In fact, it's so general, it could (IMO) just as easily apply to the original clickwheel iPod. Of course, the original clickwheel iPod came out before this filing, so if one interpreted it so broadly, then the patent would be invalid because of Apple's iPod-based prior art. So, I think the threat is a bit dubious.
Of course, it's possible that I misread the patent.
Actually as an aside jobs patented a a click wheel phone in 2006
I can only imagine that they didn't sue B&O for their Samsung Serene (2005) or Serenata (2007) because B&O may have had some former claim to the whole "click wheel navigation"
no no no AI, Apples slide to unlock features an icon that moves underneath the 'object', ie your finger. Apple specifically pointed to this glaring difference in the Netherlands. This patent does not mention the top-layer application having a UI or icon that slides underneath your finger.
I love reading the patent related posts here...always so incredibly wrong. This one is actually close.
The last feature of the claim reads "(i) an object (read: finger) touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation (read: icon) is provided and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location..." At this point, the claim would cover the slide to unlock feature (where previous comment is in error).
However, the claim further qualifies (ii) reciting "wherein the representation (icon) of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding."
Thus, the claim specifically precludes the icon (e.g., the slide to unlock icon) from moving/sliding with the finger. In other words, it negatively claims apples exact implementation (a practice which it normally avoided at all costs as it explicitly tells someone how to circumvent the claim). None of relocated, duplicated or gliding were even mentioned in the specification. I don't have to look at the prosecution history to know that this was probably required to get an allowance. Pretty narrow patent in reality, it's like the opposite of drag and drop and the icon doesn't even move with the cursor.
Patents are based on filing dates, not issue dates.
As far as I know in the US Patents are based on the invention date. If you can prove that you invented it first it doesn't matter that you filed it later.
But I think that the US is in the process to change that to the regulation you mentioned.
When talking to the Austrian patent office I learned that if a patent has very broad claims you can issue an application for more or less the same thing as long as you are more specific. If the other one is unlucky and his product falls into your specific claims you can enforce your patent on him because those parts that are covered by your specific claims will cut a hole into his claims.
Of course you have to add some new BlaBla functionality to claim it being inventive.
I hope that Apple uses these new patents to sue everybody!
Apple has no choice but to diligently protect its IP.
If they do decided to use those patents to sue other manufacturer that use capacitive multi-touch screens, the government will have no choice but they invalid those patents, so they can avoid the monopoly that the Apple?s patent would create.
Are you so sure? The Apple slide to unlock has stood up and won in two country's lawsuits so far. If it was so weak the legal system tests it has already ben subjected to would have already invalidated it in the HTC and Samsun slide to unlock cases.
Do you even think before you post this stuff?
Yes, quite sure. Where has any final judgement found Apple's slide-to-unlock patent valid and infringed?
As far as I know in the US Patents are based on the invention date. If you can prove that you invented it first it doesn't matter that you filed it later.
But I think that the US is in the process to change that to the regulation you mentioned.
Yes, that's the case. The US is switching to the system that Europe uses. However, in this case, the old law would apply, so it would come down to who invented it first. It is a bit odd that it took a decade for the patent to be approved. I was surprised we hadn't heard from NeoNode until now, but I guess it's because they didn't have the patent yet. NeoNode is another company that was unsuccessful in manufacturing a product, so the main value they have is in their IP. Apple would be a logical first target, but if they are successful, either in court or with licensing, then Samsung and other Android manufacturers would be obvious targets, as well.
This patent isn't a problem for Apple. Their patent clearly states:
This sounds like a "handheld computer" that has a separate menu area and a display area. This is more like an e-reader than an iPad or iPhone, and as noted in the story, they've licensed to e-reader companies. Apple will have no discussions with these people.
Apple will lose this one. they will have to pay license fees. thankfully for them this company isn't a super rich Apple hater that would rather shut them down than license the technology. i wish they were. apple needs to eat more crow.
If Neofuck's patent was just granted, doesn't Apple nullify theirs and not the other way around?
Neither patent nullifies the other. It is possible to have two very similar patents at the same time. One patent can be used as prior art to invalidate the other patent, but that isn't automatic.
Let's take a very simple example (obviously absurd, but will demonstrate the point).
Neonode gets a patent for blue. They file in 2002 and the patent isn't awarded until 2012. This patent covers anything that's blue.
Apple files for a patent on cyan in 2007 and it is awarded in 2009.
Apple is unable to practice its cyan invention without a license from Neonode covering blue.
Similarly, unless Neonode can demonstrate that cyan was SPECIFICALLY covered in its original patent filing, they might require a license from Apple for cyan.
Adding layers of complexity is the first to file bit (see below).
Patent law is not trivial and there are often multiple patents involved in a single product or process. Which explains why standards bodies came up with FRAND, btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by n00g77
I love reading the patent related posts here...always so incredibly wrong. This one is actually close.
The last feature of the claim reads "(i) an object (read: finger) touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation (read: icon) is provided and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location..." At this point, the claim would cover the slide to unlock feature (where previous comment is in error).
However, the claim further qualifies (ii) reciting "wherein the representation (icon) of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding."
Thus, the claim specifically precludes the icon (e.g., the slide to unlock icon) from moving/sliding with the finger. In other words, it negatively claims apples exact implementation (a practice which it normally avoided at all costs as it explicitly tells someone how to circumvent the claim). None of relocated, duplicated or gliding were even mentioned in the specification. I don't have to look at the prosecution history to know that this was probably required to get an allowance. Pretty narrow patent in reality, it's like the opposite of drag and drop and the icon doesn't even move with the cursor.
That seems reasonable. A patent claim must be read verbatim. If they had not said anything about the icon remaining immobile, then it probably would have covered Apple's implementation. but since they specifically required that the icon remain fixed, Apple has a very strong argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland
As far as I know in the US Patents are based on the invention date. If you can prove that you invented it first it doesn't matter that you filed it later.
But I think that the US is in the process to change that to the regulation you mentioned.
Yes, but it's not quite that simple. Although first to invent is legally entitled to the patent, there's also a strong presumption that first to file will be granted a patent:
Quote:
However, the first applicant to file has the prima facie right to the grant of a patent. Should a second patent application be filed for the same invention, the second applicant can institute interference proceedings to determine who was the first inventor (as discussed in the preceding paragraph) and thereby who is entitled to the grant of a patent. Interference can be an expensive and time-consuming process.
As you mentioned, there is a bill being considered right now to change first to invent to first to file, but it will have some pretty serious opposition.
I claim the patent of my finger getting used on apple devices. Any such finger other than mine is illegal.
Your patent would only prevent others from using YOUR finger on Apple devices. I think there are already sufficient legal protections in place for that.
Natural selection invented "wiggle this and maybe it'll come loose." Can we file a belated patent and work up some kind of class action suit against pretty much everyone, everywhere? It'd be easy enough to demonstrate that nature's invention of the technique precedes all others by quite awhile.
No. "wiggle this and maybe it'll come loose." is not patentable as pertaining to the natural physical world which is something that would just happen due to natural forces. "wiggle to undo a previous action on a handheld device" is patentable because a handheld device is not a natural physical object, it is man-made and shaking it or wiggling it could be implemented to do many different things, therefor, performing one specific, non-obvious action by wiggling the device is indeed a patentable application. In fact Apple has implemented this same "gesture" in two different ways, on the iPods, shaking the device would play a random song, on iOS, shaking it would ask if you would like to undo or redo whatever you just did. These are two very distinct applications for the same natural gesture and can be considered patentable, because they are non obvious as pertaining to an electronics device.
Might Samsung be subsidizing/pushing Neonode to attack its rival To further drive its point home, or just out of spite?
Just regular plain old greed is good enough motivation for 99.99% of these things. There's no conspiracy theory here. Greed, or the good old drive of someone trying to make a living. And the patent business can be pretty big business. All it takes is one win. A rainmaker.
Not unlike the way the fundamentalist concept of life begins at conception and ends at birth, corporate product responsibility begins and production and ends at sale.
The recent controversy about birth control suggests that at least some of those religious types consider life to begin at erection.
Which finger is apple going to give neonode?... thumbs up saying "we'll secretly license this patent" or the ah, er, the one beside it.
right now neonode is using the index finger to point at them... it's up to apple to show which finger neonode will be showing. (thumbs up... or the bird)
Which finger is apple going to give neonode?... thumbs up saying "we'll secretly license this patent" or the ah, er, the one beside it.
right now neonode is using the index finger to point at them... it's up to apple to show which finger neonode will be showing. (thumbs up... or the bird)
Apple has enough lawyers and enough money to BURY Neonode. They have to teach these little companies a lesson: Don't mess with us or we will kill you.
Apple has been using slide to unlock for nearly 5 years. Anyone else think that if you haven't made a copyright claim in 2 years maximum then the claim is invalid?
Apple has been using slide to unlock for nearly 5 years. Anyone else think that if you haven't made a copyright claim in 2 years maximum then the claim is invalid?
You can't file for patent infringement unless you've been issued a patent can you? In the this particular case that happened in the past couple of months, not years ago.
Comments
In fact, it's so general, it could (IMO) just as easily apply to the original clickwheel iPod. Of course, the original clickwheel iPod came out before this filing, so if one interpreted it so broadly, then the patent would be invalid because of Apple's iPod-based prior art. So, I think the threat is a bit dubious.
Of course, it's possible that I misread the patent.
Actually as an aside jobs patented a a click wheel phone in 2006
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/11...ls-ipod-phone/
I can only imagine that they didn't sue B&O for their Samsung Serene (2005) or Serenata (2007) because B&O may have had some former claim to the whole "click wheel navigation"
To further drive its point home, or just out of spite?
no no no AI, Apples slide to unlock features an icon that moves underneath the 'object', ie your finger. Apple specifically pointed to this glaring difference in the Netherlands. This patent does not mention the top-layer application having a UI or icon that slides underneath your finger.
I love reading the patent related posts here...always so incredibly wrong. This one is actually close.
The last feature of the claim reads "(i) an object (read: finger) touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation (read: icon) is provided and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location..." At this point, the claim would cover the slide to unlock feature (where previous comment is in error).
However, the claim further qualifies (ii) reciting "wherein the representation (icon) of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding."
Thus, the claim specifically precludes the icon (e.g., the slide to unlock icon) from moving/sliding with the finger. In other words, it negatively claims apples exact implementation (a practice which it normally avoided at all costs as it explicitly tells someone how to circumvent the claim). None of relocated, duplicated or gliding were even mentioned in the specification. I don't have to look at the prosecution history to know that this was probably required to get an allowance. Pretty narrow patent in reality, it's like the opposite of drag and drop and the icon doesn't even move with the cursor.
Patents are based on filing dates, not issue dates.
As far as I know in the US Patents are based on the invention date. If you can prove that you invented it first it doesn't matter that you filed it later.
But I think that the US is in the process to change that to the regulation you mentioned.
Of course you have to add some new BlaBla functionality to claim it being inventive.
I hope that Apple uses these new patents to sue everybody!
Apple has no choice but to diligently protect its IP.
If they do decided to use those patents to sue other manufacturer that use capacitive multi-touch screens, the government will have no choice but they invalid those patents, so they can avoid the monopoly that the Apple?s patent would create.
Are you so sure? The Apple slide to unlock has stood up and won in two country's lawsuits so far. If it was so weak the legal system tests it has already ben subjected to would have already invalidated it in the HTC and Samsun slide to unlock cases.
Do you even think before you post this stuff?
Yes, quite sure. Where has any final judgement found Apple's slide-to-unlock patent valid and infringed?
As far as I know in the US Patents are based on the invention date. If you can prove that you invented it first it doesn't matter that you filed it later.
But I think that the US is in the process to change that to the regulation you mentioned.
Yes, that's the case. The US is switching to the system that Europe uses. However, in this case, the old law would apply, so it would come down to who invented it first. It is a bit odd that it took a decade for the patent to be approved. I was surprised we hadn't heard from NeoNode until now, but I guess it's because they didn't have the patent yet. NeoNode is another company that was unsuccessful in manufacturing a product, so the main value they have is in their IP. Apple would be a logical first target, but if they are successful, either in court or with licensing, then Samsung and other Android manufacturers would be obvious targets, as well.
This patent isn't a problem for Apple. Their patent clearly states:
This sounds like a "handheld computer" that has a separate menu area and a display area. This is more like an e-reader than an iPad or iPhone, and as noted in the story, they've licensed to e-reader companies. Apple will have no discussions with these people.
Apple will lose this one. they will have to pay license fees. thankfully for them this company isn't a super rich Apple hater that would rather shut them down than license the technology. i wish they were. apple needs to eat more crow.
If Neofuck's patent was just granted, doesn't Apple nullify theirs and not the other way around?
Neither patent nullifies the other. It is possible to have two very similar patents at the same time. One patent can be used as prior art to invalidate the other patent, but that isn't automatic.
Let's take a very simple example (obviously absurd, but will demonstrate the point).
Neonode gets a patent for blue. They file in 2002 and the patent isn't awarded until 2012. This patent covers anything that's blue.
Apple files for a patent on cyan in 2007 and it is awarded in 2009.
Apple is unable to practice its cyan invention without a license from Neonode covering blue.
Similarly, unless Neonode can demonstrate that cyan was SPECIFICALLY covered in its original patent filing, they might require a license from Apple for cyan.
Adding layers of complexity is the first to file bit (see below).
Patent law is not trivial and there are often multiple patents involved in a single product or process. Which explains why standards bodies came up with FRAND, btw.
I love reading the patent related posts here...always so incredibly wrong. This one is actually close.
The last feature of the claim reads "(i) an object (read: finger) touching the touch sensitive area at a location where the representation (read: icon) is provided and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from the touched location..." At this point, the claim would cover the slide to unlock feature (where previous comment is in error).
However, the claim further qualifies (ii) reciting "wherein the representation (icon) of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding."
Thus, the claim specifically precludes the icon (e.g., the slide to unlock icon) from moving/sliding with the finger. In other words, it negatively claims apples exact implementation (a practice which it normally avoided at all costs as it explicitly tells someone how to circumvent the claim). None of relocated, duplicated or gliding were even mentioned in the specification. I don't have to look at the prosecution history to know that this was probably required to get an allowance. Pretty narrow patent in reality, it's like the opposite of drag and drop and the icon doesn't even move with the cursor.
That seems reasonable. A patent claim must be read verbatim. If they had not said anything about the icon remaining immobile, then it probably would have covered Apple's implementation. but since they specifically required that the icon remain fixed, Apple has a very strong argument.
As far as I know in the US Patents are based on the invention date. If you can prove that you invented it first it doesn't matter that you filed it later.
But I think that the US is in the process to change that to the regulation you mentioned.
Yes, but it's not quite that simple. Although first to invent is legally entitled to the patent, there's also a strong presumption that first to file will be granted a patent:
However, the first applicant to file has the prima facie right to the grant of a patent. Should a second patent application be filed for the same invention, the second applicant can institute interference proceedings to determine who was the first inventor (as discussed in the preceding paragraph) and thereby who is entitled to the grant of a patent. Interference can be an expensive and time-consuming process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_t...irst_to_invent
As you mentioned, there is a bill being considered right now to change first to invent to first to file, but it will have some pretty serious opposition.
I claim the patent of my finger getting used on apple devices. Any such finger other than mine is illegal.
Your patent would only prevent others from using YOUR finger on Apple devices. I think there are already sufficient legal protections in place for that.
Natural selection invented "wiggle this and maybe it'll come loose." Can we file a belated patent and work up some kind of class action suit against pretty much everyone, everywhere? It'd be easy enough to demonstrate that nature's invention of the technique precedes all others by quite awhile.
No. "wiggle this and maybe it'll come loose." is not patentable as pertaining to the natural physical world which is something that would just happen due to natural forces. "wiggle to undo a previous action on a handheld device" is patentable because a handheld device is not a natural physical object, it is man-made and shaking it or wiggling it could be implemented to do many different things, therefor, performing one specific, non-obvious action by wiggling the device is indeed a patentable application. In fact Apple has implemented this same "gesture" in two different ways, on the iPods, shaking the device would play a random song, on iOS, shaking it would ask if you would like to undo or redo whatever you just did. These are two very distinct applications for the same natural gesture and can be considered patentable, because they are non obvious as pertaining to an electronics device.
Might Samsung be subsidizing/pushing Neonode to attack its rival To further drive its point home, or just out of spite?
Just regular plain old greed is good enough motivation for 99.99% of these things. There's no conspiracy theory here. Greed, or the good old drive of someone trying to make a living. And the patent business can be pretty big business. All it takes is one win. A rainmaker.
Not unlike the way the fundamentalist concept of life begins at conception and ends at birth, corporate product responsibility begins and production and ends at sale.
The recent controversy about birth control suggests that at least some of those religious types consider life to begin at erection.
right now neonode is using the index finger to point at them... it's up to apple to show which finger neonode will be showing. (thumbs up... or the bird)
Which finger is apple going to give neonode?... thumbs up saying "we'll secretly license this patent" or the ah, er, the one beside it.
right now neonode is using the index finger to point at them... it's up to apple to show which finger neonode will be showing. (thumbs up... or the bird)
Apple has enough lawyers and enough money to BURY Neonode. They have to teach these little companies a lesson: Don't mess with us or we will kill you.
Apple has been using slide to unlock for nearly 5 years. Anyone else think that if you haven't made a copyright claim in 2 years maximum then the claim is invalid?
You can't file for patent infringement unless you've been issued a patent can you? In the this particular case that happened in the past couple of months, not years ago.