Apple Granted Patent For Slide To Unlock 622
generalhavok writes "The United States Patent & Trademark Office has approved Apple's patent on the slide to unlock gesture used on iOS devices. Interestingly, this patent was earlier dismissed in Europe due to prior art. With many Android phones using a similar slide gesture, it will be interesting to see how this new patent will affect the patent wars between Apple and Android vendors."
Oh ffs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
Seconded. Everybody who buys Apple products is supporting this abuse of the patent system and the market in general.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, what happened to Apples "People are prepared to pay more for quality, and we're the best" philosophy.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Informative)
They also have a pretty strong "we'll sue you if you copy our ideas" philosophy. They've been pursuing these kind of lawsuits for quite a while, and this is nothing new.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
People are willing to pay more for "brand", it has very little to do with quality, providing the quality doesn't sink so low relative to the competition as to damage the brand.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:5, Informative)
>> Android completely rocks for techie people, but it sucks for the typical drooling moron user.
55% of marketshare against your superior (meh) Apple's 28% would like to disagree. But don't let facts spoil your fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
In all fairness, the iPhone has been more expensive until recently (you can now get one for free with a contract) and they've available on Verizon for less than a year now. Now that they're out of their exclusivity contract, and selling them on the cheap, they should be grabbing a bigger slice.
My roommate just upgraded her 3 year old android phone to a 4S (rather than a newer android phone) after she saw the add with Siri, and read a bunch of review that said it actually works. When she bought the other one
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
Marketshare doesn't show quality, nor preferred product. It would only do so if everything else (price, availability, etc) remained the same.
Using your logic, a Nissan Versa is a much better and desirable car, and everyone wants it more than say a Ferrari/Porshe/Mercedes (pick any model) because it out sells it 1000 to 1. You can keep your Versa, and I'll drive the Ferrari. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that Android is sold by dozens of handset manufacturers on about twice as many carriers in more countries... that number seems about right.
But don't let facts spoil your fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, you've spoiled his mental mind games by citing facts.
I was given an iPod 4 Touch for Xmas last year. The shine came off the Apple when I realized that I would have to send my iPod to Apple, along with $138, and not be able to use it for a few weeks, merely to replace the battery!!! I can buy a replacement battery for an Android phone for $5 and do it myself in 30 seconds. The Apple rotted when my grandson dropped it and cracked the glass. I wasn't concerned until I discovered that my $90 "insur
Re: (Score:3)
Does a rolex really tell time more accurately than a cheap watch?
When it made it's brand name, yes. In the days of quartz watches it may be difficult to remember, and many won't be old enough to remember, that watches used to only be an approximation. You'd get any bunch of people and the time on their wrist watches would vary. Up to about 5 minutes usually. Thus the classic scene before any commando or heist scene in a film: "Synchronize watches". That really used to happen.
And the guy that got to call his time the right time, by which other people would set their watch
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Informative)
2. Stealing involves taking something and making it your own; the original owner is left with nothing.
Ummm, not when you're stealing ideas.
Steve Jobs' next line in the video is: "Apple has always been shameless about stealing ideas"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Stealing involves taking something and making it your own; the original owner is left with nothing.
Ummm, not when you're stealing ideas.
Steve Jobs' next line in the video is: "Apple has always been shameless about stealing ideas"
That would be copying ideas, then, surely? You can't steal an idea.
Re: (Score:3)
>> when the other guy can't just slap it on for free after others developed it.
Right on. And Apple's philosophy is lets other develop it, copy it, do a great PR, and offer it far more expensively. Apple is not a tech company (as you want others to believe it) as much as a sales company. But please continue with your fiction.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:5, Informative)
SO you don't buy Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, HTC, Sony, Panasonic, Kenwood, Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Harley Davidson, or LG products then?
Or are you just some idiot that like to parrot what others say without actually thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of those, only a select few would be seen as "abusing" the patent system.
It seems you misinterpreted "abusing" as "using" the patent system, which is rather different.
Correct use might be to get a patent on, you know, an actual INVENTION, which by definition is something that a reasonable person knowledgeable in the same field of study, could not figure out on their own. Its intended for non-trivial stuff.
However, it seems the common misuse of the system is just to record who thought of an idea first, regar
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is gaming the system, not playing by the rules. How many ways could this be implemented in code? Thousands? Millions? There is no clear boundary with this patent and Apple is sure to apply this to Android phones as a few of them use a very similar method to unlock the phone.
This patent is sure to hinder innovation and competition as Apple engages in business combat, not simple competition. Competition is about creating choice in the marketplace, not destroying it. Apple seems bent on destroying choice, just like Microsoft.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because someone is playing by the rules doesn't mean that you should absolve them of all responsibility. The companies that try to be as douchy as they can within the rules, are more likely to just go and outright break the rules when they think they can get away with it. So far Apple don't appear to have done anything completely illegal, so they haven't quite reached the MS and Intel charged criminal levels yet, but I don't think it will be long. Well, maybe now that Steve's gone again they won't be so bad, who knows.
There are companies that have the same rules to play by, but don't try to do things like patent a rectangle with rounded corners. Ask your brother, I'm sure he'll tell you how pathetic that is.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, maybe now that Steve's gone again they won't be so bad, who knows.
Actually, I'd be more worried it'll get much worse without Steve Jobs around. As much as people around here don't like to admit it, Steve Jobs was a geek. Not in the über-programmer kind of way or anything like that; but he had a passion for technology and sincerely loved "cool toys" in the same way as most of us. He put the products and user experience first (whether you agree or disagree with HOW he did it; it definitely appeared he was doing so). While Apple seem to have been going further and further down the road of becoming evil incarnate, I don't put all of that blame on Mr Jobs - I'd even say some of his efforts to improve the products and user experience would have hindered the evil at times.
In short, if Apple's overall vision changes and they stop concentrating so much on making stellar products (* again, as defined by what the masses seem to want rather than we as tinkerers and geeks), I can only see their future level of evil making their current level look like rainbows and ponies.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is to limit what people with no morals can do, yes. It doesn't mean that everything they do within the rules is still respectable. People should be allowed to complain if they think that someone is not acting within the spirit of the law, or even if they're well within the law, but still damaging society. Patent and Copyright laws were put in place to encourage innovation, but companies such as Apple like to patent things and not even license them out to anyone that they see as a competitor. Both MS and Apple seem to revel in "destroying" their competitors, rather than competing with them.
Re: (Score:3)
How many pre-iPhone mobile devices opted for high-resolution touchscreen displays as the primary input device?
Once you choose that, you can either slide or tap a pattern to unlock. There aren't really practical alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would I consider that? What's wrong with copying such a basic and easily implemented UI feature? Here in the EU I'm not sure that software UI patents are even valid.
Re: (Score:3)
The first iPhone was unveiled by former Apple CEO Steve Jobs on January 9, 2007 and released on June 29, 2007 seems slide to unlock was available for windows mobile 2 months before the first iphone was released
Release date has precisely nothing to do with it. Neither morally, nor as far as patents are concerned. Who copied is based on who showed it first, not who sold it first. (not that I imagine either of the things you link to were ever sold or shipped on a sold device.)
As you point out, slide to unlock was demonstrated Jan 2007. Both the things you link to date from after that demo, and were obviously me-too copies. They are not prior art by any stretch of the imagination.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK, this is the first device I've ever seen doing this.
I have a door in my bathroom which works exactly like the described 'invention'.
If you read the Jobs biography, it becomes clear just how delusional the man was. He claims to have invented not only the GUI, menu's, and the modern mouse but also the concept of a PC, the internet, the rectangle, fonts, and what more. If he had not existed, noone would have invented it. Looks like he dropped acid too many times.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of that stuff is delusional, but you can't argue that phone interfaces were shit until Apple released the iPhone and everyone else had to up their game. Phone hardware had been good for a while, but the UIs were awful.. often lazy companies will just stick with whatever currently sells, without trying to do better. The phone industry is especially bad for trying to squeeze blood out of stones and not really innovating.
That's my only real defence of Apple out of the way though. All of their mobile stuff since the iPod has had an element of douchebaggery to it, something that damages or at least inconveniences consumers in some way to try and keep them locked in.
Re: (Score:3)
We gotta end this "different cause it's on a computer" bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
What Schmidt did was a legal form of corporate espionage. Using patents to hinder large companies or trample small companies is a legal form of sabotage.
I'm not saying that patents as a whole are wrong, but this example is certainly an immoral use of them.
Re: (Score:3)
What Schmidt did was a legal form of corporate espionage. Using patents to hinder large companies or trample small companies is a legal form of sabotage.
Patents have no power to do anything but hold up your competition (or make their products more expensive than your own). That's their entire purpose: legal monopoly on using a certain idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
People that buy Apple stuff "because it just works" are just like people who voted for Hitler because "at least he'll make the trains run on time". Worse in fact.
Mussolini took credit for making the trains run on time. I'm going to hazard a guess that German trains were running on time all along.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure I'll get modded down for criticising apple on slashdot- but - quite frankly- I'm the type of consumer Apple should be courting.
I don't have a tablet- I'm considering a tablet. I am open minded to my options- I have no preference or alliegence at this point.
I know everyone in the industry sues and takes rediculous patents- but Apple just goes over-the-top. They're involved in more law-suits than just about all the others combined.
Statements from Jobs (RIP) about wanting to destroy Android even if it cost Apple all their wealth- shows the mentality within that company to stifle innovation of others.
Apple goes beyond trying to get the best for their stockholders- the corporate policy seems damn-well belligerent.
This is the tipping point for me- I'm no longer brand-neutral in the tablet sphere.
From now on, I know, when I do get a tablet it won't be Apple. I cannot spend money on a product with a company who will misappropriate it.
Re:Oh ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
Prada, Louis Vetton,etc ... i.e. all the fashion houses no Patents, No copyright, only trademarks .. and they seem to making plenty of money
Actually they are making more profit than most tech companies, is this because their legal bills are smaller?
The way its done... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd agree with Europe, sorry Apple, that boat sailed, slide unlock is now "just the way its done" ... perhaps Henry Ford should have sued anyone who dared put black paint on their cars?
Don't blame Henry Ford (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
if computing were still split between IBM mainframes and 'cheap' $120,000 PDPs, software licenses would be basically irrelevant to almost everybody because they couldn't afford hardware
Actually, software licenses would still be relevant to the majority of people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_computing [wikipedia.org]
Before the development of the personal computer, the plan was to put a computer terminal in everyone's homes, and to charge people for the amount of CPU time and memory that they used. People would have been expected to abide by software licenses, since they could theoretically buy and use software on whatever mainframe they were using. It is likely that licenses would be en
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer the Android draw-pattern-to-unlock. Convenient, secure, and probably not patented.
Re:The way its done... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's certainly incrementally more secure than slide to unlock, since that is merely supposed to protect against spurious unlocks; but touchscreens bleed usage data if they aren't cleaned obsessively.
Re: (Score:3)
Then people will think my unlock pattern looks like angry birds. I think the majority of the wear on my screen protector's surface comes from that.
The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Manufacturers will simply ignore US patents everywhere else in the world and provide a crippled product with various functions disabled for the US market if this sort of nonsense continues. It strikes me the US patent office still thinks its 1950 with the US deciding the direction of technological advances. Someone should throw some strong coffee in their faces and wake them up to the reality of the 21st century before they fuck up US industry for good.
(And I'm not a US citizen).
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a more likely outcome is something like the patent pool that was forced into place by the US government around the 1920s to avoid a situation where, basically, no company could build a plane without infringing another company's patents. Otherwise, sooner or later, Android will be in trouble, but so will Apple and all other US companies.
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...Called Apple ?
They were the new guy in the mobile market and tried to pay as few people as possible ...the others laughed, and then sued ...
When Android came along they were they did exactly the same, but apparently it's OK for Apple to attack them ?
Eminent domain? (Score:3)
How about having the government use eminent domain to seize the patents covering industry standard practices? If this is not a good use for eminent domain, nothing else is.
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking as an American who lives abroad and works in Europe... this is how it has been working already for some time. The company I work for sells a software product globally. The version shipped into the US market was up until recently crippled to avoid infringing a ridiculous US patent that was granted in the mid-90's and just recently expired. Now we can finally ship a full featured product to the US.
It's utterly amazing that the patent system in the US is still this bad. Where is the reform we keep hearing about?
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:4, Insightful)
People simply aren'y aware of this...
If it was clear and common knowledge that products were either crippled in the US, or cost significantly more then there would be more public outcry about it. As it stands, 99% of people don't even realise there is a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well there was some reform. The US went from a "first to invent" patent system to a "first to file" system.
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non-American myself it is incredibly disheartening to see so many innovations created by American companies being denied to large segments of the American populace itself thanks to it's own utterly absurd patent system. Whatever people think about US...foreign policy, popular culture, overt consumerism or whatever..the one thing you cannot deny is that quality of life has been drastically improved for so many thanks to technological advances made by US companies. To then go and deny their own population the benefits of those advances because of bizarre and outdated patent laws just seems morally and ethically wrong on so many levels.
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, at least, back when DVD players were something people cared about, there arose a curious little wrinkle in the market:
The pricier hardware, with the traditionally respectable brand badges(Sony, etc.) had nicer build quality, and was more likely to include features that were genuinely expensive in hardware(DACs that didn't suck, absurd numbers of outputs); but also enforced the various region locking, macrovision, and other user-hostile features of the DVD spec to the letter.
The cheap seats tended to have the usual downsides(somewhat... functional... build quality, dadaist user interfaces, a bit of scrimping and saving on BOM); but tended to enforce user-hostile requirements rather tepidly. There would either be some trivial 'debug code' that you could tap into the remote, or a 'test firmware' would 'leak' about 10 seconds after release that would remove all DRM features. The cheapies also tended to have the cheap-because-it's-software pirate-friendly features, like support for assorted audio and video codecs in files just burned to data DVDs and the like.
If the patent wars become too hot, a similar phenomenon could theoretically crop up in other electronics markets. The "US Firmware" version would be oh-so-bare-and-legally-compliant; but the hardware would be identical because SKU proliferation is expensive, and there would be a strong incentive for players, particularly the weaker players, to 'accidentally' suffer from a 'bootloader verification bug' that allows the least-crippled English-language firmware, *cough*easily available for download from our Hong Kong TLD's support page, 'only for our customers in the region'*cough* to be flashed to US devices...
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:4, Informative)
>> The "US Firmware" version would be oh-so-bare-and-legally-compliant; but the hardware would be identical because...
Right on. A very good example was the old (but awesome) iriver H320/340 mp3 players. Hardware supported video playback, but US firmware took out the feature because of some patent/royalty bullshit. It was just matter of downloading the korean firmware and it turned it into a a great video player (for that time).
Iriver used to make great products (in terms of build and quality), but their love for microsoft, proprietary madness and finally the ipod craze killed their US market.
And the world's (Score:3)
Re:The US will just cripple its own tech (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that this is a gesture patent. By definition, anything you do on a touchscreen is a gesture - sliding your finger in a certain pattern. Apple gets a patent for sliding in a straight line to unlock. Google gets one for sliding in a circle to unlock. Microsoft is forced to use a square or triangle to unlock. HP decides to patent the WebOS motion of flicking up to close an app. Google patents flicking down to expand the notification bar. Someone else patents sliding in a straight line to scroll. Another patents sliding across a word to select it. etc.
There are only a limited number of simple gestures, all obvious, but apparently the USPTO has never seen anything like them before. Using workaround gestures is not the solution, no more than other newspapers printing their text in different colors would be a solution to the New York Times getting a patent on printing in black ink. This patent is so mind-bogglingly stupid that if it's not overturned it will absolutely cripple the industry.
Re: (Score:3)
You forget, Lawyers are also part fungus. They shall feast heartily upon the corpse.
I've got a gesture for the patent office... (Score:4, Insightful)
To The US Patent Office [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
To the US Patent Office [goatse.ch]
It really is time (Score:3)
that everyone's patent laws were brought sharply up to date by restricting the term to TWO YEARS instead of the hugely anachronistic 20.
Re:It really is time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it makes perfect sense that something that takes years to develop and perfect (e.g. a new medicine, very complex machine, etc) would have a maximum lifespan of 2 years to recoup the development cost.
Pharmaceutical company: Sure you can take this pill that will save your life. It will only cost you $5m/pill since we have to recoup the $1b development cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely. Patents should be applied depending on the patent in question. It takes a shitload of R&D to create a drug, but it takes a weekend with a little too much creativity to invent something like gesture based unlock.
Ignoring the whole software vs hardware patent issue, patents in general need to be timed to suit the market. I would propose that patents in technology last a product generation or two. e.g. A swipe unlock patent would last the life of the iPhone 4, when Apple released the iPhone 4S t
some background info on the Dutch ruling (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really that amazing if you take into account that the judges are in completely different jurisdictions with differing laws and criteria for determinations of this sort.
Re:some background info on the Dutch ruling (Score:4, Interesting)
It's less amazing when you recognise America's history of protectionism when it comes to this type of thing.
I guarantee if someone like HTC or Samsung had gone for the same patent they would not have been granted it.
"Great American Companies" (tm) have a massive advantage of widespread patriotic bias on their home turf in the courts and at the patent office.
Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's on a phone, so it's something completely new and nonobvious! "On the Internet" patents are soo 2000.
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Here's more. Did the patent office not look very hard for prior art? I only had to look for about two seconds:
http://www.toolzone.com/acatalog/info_DW1363.html [toolzone.com]
There it is: a slide-to-unlock mechanism, already implemented, on a handheld device even, available for many decades.
The problem with the patent system is not the theory but rather the implementation we have in this country. Patents are theoretically okay, but they are actually bad. Apparently prior art like I have quoted here, and which is widely available, I'm sure, in many other products, doesn't count -- and that's a problem. It SHOULD count.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but you missed the "on a screen" part. Didn't you know that transposing physical activities to a computer screen require great leaps of individual insight? Clearly, YOU didn't think of it, or you would have already patented it.
Now bend over. Apple does not like to lube up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By that reasoning, everything you do in the analog world that will be replicated in the digital world is patentable as "innovation".
E.g., under that reasoning, I would patent a method to input text letter by letter, by pressing specific areas in a touchscreen, which may or may not have the letters drown on the touchscreen.
Then you'd say, a "keyboard is not a touch screen".
'predefined' (Score:2)
I admit to only a quick scan through of the patent doc - but if they're 'predefined' paths, whether or not this is dismissed as prior art, does it count as a predefined path if you nominate your end points to swipe, or just have a swipe in some general direction e.g. left right, or up/down anywhere on the screen... then there was the Android style of sensing a swipe pattern. Would these fall foul? or only an iOS style "here is the predefined one way to unlock" built in to the OS?
Damnit (Score:2)
...now I have to get rid of chain lock on my house door.
Nokia physical slider (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean that Nokia's physical slider for unlocking phones is patentable? I wonder if Nokia has a patent for that and if not, whether USPTO would grant one?
Childish (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Neonode N1M - prior art (Score:5, Informative)
Given that the Neonode N1M is likely to be considered prior art [blogspot.com], how would one go about getting the patent ruled invalid?
Well what about this ? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
Go to 4:00 to see the slide to unlock in action
Now Apple requested the patent on December 2005, I am guessing some form of prior art should kill that.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, the patent is quite specific about there being an actual graphical thing that is dragged, and that there are graphical cues for the gesture.
Re:Well what about this ? (Score:5, Informative)
Neonode N1m was released in 2005
This is sick (Score:2)
This only makes my determination to never buy anything Apple related stronger. Yes, other corps are "evil" too, sometimes patenting stuff which is too obvious, but this is one shining example of ignorance and greed (USPO also continues to "amaze" me). Apple which I known for openness and will of providing amazing tech has grown into controlling monster of greed. It seems that most IT business success stories in US ends up like that.
I won't even bother to comment about obviousness of this patent. Maybe there
Why is this only SW patent problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't we see a drugs manufacturers killing themselves with an 'oval shaped pills' (or as they would put it 'an anatomically efficient vessel for introduction of effective chemicals into the gastro-intestinal system') patent?
What the hell is the department of the Patent Office responsible for SW doing?!
Your CODE is our CODE (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is on a mission to DESTROY Android in any way it can. Why? Because Android is the only platform that is any kind of real threat to the iPhone and iPad.
It infringes on my patent.... (Score:5, Funny)
Lick to unlock.
It's not as popular, but I can call their patent a ripoff of mine!
This is not unique. (Score:4, Insightful)
If it gives you an idea what kind of idiots work for the USPTO, let me give you an example:
A company I know of applies for a copyright to a word (not common everyday word, but the name of a famous person from old times). There are hundreds upon HUNDREDS of other patents that were granted the copyright because each one of them fits into a different category. Let me repeat, it's a one-word name, and hundreds of copyrights WERE granted. The copyright that this particular company applied for was not only under a different category than all of the above, but it even had another acronym attached to the name, so it was TRULY unique.
USPTO denied it because they said (and I can't recall the phrasing exactly) already granted to someone else. There is no one else that applied for it!!!!!! *bang head*
So moral of the story is, you can have prior art all you want. You can LACK prior art all you want. The ones who make the decision at the USPTO are individuals, and the whole process doesn't have a voting system. It's just a "so-and-so decides that you are the first; you're clear to go."
The USPTO needs a damned voting panel system. Public voting would be the best, but hell, that ain't happening in this lifetime. At least an internal voting panel would be nice.
Doesn't it have to be non-trivial/non-obvious?! (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the two main criteria for a patent are: It hasn't been done before (prior art) and it's non-trivial. Like as in holy crap! What you just made there is awesome!! Please patent how you did this so society at large benefits from this and it is never lost!!
I don't think a swipe to start using a touch interface qualifies...
Perfect example of BS generic patients (Score:3)
Any device without a keyboard you're going to swipe something to do everything include unlock function. I used to be fairly pro-patient (I just thought they lasted too long), but BS like this is moving me anti-patient.
Re: (Score:2)
just stop using slide to unlock and use two quick taps in either side of the sliding (now "tapping") widget
Re: (Score:3)
Or just do like the Android lock screen, which requires you to drag something accross the screen.
And if that's covered by the patent, we'll just change the graphics and require the user to "push" an object accross the screen.
Alternatively call it "scroll" and change the graphics so the lock-screen as a whole is moved.
Or did Apple patent the physical action and am I no longer allowed to pull my finger accross a touch screen?
If all else fails, replace the lock-screen with an Apple logo and detect a certain ha
Re:Slide to...? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the first claim of the patent [uspto.gov] is for a gesture dragging a graphic along a "predefined, displayed path". So if the unlock gesture isn't a fixed path (like the Samsung S2 [youtube.com], which can unlock in any direction; or the path isn't displayed, like a puzzle piece which moves along a fixed path to its destination but that path isn't visible, then it's not covered by the patent.
Re:Slide to...? (Score:4, Informative)
No, notably, it covers *only* gestures that involve having your finger in continuous contact with your screen *and* having a GUI widget moving continuously under your finger. So all the hype about prior art like entering codes by tapping is bullshit (because your finger isn't in constant contact), and all the hype about android's various unlock mechanisms being in violation are similarly bullshit (because no widget follows the finger continuously).
An article about patents explains the patent in such a broad way that it sounds like it covers everything under the sun? Who'd have thought it!
Re: (Score:3)
Which part of the door is the touch-screen and which part is the gesture reading implemented in software?
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whats next, patent to use your hands (Score:4, Funny)
You truly thought we were an intelligent species? Really, now?
Here's the report we sent to our home system (Score:2)
DeathElk, the time has come to reveal our presence to the Earthlings. Our species has been observing humans for some years. While our species should have risen above the threatening sounds you make, I well understand your sentiment. Our time observing humans is now up, we are leaving.
Humans, here is the report we sent to our home system about your species. [dieoff.org] Your your own sake, humans, I hope you are able to learn your true nature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it won't take long before they finally learn how to do their work properly.
Re: (Score:3)
it's a desperate move.
europe and usa do not have any manufacturing at all. well - almost next to nothing. most manufacturing has been moved to low-cost countries.
and so - knowledge is all that these companies are left with. they desperately try to hold on to it with patents.
but - they forget one important rule ...
knowledge wants to be free [wikipedia.org].
Re:its the time frame which matters (Score:5, Insightful)
We would still have phones with thousand of buttons and switches if apple would not have shown an other way.
Guess you never used a Palm Pilot?
Re: (Score:3)
The Prada was a touch-screen based phone, true... but the interface was built on top of Flash Lite, which had limited support for touch. No gestures. Practically every review stated that the interface was inconsistent at best. It was designed and built for the luxury market, and as such it cost 50% more ($775) than an iPhone.
The industry follows success. The Prada was a flop.
And since Android, prior to iPhone, was busy cloning the Blackberry... no. Or rather, yes. We probably would have gotten there... even
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing, Apple didnt do it first.
Re:Pondering a strictly fictional fix (Score:4, Insightful)
Shakespeare had one of his characters in the play Henry VI utter "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Of course no one would urge that in real life. But it seems like Shakespeare missed a couple of even bigger evil bastard fuck-ups from hell. Politicians and bureaucrats.
Quoted out of context. The purpose of killing lawyers in the play is to eliminate anyone who could try to get justice for people against a tyrant. Like what Pol Pot did in real life, starting with lawyers, school teachers, engineers, and so on.