or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple awarded patent for touchscreen slide-to-unlock gesture
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple awarded patent for touchscreen slide-to-unlock gesture - Page 4

post #121 of 192
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles innovation it is because they act as if they exist in a void, that nothing existed before them and everything that comes after and builds upon or horizontally from their good idea is blatant theft and has no right to exist.

Never before in the history of tech has such a mindset existed.

Nothing has been created in a void and everything including the iPhone was built off the shoulders of giants.

Do I believe that Apple should be able to patent (and copyright/trademark) their specific implementation of slide to unlock? certainly (though patent maybe not but the other 2 yes).

Do I believe any company should be able to monopolize the mere act of interacting with a touchscreen to remove a screensaver (which is what it is) so you can interact with the device? no.

The fact that Apple can and has and IMO rightfully adapt and modify existing ideas into their products yet for some reason no one else can is hypocritical to me.

Take the notification pane for instance. I have no qualms with Apple using this...it's a great idea, and very useful and unless it was a direct line for line rip of Android's it is perfectly legitimate. No one seems to mind the fact that Apple was inspired by Android and WebOS.

Android 4.0s folder creation method on the other hand? Evil, theft, GRAND theft, stealing, blah blah blah.

Hell, let's back up a bit...Google had Android...a modular OS designed to be hardware agnostic from the get (despite what people say it was always capable of being on touchscreen only devices, the first prototype however, was a qwerty BB style device)...Apple comes out to rave reviews...EVERYONE recognizes the paradigm shift in smartphones...so everyone acts accordingly to survive in this new world.

All of a sudden everyone is a "thief"...because inspiration and trends seemingly no longer exist in the post iOS world :-/

Sad times.

Note 2.0: Samsung is omitted from defense as they are the most blatant infringers I've seen beyond Chinese KiRF manufacturers...though I still think the Tab should't have been banned.
post #122 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I watched the video. It's clear a "Swipe for Yes" crude implementation, not specifically a gesture meant to unlock the device. In the video, the person turned it on and accessed a menu without have to swipe left-to-right.

iOS uses Swipe-to-Unlock specifically to prevent the notorious accidental "pocket use" by requiring a physical button to be pressed and then a specific touch gesture before you can use the device.

Not the same concept or implementation as "swipe for yes". I don't think the phone in the video even has a "locked" state short of turning its display off.

If anything, it's similar only to how you answer a phone call on an iPhone while the device is locked, which is actually a double action where the device is unlocked and the call is answered; when the device is unlocked, you only press a button to answer, not swipe.



Swipe-to-unlock on the Neonode prevents accidental use as well. Nowhere in the video did they access a menu from a lock screen without unlocking. You're making stuff up.
post #123 of 192
deleted
post #124 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

What do you feel would be an appropriate action against this device?:




two different images...but the first should've invalidated the design patent (considering the iPad and the Tab can only be confused from the front) and the second one is the back of the original Tab before Samsung went back to the drawing board to better compete with Apple in the tablet space...or as they like to say here "Stole"
post #125 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Actually, the first time I slid my finger across something to unlock it was a fingerprint detector on a ThinkPad.

Also patent doesn't just have to be first - it should be non-obvious, and represent IP that has value. I could be the first to build a phone that is unlocked by pressing the letter Q, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of a patent.

This qPhone you mention, I must have one. How much?
post #126 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

THIS patent was given to Apple but it ISN'T Apple's innovation. Unless you believe that adding an animation to a gesture you stole from others is true innovation. Which you probably do. So... good luck with "strangling" anyone with this lame patent. I'm happy with my lock pattern, and don't need a picture to guide me when swiping to unlock.

Looking at the Neonoe N1m video fom 2007, what struck me as interesting was the fact that there was no attempt to suggest that the yes/no finger movement was intended to represent the action of physically manipulating a locking mechanism. Therefore, it's somewhat of a leap of faith to think that this was the inspiration for Apple's slide-to-unlock idea and it's implementation.

It seems more likely that upon seeing the very clear conceptual linkage to an unlocking action
as represented in Apple's implementation, the Neonode developers and/or fans began applying the benefits of hindsight in their favor!

A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!

Sorry.
post #127 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post



Swipe-to-unlock on the Neonode prevents accidental use as well. Nowhere in the video did they access a menu from a lock screen without unlocking. You're making stuff up.

The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".

It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.
post #128 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

Looking at the Neonoe N1m video fom 2007, what struck me as interesting was the fact that there was no attempt to suggest that the yes/no finger movement was intended to represent the action of physically manipulating a locking mechanism. Therefore, it's somewhat of a leap of faith to think that this was the inspiration for Apple's slide-to-unlock idea and it's implementation.

It seems more likely that upon seeing the very clear conceptual linkage to an unlocking action
as represented in Apple's implementation, the Neonode developers and/or fans began applying the benefits of hindsight in their favor!

A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!

Sorry.

Exactly, it was specifically for "yes/no" responses, and its functionality was duplicated by "yes" and "no" buttons on the side.
post #129 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!

Sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".

It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.

Are you being intentionally daft? Here's a direct link to the locked screen and the unlock gesture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...ailpage#t=239s

This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.

The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.
post #130 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Just a note...when people say Apple stifles innovation it is because they act as if they exist in a void, that nothing existed before them and everything that comes after and builds upon or horizontally from their good idea is blatant theft and has no right to exist.

Fixed:

Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, that nothing existed before them and everything that comes after and builds upon or horizontally from their good idea is blatant theft and has no right to exist.

You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #131 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Fixed:

Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, that nothing existed before them and everything that comes after and builds upon or horizontally from their good idea is blatant theft and has no right to exist.

You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.

So you believe Apple exists in a void?
post #132 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Are you being intentionally daft? Here's a direct link to the locked screen and the unlock gesture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...ailpage#t=239s

This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.

The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.

Still no indication anywhere that the movement was intended to represent any real-world physical action of manipulating a locking mechanism...

Or are you suggesting that when an icon of a lock appeared it was meant to miraculously indicate that the finger movements were no longer to be thought of as simple "yes" or "no" indicators (as was the case everywhere else) but, instead, an unspecified representation of a real-world action, which the user would happily substitute without any additional clues? Somehow the user was supposed to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context. That's quite a stretch.
post #133 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

I have gotten my point across to anyone who is receptive to it. I am not going to waste my time on the diehards. I'm not in court, but it's a safe bet that those who were in the Dutch court must have presented ample evidence.



I read the text. The biggest difference is the additional visual cue (image). I find that an obvious addition. Your qualification of the design as "primitive" is unnecessary -- the slide-to-unlock gesture is clearly there.



It is quite possible that FingerWorks had a similar idea, but the patent filing was a year too late for the idea to be patentable.

Finally, you know as well as I do that apart from the legal side, or from what one poster can prove to the rest, there is the moral issue. Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them. Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?

Spare me the Abrahamic school of Morality. Quantify to me the Right vs. Wrong in this patent that does harm to the human species. I'm dying to read this one.
post #134 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This seems much more constrained than previous reports of this patent and if accurate, means that the android gesture unlock is definitely *not* covered by this patent. There are several lesser tablets that will be in trouble but Android ... not so much.

If accurate? That's the patent filing.
post #135 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Fixed:

Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, that nothing existed before them and everything that comes after and builds upon or horizontally from their good idea is blatant theft and has no right to exist.

You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.

iPhone


Slavish Copy


Copy


Inspired


Inspired and Unique


post #136 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".

It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.

Don't worry. Some poster will apply a slider to a temperature conversion with the left resulting in Celsius and the right in Fahrenheit and scream prior art.
post #137 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Are you being intentionally daft? Here's a direct link to the locked screen and the unlock gesture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...ailpage#t=239s

This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.

The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.


Without iPhone-associated hindsight, there is no reason anyone would consider that the movements associated with selecting "yes" or "no" in connection with a lock icon could mean anything more than, "Do you want the lock on or not? Yes or no."

Why would those movements suddenly be expected to represent something else? For example, is there any indication that this particular lock utilizes a sliding mechanism?
post #138 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

Without iPhone-associated hindsight, there is no reason anyone would consider that the movements associated with selecting "yes" or "no" in connection with a lock icon could mean anything more than, "Do you want the lock on or not? Yes or no."

Why would those movements suddenly be expected to represent something else? For example, is there any indication that this particular lock utilizes a sliding mechanism?

Just because the icon "slides" doesn't mean there is an actual sliding mechanism -_-

You do know people don't actually die in video games either right?
post #139 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

Still no indication anywhere that the movement was intended to represent any real-world physical action of manipulating a locking mechanism...

Or are you suggesting that when an icon of a lock appeared it was meant to miraculously indicate that the finger movements were no longer to be thought of as simple "yes" or "no" indicators (as was the case everywhere else) but, instead, an unspecified representation of a real-world action, which the user would happily substitute without any additional clues? Somehow the user was supposed to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context. That's quite a stretch.

Ugh, you're making stuff up again, where is this "real world action" in the original wording of Apple's patent? And where is this user that has a hard time "to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context."?

Anyway, back on topic: we aren't discussing the overall consistency of Neonode's ground-breaking user interface, but their pioneering use of the slide-to-unlock gesture which is well documented years before Apple filed for a similar patent.
post #140 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Ugh, you're making stuff up again, where is this "real world action" in the original wording of Apple's patent? And where is this user that has a hard time "to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context."?

Anyway, back on topic: we aren't discussing the overall consistency of Neonode's ground-breaking user interface, but their pioneering use of the slide-to-unlock gesture which is well documented years before Apple filed for a similar patent.

The issue here is your inability to demonstrate that the Neonode developers planned that the very specific movement/gesture used elsewhere for "yes" or "no" in their system would suddenly represent "slide-to-unlock" whenever a lock icon appeared on the screen. Without that intention on their part, it's impossible to make a case that Apple's slide-to-unlock implementation is really their innovation.

If this was their intention, don't you think they would have chosen a door-chain type of icon instead of something that resembled a padlock?
post #141 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Old news, but sure to bring many clicks.

So, there you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...layer_embedded

This company will not get sued by Apple for this device I am sure. Its user interface is sufficiently different from the iPhone/iPad. Since this device existed, this proves strongly the other iPhone competitors are simply trying to copy Apple's success.
post #142 of 192
I'm trying to understand if you guys who are defending this patent are doing so based on existing terminology/law or on principal.

If it's on principal, I don't think you can seriously defend it. Convoluting the conversation with claims of using capacitive screen as opposed to lack of it doesn't take away from the bottom line which is Apple saw this METHOD and patented it. It's the method ultimately that they claim is their own while disguising the patent as the IMPLEMENTATION of it. well guess what, technology is limited in ways it can implement that method. not to say that the technology is unique, in fact it isn't. the problem is lack of feasible technology that would allow anyone else to implement the method without the capacitive screen.

Props to apple for being the first to implement this idea to the mass market in a pretty package but in no way should this be considered unique after seeing that neonode video. whatever excuse you come up with such as "real world action??" is a fabrication to divert attention away from the concept. how much simpler can it get? 1. screen is locked 2. wake device 3. swipe finger from one side to the other and screen is unlocked. yes or no doesn't matter at this point. the concept is right there for a company to manipulate and claim as their own
post #143 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

The issue here is your inability to demonstrate that the Neonode developers planned that the very specific movement/gesture used elsewhere for "yes" or "no" in their system would suddenly represent "slide-to-unlock" whenever a lock icon appeared on the screen. Without that intention on their part, it's impossible to make a case that Apple's slide-to-unlock implementation is really their innovation.

If this was their intention, don't you think they would have chosen a door-chain type of icon instead of something that resembled a padlock?

He is trying to avoid the obvious fact. The Neonode device unlocked in a different way. It did not use the swipe to unlock the device. So it is not obvious to Neonode and unlocking is not invented by Neonode.
post #144 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by spovat View Post

Apple saw this METHOD and patented it.

It MAY be true that they saw this first. If so, they certainly didn't patent what they saw. If you think otherwise, you need to look at the video again and then consider why Apple's patent application is titled "Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image."

(Also, be sure that you're viewing the Neonode N1m video from 2007.)
post #145 of 192
The question is "what can or will Apple do?"
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #146 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

It MAY be true that they saw this first. If so, they certainly didn't patent what they saw. If you think otherwise, you need to look at the video again and then consider why Apple's patent application is titled "Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image."

(Also, be sure that you're viewing the Neonode N1m video from 2007.)

I really don't get how anyone can defend the two parts stated in this thread 1) Apple stole from them when there is no proof of such) and 2) how Apple very detailed patent definition could be considered the same rudimentary actions as used in the June 29th, 2007 the day the iPhone was released video. You'd have to erase all but 5 words in Apple's patent filing to make them remotely comparable.

To be clear, that does not mean Apple had ninja spies in Neonode back in 2003 stealing all their ideas, seeing this one on swiping for gestures (yet somehow not seeing FingerWorks swiping gestures), and then passing them off to Apple to reinvent in an actual useful way. But there is no evidence to suggest these ninja spies existed or that Apple actually stole or bowered anything from Neonode least of the which the very specific patent in question.


edit: This video would have been better evidence for an argument that it predates iPhone OS 1.0 as it's from December 2009 and shows clearly the lockscreen with an arrow pointing from left to right. Again, this is not proof of who was first and covers none of the details in Apple's patent, but it would at least have shown Neonode demonstrating the slide left to unlock before the original iPhone was announced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsQwO5M14Dg
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #147 of 192
deleted
post #148 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Samsung has two versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1?

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was introduced before iPad 2. I don't think it had reached the market yet when Apple introduced the iPad 2. Immediately after, Samsung made a public statement that the Tab needed to be redesigned, and out popped what you know today as the Tab 10.1.
post #149 of 192
Pff whatever.

iOS still doesn't have gesture unlock code??? (I haven't seen it on iOS 5 on iPad 2 unless I am not seeing it...)

I looooove that on my droid. I'd love it on my iPad too. I hope Apple copies that from Android. I've got muscle memory already, I can unlock my phone without looking in car w/ Droid.

Unlock codes? FAIL. LAME. Gesture unlock = bigger innovation than swipe to unlock with code. Plus Google has facial recognition unlock now, although I see that more as a toy than useful...unless it proves to be accurate in reality.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #150 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was introduced before iPad 2. I don't think it had reached the market yet when Apple introduced the iPad 2. Immediately after, Samsung made a public statement that the Tab needed to be redesigned, and out popped what you know today as the Tab 10.1.

Samsung!!!! They are awesome. I want Samsung to make a Galaxy Note slider, or perhaps a keyboard case. I will buy one. Then I will use it instead of my Mac half the time probably. I might have a bit of a bulge in my pants, but, eh, I'll just let other people's imagination run wild with that.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #151 of 192
"Software that is a mere computerized or automated implementation of established manual procedures, such as sorting and filing information, transmitting information, etc. is not patentable." - - or legislation to that effect should be enough to invalidate such stupid software patents as one-click ordering, and its ilk.
post #152 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I hate software patents.

the notion of a software patent is a good one. Provided that, like all patents, it is specific. Vague patents are the real problem.

Also it wouldn't hurt to have a limit on how long one can sit on someone violating a patent before you speak up. Like trademarks, if you sit around for 5 years and do nothing then clearly you never really cared so the judges are more apt to toss the case. Letting folks sit for 18 of the 20 years they have a patent with folks violating it left and right and then in year 19 when someone strikes gold filing a suit shouldn't be allowed. THe point of a patent is to protect your IP, not make you a fortune.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #153 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Just a note...when people say Apple stifles innovation it is because they act as if they exist in a void, that nothing existed before them and everything that comes after and builds upon or horizontally from their good idea is blatant theft and has no right to exist.

Never before in the history of tech has such a mindset existed.

Nothing has been created in a void and everything including the iPhone was built off the shoulders of giants.

Do I believe that Apple should be able to patent (and copyright/trademark) their specific implementation of slide to unlock? certainly (though patent maybe not but the other 2 yes).

Do I believe any company should be able to monopolize the mere act of interacting with a touchscreen to remove a screensaver (which is what it is) so you can interact with the device? no.

The fact that Apple can and has and IMO rightfully adapt and modify existing ideas into their products yet for some reason no one else can is hypocritical to me.

Take the notification pane for instance. I have no qualms with Apple using this...it's a great idea, and very useful and unless it was a direct line for line rip of Android's it is perfectly legitimate. No one seems to mind the fact that Apple was inspired by Android and WebOS.

Android 4.0s folder creation method on the other hand? Evil, theft, GRAND theft, stealing, blah blah blah.

Hell, let's back up a bit...Google had Android...a modular OS designed to be hardware agnostic from the get (despite what people say it was always capable of being on touchscreen only devices, the first prototype however, was a qwerty BB style device)...Apple comes out to rave reviews...EVERYONE recognizes the paradigm shift in smartphones...so everyone acts accordingly to survive in this new world.

All of a sudden everyone is a "thief"...because inspiration and trends seemingly no longer exist in the post iOS world :-/

Sad times.

Note 2.0: Samsung is omitted from defense as they are the most blatant infringers I've seen beyond Chinese KiRF manufacturers...though I still think the Tab should't have been banned.


Not necessarily true. The BB-style prototype pic is from Gizmodo on Dec 17 2007. Here's the official video from Nov 11 2007, where Google is announcing Android to the world. Skip to 2:55.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=1FJHYqE0RDg



post #154 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I really don't get how anyone can defend the two parts stated in this thread 1) Apple stole from them when there is no proof of such) and 2) how Apple very detailed patent definition could be considered the same rudimentary actions as used in the June 29th, 2007 — the day the iPhone was released — video. You'd have to erase all but 5 words in Apple's patent filing to make them remotely comparable.

Apple likely borrowed the idea (improved on it, was inspired, whatever) -- I'm just saying it's the most logical explanation, and you may choose to disregard it (as most readers here will, simple confirmatory bias). If Neonode had filed for a patent, the wording would likely be no less elaborate than the wording of Apple's patent, so there no reason to downplay the gesture just because it's simple.


Quote:
To be clear, that does not mean Apple had ninja spies in Neonode back in 2003 stealing all their ideas, seeing this one on swiping for gestures (yet somehow not seeing FingerWorks swiping gestures), and then passing them off to Apple to reinvent in an actual useful way. But there is no evidence to suggest these ninja spies existed or that Apple actually stole or bowered anything from Neonode… least of the which the very specific patent in question.

Just to set the timeframe straight, the first Neonode model was showcased in March 2002 on CeBIT in Germany. That's about 5 years before the iPhone was announced, and likely long before it was even conceived.

So there's no need for "ninjas", the information was public in 2003. And, Apple had not bought FingerWorks at the time.

It then took two years for Neonode to start to market the device, under which time it had acquired a "vaporware" status. The first model was released in July 2004, more than three years before the iPhone.

The model in the video I linked to earlier is a later model, and had been released in March 2005 -- as indicated in tnkgrl's video, it was already 2-3 years old in the eve of iPhones release! It was also about the time when Apple acquired FingerWorks.

Neonode released one more model, N2, demonstrated during the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona in February 2007. This model was the result of two years of software improvements, and already contained not only the swipe-to-unlock gesture but also visual cues (arrows) incorporated throughout the interface, albeit without the animation detailed in Apple's later patent filing.

Quote:

edit: This video would have been better evidence for an argument that it predates iPhone OS 1.0 as it's from December 2009 and shows clearly the lockscreen with an arrow pointing from left to right. Again, this is not proof of who was first and covers none of the details in Apple's patent, but it would at least have shown Neonode demonstrating the slide left to unlock before the original iPhone was announced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsQwO5M14Dg

I tend to view YouTube videos not as evidence, but as illustrations. There are dozens of videos demonstrating the slide-to-unlock before the iPhone was announced (I saw quite a few of them tonight, and could give you the links if googling is too much).

The bottomline is, the gesture was there many years before Apple filed to patent it, and therefore is unpatentable due to lack of novelty. The only thing Apple might claim as an improvement is the implementation including a visual cue, which becomes rather obvious once the rest of the hardware can easily support animated objects.
post #155 of 192
Quote:
Apple awarded patent for touchscreen slide-to-unlock gesture

But still a rectangle thing is my favorite by far. Unbelivable

This one is also quite bizzare:

HTC agreed to pay Microsoft $5 per shipped Android set.

CaptainJack
"I think people are forgetting the big reason that HTC is paying Microsoft to License Android, and that is indemnity. Apple started going around suing everyone that made an Android phone with multi-touch, for various patent infringements including HTC.
Microsoft saw this and stepped in with the various multi-touch patents they have in place as well. They informed any manufacturers that anyone licensing their OS would be provided indemnity from IP lawsuits, as Microsoft would pay their legal defense and come to their aid in patent suits that came as a result. HTC saw this as a cheap way to license patents and protect themselves from Apple's lawyers and they have been paying for a Windows Phone 7 License for every Android device ever since. "

Now the question is does Apple have Enough Balls to do it against Microsoft ?!

All this patent things will be extremely funny to follow

"I invented the rectangle"  - Steve Jobs

"We Bomb you" - USA

Reply

"I invented the rectangle"  - Steve Jobs

"We Bomb you" - USA

Reply
post #156 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

the notion of a software patent is a good one. Provided that, like all patents, it is specific. Vague patents are the real problem.

Also it wouldn't hurt to have a limit on how long one can sit on someone violating a patent before you speak up. Like trademarks, if you sit around for 5 years and do nothing then clearly you never really cared so the judges are more apt to toss the case. Letting folks sit for 18 of the 20 years they have a patent with folks violating it left and right and then in year 19 when someone strikes gold filing a suit shouldn't be allowed. THe point of a patent is to protect your IP, not make you a fortune.

Nominated for Post of Year.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #157 of 192
deleted
post #158 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

The bottomline is, the gesture was there many years before Apple filed to patent it, and therefore is unpatentable due to lack of novelty.

Again you fail to understand that Apple is not patenting a left-to-right finger movement but, rather, the innovation involved with implementing a gesture that is conceptually linked in its performance with an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism. This makes it novel and clearly different from what Neonode has done, in which there is no attempt to relate the gesture to the process of manipulating a lock of any type. In my opinion, they definitely deserve a patent.
post #159 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

Again you fail to understand that Apple is not patenting a left-to-right finger movement but, rather, the innovation involved with implementing a gesture that is conceptually linked in its performance with an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism. This makes it novel and clearly different from what Neonode has done, in which there is no attempt to relate the gesture to the process of manipulating a lock of any type. In my opinion, they definitely deserve a patent.

The semantics are irrelevant. Whether the gesture resembles "an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism" or not is completely immaterial, and in fact, it doesn't resemble anything widely used (what do you open by sliding your thumb across it, really?). The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it. You shouldn't be able to patent something old just because you see some deep new meaning in it.

What you're trying to convince me is roughly this: Neonode designed a mouse trap, but they didn't understand it can trap mice (?!), so Apple should be granted a patent for finding a similarity between Neonode's invention and another device that traps mice, and drawing on Neonode's device to emphasize that resemblance.

Can you answer this: would Apple's slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there? Could one unlock iPhone's screen without looking at it? Does the unlock work if the back light is dimmed, or the outside light is too bright for one to read the screen?

If you answered the above questions with "yes", then you know whether Apple's addition to the method is dispensable.
post #160 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it.

Clearly Apple was not attempting to patent the left-to-right finger movement/gesture, and the USPTO was apparently able to figure that out on their own.

The issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.

It's clearly useful. It is novel with notable differences from the Neonode implementation. If it had been obvious, Neonode would have done what Apple did (which cannot be thought of as anything less than an improvement), but they didn't. Apparently the idea of attempting to conceptually connect their left-to-right gesture with the process of unlatching something never occurred to them. It only became obvious once they saw the iPhone. (Just my guess, admittedly, but this is what seems most likely.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple awarded patent for touchscreen slide-to-unlock gesture