Google version of 'slide-to-unlock' patent published by USPTO

2»

Comments

  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,878member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Basic features, no... but specific methods and systems, yes.



    Absolutely correct. That's for a court to decide if it's put to the test. FWIW, the patent I mentioned, applied to searching within emails for specific text strings (fairly basic) is owned by Google. They've been very quietly targeting specific types of technology patents by the looks of things.
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,960member
    Open source



    So all Apple has to do if they want to use it is acknowledge Google in their license agreement in much the same way as Google does with WebKit in Android and Chrome.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,389member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Open source



    So all Apple has to do if they want to use it is acknowledge Google in their license agreement in much the same way as Google does with WebKit in Android and Chrome.



    What about that recent Google notification patent? Same thing?
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,878member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Open source



    So all Apple has to do if they want to use it is acknowledge Google in their license agreement in much the same way as Google does with WebKit in Android and Chrome.



    What's open source?
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    What's open source?



    Why Android of course, it's one of it's strongest marketing points.



    According to some Apple holds the monopoly on using MARKETING to BRAINWASH iSHEEP in order to sell OVERPRICED, inferior products this being the sole reason for it's "flash in the pan" success.*



    *the proceeding post may contain large quantities of sarcasm, which may cause allergic reactions among those afflicted with fandroipsychosis, if problems persist please consult a doctor.
  • galaxytabgalaxytab Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by squiddy20 View Post


    Annnd look right there in the left hand side of the page you linked to and you will see "Filling date: Jan 30, 2009", a full 2.5 years BEFORE Apple's "Notification Center" was even previewed.



    If you're going to insult the competition, at least make sure you're not dead wrong.



    My post wasn't made to insult anyone. I was merely pointing out that Google has one interesting patent there if it gets the USPTO's blessing.



    Cut down on the haterade and try to not react so harshly in future.
  • rbryanhrbryanh Posts: 263member
    In a move industry analysts describe as "inevitable," this week Johnson & Johnson has acquired patents on both itching and scratching. In a unrelated story, company executives deny allegations that a cross of poison ivy and kudzu has breached a containment facility at the multi-national's New Jersey-based genetic engineering division.



    Now if someone can only manage to acquire rights to the gesture which resembles slowly shaking a beer can up and down, they can really get rich.



    This is the sort of grotesquerie that results when corporate interest buy and sell legislators a six pack at a time. As a long-term HIV survivor, I've donated buckets of blood to researchers attempting to determine why I'm not dead. I'm sure any useful discovery will be patented, at which point I suppose I can look forward to being sued for unauthorized possession of my own genome.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post


    Now if someone can only manage to acquire rights to the gesture which resembles slowly shaking a beer can up and down, they can really get rich.



    That might have already happened.

  • tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Absolutely correct. That's for a court to decide if it's put to the test. FWIW, the patent I mentioned, applied to searching within emails for specific text strings (fairly basic) is owned by Google. They've been very quietly targeting specific types of technology patents by the looks of things.



    Why do you say that the patent is owned by Google. It blatantly obvious that the assignee (OWNER) of that patent is Hewlett-Packard?
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,878member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Why Android of course, it's one of it's strongest marketing points.



    It may be a strong marketing point in getting manufacturers to use it. I doubt very many buyers of Android phones care at all, nor even know what open source is in the first place. I don't think "open source" is even a minor selling point for the average buyer.



    In any case the Android OS may be open source. . or not. The individual pieces and patents used outside the package would not unless deemed so by the holder.
  • mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 6,875member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post


    I want to see what happens with this bad boy: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090249247



    Notification center what?



    Before I burst your bubble I need to point out a certain individual who I worked with at NeXT whose name is all over these Patents:



    Jeffrey Yaksick [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-yaksick/1/560/8a9]



    As usual, nothing Google can seem to create doesn't come from ex-NeXT and ex-Apple alumni.



    Jeff is a great guy. He's no Keith Ohlfs, but then again he followed Keith to WebTV where Keith developed WebTV UI.



    What I have noticed are several ex-NeXT colleagues of mine who have begun to recently leave Google to do other start ups.



    The Valley is a small world.



    For you see, 9/10 great hardware/OS ideas come from folks who worked for a Steven P. Jobs corporation.



    It's amazing how few of these new companies have anything worth a crap to crow about without former talent from Steve's own visionary teams to aide in their efforts.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,878member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tawilson View Post


    Why do you say that the patent is owned by Google. It blatantly obvious that the assignee (OWNER) of that patent is Hewlett-Packard?



    . . .and now owned by Google.



    HP transferred it to them a few months ago along with several others that appear handpicked, tho the reasons for those specific ones isn't clear.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,878member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Before I burst your bubble I need to point out a certain individual who I worked with at NeXT whose name is all over these Patents:



    Jeffrey Yaksick [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeff-yaksick/1/560/8a9]



    As usual, nothing Google can seem to create doesn't come from ex-NeXT and ex-Apple alumni.



    Jeff is a great guy. He's no Keith Ohlfs, but then again he followed Keith to WebTV where Keith developed WebTV UI.



    What I have noticed are several ex-NeXT colleagues of mine who have begun to recently leave Google to do other start ups.



    The Valley is a small world.



    For you see, 9/10 great hardware/OS ideas come from folks who worked for a Steven P. Jobs corporation.



    It's amazing how few of these new companies have anything worth a crap to crow about without former talent from Steve's own visionary teams to aide in their efforts.



    Then perhaps we can look forward to another whisper campaign attacking someone's reputation if this patent ever becomes an issue: Jeff clearly stole the whole idea from Steve Jobs while working under him years ago.
  • galaxytabgalaxytab Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Before I burst your bubble...



    Congratulations to Jeffrey Yaksick. I'm sure he has had a wonderful career in The Valley and was a great guy to work with.



    May I ask why you think his previous employment history would burst some imaginary bubble?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,389member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Before I burst your bubble I need to point out a certain individual who I worked with at NeXT whose name is all over these Patents:



    As usual, nothing Google can seem to create doesn't come from ex-NeXT and ex-Apple alumni.



    That's knee-slappingly hilarious. Truly, it is.
  • lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post


    In a way, this smacks of hubris more than anything I've seen on either side.



    When the slide-to-unlock feature was demonstrated, it was an novel solution to an novel problem. So some engineers looked at the solution, made a very slight variation, and then applied for (and got!) a patent. But what could possibly be more derivative than this? You might argue that the initial slide to unlock idea wasn't worth a patent. I'd disagree, but I could see someone making that argument. But this? Please. They didn't independently come up with a novel idea. They just did a very slight variation. Tiny variations are not supposed to be patentable.



    In my opinion, if slide-to-unlock deserves a patent, so does this. Then again, I don't think slide-to-unlock deserves a patent. It is after all "an obvious idea any engineer in the field would have had"...

    I'll even go further... it is the kind of technology you'd find in a fantasy book.



    "The dwarf looked at him baffled. The elf put his hand on the silvery door and slid it to the left. To the dwarf's amazement, the engraving of an iron bar covered in runes slid along, and the door silently opened."



    I'm no Tolkien, but still, this is believably "fantasy-ish". Patent that? I call the prior art of Bilbo the Hobbit!
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,678member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That might have already happened.





    O. M. G.



    I could watch that all day.
Sign In or Register to comment.