowing emulation of physical concept' is a valid rule. If I create super-smart software emulating protein folding using some new concepts, allowing it to quickly solve all current problems, should it be non-patentable just based on grounds that that concept exists in physical reality for billion+ years?
This is excellent news! (Score:2)
This is excellent news. Congress is the one that has to change patent law and congress hardly listens to the little guy. But with a patent like this that will impact the finances of the big players (and contributors) like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. Maybe, just maybe, software patents, and the strangle hold they cause with development, will get the attention they deserve.
Micron still exists? (Score:2)
Nobody patented the wheel (Score:2)
Someone will probably reply with a link to a story about someone patenting the wheel in Australia. But it's not true.
Or, it wasn't a "patent". It was an "innovation patent", which is something completely different and doesn't get any substantial examination by any examiner. They just check the formalities and rubber stamp it (and the examination happens if, and only if, there is litigation, which never happened with the wheel innovation patent).
But there are many silly patents in the world:
http://en.swpa [swpat.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Would think the common door or gate deadbolt is prior art.
But this is on a computer! On a mobile device! On a phone!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there's no reason why this patent should just be coming to light now.
I don't mean to pick on you here, but people, please think before you say things like this.
There is, in fact, a very good reason. Submarine patents are profitable for the filer, and so it gives patent filers just another reason to perpetuate the system.
This benefits them, the patent system employees, the lawyers, the politicians who get campaign donations to influence their thinking, and to some extent benefits all of government by furthe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Zero value (Score:4, Insightful)
The patent has no informative properties at all. It does not explain any process or algorithms used to ie detect that a finger is moving on the screen, which direction its moving in, what shape it draws, whether the shape is "close enough" to the shape in memory etc (though to be fair claim #1 doesn't even check the shape, only that a shape was drawn, claim #2 is to check the shape and deny access if it's wrong). If all of the above is obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the claims should be invalid as obvious. If it is not obvious to someone of regular skill in the art, then the patent fails to live up to the Constitutional mandate to advance the sciences and arts by not disclosing how these claims are to be achieved, and if current patent law does not make the patent invalid on this basis, then patent law should be changed to comply with the Consitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how this patent is special. Just because it's done on a computer shouldn't change anything. I "Slide to Unlock" my laptop cover. If they want to turn this into a design patent, fine (round edges of button, specific font, etc, etc,) , but the core idea is not new, special, or innovative.
There is not a single software patent that is special or innovative. Why? Because software, all software, is simply mathematical algorithms. You can copyright how you put those algorithms together, just like you can copyright how you arrange notes to make music, but you can't actually patent a musical melody, nor should you be able to patent software. You can patent the various types of devices that produce, play or otherwise use them, but not the algorithm (or in the case of music, the notes or melodies)
Re: (Score:2)