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 2

post #41 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Um, Samsung's patent in question most likely falls under FRAND whereas Apple's do not, hence the unfair part.

Hm....Apple seems to have all their bases covered.
post #42 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by docbop View Post

It's BS generic patients like this that kill competition and in long run increase prices. Patients have outlived their usefulness. Maybe Samsung should patient launching email by touching a button.

Exactly what kind of "patients" are you referring to? Never mind, you meant patents.
post #43 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm curious what your point is with your post. On the eve of the iPhone release the announcer is reviewing another phone. We're not talking about before the iPhone was announced, as that was 6 months earlier. It also makes no mention of Neonode having any patents on slide to unlock, if that is your point. In fact there is nothing in the video to suggest that Neonode didn't get the idea for slide to unlock until after seeing Apple's January 2007 demo.

Did you watch the video?

The answers to your questions are there.

The Neonode pre-dates the iPhone with 2-3 years. I posted the link because I actually remember the device being talked about in the Swedish tech magasines in 2005-2006.

The Neonode did not get the idea about slide-to-unlock from Apple. Apple is the copyist here.
post #44 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Um, Samsung's patent in question most likely falls under FRAND whereas Apple's do not, hence the unfair part.

Why is that unfair?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #45 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

Please elaborate. Why would a rational person invest time and resources to invent anything if a competitor can simply copy it for free?

Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.
post #46 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

Please elaborate. Why would a rational person invest time and resources to invent anything if a competitor can simply copy it for free?

The issue starts to occur, though, to when or what exactly that ensues. It's okay if Apple does it. They spent R&D. But what if another company wants to play the game and that will DIRECTLY affect the iPhone? I undrstand patents....but you do understand patents right? They're not meant to be held on forever. They're supposed to be used to recoup the costs for R&D and after a number of years it's all fair game.

That's why you don't seen generic perscritptioins for certain items (like viagra) for a number of years until it's established. Then you'll start seeign them at Walgreen's.
post #47 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.

This.
post #48 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why is that unfair?

It's unfair for Samsung to try to use a patent against Apple that they are required to license at a fair price.
post #49 of 192
The silly 'slide to unlock' function is one thing I would remove from my iPhone, if I could.

But I've read that there is no provision in iOS for disabling it, and can only be done after jailbreaking it.

I'd just like to turn the device on, without the unnecessary step of having to unlock it. If I felt the need to have that for security or something, I think it should be a user-enabled feature. They do without it on the iPad if you have the smart cover, with its 'wake from sleep' feature.
post #50 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

It's unfair for Samsung to try to use a patent against Apple that they are required to license at a fair price.

Yes, that part is unfair. Samsung can not legally obtain an injunction over a FRAND patent. They can, however, file a lawsuit to try to collect royalties.

It sounded like you were arguing the opposite.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #51 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Old indeed: it was dismissed in the Dutch courts months ago:

Aug 24, 2011
Dutch judge considers Apple's slide-to-unlock patent trivial and likely invalid
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-slide-to.html

It'll be interesting to see if it survives in the States.

It's irrelevant as to what a judge thinks. They can only state their opinion. The ruling must be investigated and made by the relevant patent bodies.
post #52 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, that part is unfair. Samsung can not legally obtain an injunction over a FRAND patent. They can, however, file a lawsuit to try to collect royalties.

It sounded like you were arguing the opposite.

Nope, basically what you said. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
post #53 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.

And can you give a good list of reasons why?
post #54 of 192


Fools. This device is installed wrong. The opening to remove the slider should be on the other side!
post #55 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why is that unfair?

Because it protects some and not others. I meant, if Samsung had a patent where Apple suddenly couldn't use their attenna design or tech...then would that be fair or unfair?

Again, I wonder if half of this stuff is because it's Apple. I'm seriously tired of these patent wars. It's good to protect your stuff, but not if everyone's gonna be like 'well, I have this!'.
post #56 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

It's unfair for Samsung to try to use a patent against Apple that they are required to license at a fair price.

Wait, I'm so confused now.
post #57 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Wait, I'm so confused now.

See post #50
post #58 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post



Fools. This device is installed wrong. The opening to remove the slider should be on the other side!

Yes! I knew there was something wrong with the picture. Now, why is the picture wrong?
post #59 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

This.

If software patents shouldn't be allowed then you are saying a company could copy the exact look and feel of Mac OS X and iOS without repercussion? Really?
post #60 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And can you give a good list of reasons why?

Because a patent is supposed to represent something physical that someone came up with on his own. It's not supposed to represent an implementation of stuff we all use on a regular basis.

Look, I love Apple. And I have no problem with them doing this, as it represents the whole picture of companies going against each other, all the time. But the idea that you can patent a "slide to unlock" implementation is ridiculous.

Or am I completely wrong, here?
post #61 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

The issue starts to occur, though, to when or what exactly that ensues. It's okay if Apple does it. They spent R&D. But what if another company wants to play the game and that will DIRECTLY affect the iPhone? I undrstand patents....but you do understand patents right? They're not meant to be held on forever. They're supposed to be used to recoup the costs for R&D and after a number of years it's all fair game.

Yeah. 20 years. So feel free to copy Apple's patented technology after 20 years - if you think anyone will care at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's irrelevant as to what a judge thinks. They can only state their opinion. The ruling must be investigated and made by the relevant patent bodies.

Not true. A court can invalidate a patent. However, the Dutch judge did not do so. S/he merely said that there were questions as to the validity that would have to be addressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Because it protects some and not others. I meant, if Samsung had a patent where Apple suddenly couldn't use their attenna design or tech...then would that be fair or unfair? .

If it was required for interoperability and therefore fell under FRAND rules, then Samsung would be forced to license it, and it would be a non-issue.

OTOH, if it were something NOT required by FRAND, then Samsung would have every right to enforce their patent and to refuse to license it.

What part of this is too difficult for you?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Did you watch the video?

The answers to your questions are there.

The Neonode pre-dates the iPhone with 2-3 years. I posted the link because I actually remember the device being talked about in the Swedish tech magasines in 2005-2006.

The Neonode did not get the idea about slide-to-unlock from Apple. Apple is the copyist here.

Then show me a video of the device from 2-3 years prior. Show me evidence that Neonode has a patent on slide to unlock and not just their archaic and simplistic touch-interfeace tech that seems to require a lot of sliding around in order to get the system to understand an action. Show me where Apple took the idea from Neonode 2-3 years prior, that goes beyond your defense that because Apple didn't show you the iPhone earlier they couldn't have thought of it until that very day.

Your entire argument is post hoc, ergo propter hoc because you think you saw the same tech in a magazine years before Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but patents and ideas aren't created and dated the moment you take notice of them.
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 #63 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

People who post this image (and there seems to be a lot unless it's always you), simply don't understand anything at all about invention, design, patents or much of anything else.

The existence of cart wheels from the 18th century for instance, has no bearing on whether Ford should get a patent on their newest belted radial tires for example, and even less relevance to whether someone can write a computer game using wagon wheels as design elements. This is 100% irrelevant.

Geez, lighten up. It's just funny.
post #64 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yeah. 20 years. So feel free to copy Apple's patented technology after 20 years - if you think anyone will care at that time.



Not true. A court can invalidate a patent. However, the Dutch judge did not do so. S/he merely said that there were questions as to the validity that would have to be addressed.



If it was required for interoperability and therefore fell under FRAND rules, then Samsung would be forced to license it, and it would be a non-issue.

OTOH, if it were something NOT required by FRAND, then Samsung would have every right to enforce their patent and to refuse to license it.

What part of this is too difficult for you?

You are very condescending person. Funny, when someone posts something with evidence you can't refute how you don't reply.
post #65 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodlesNoodlemann View Post

Geez, lighten up. It's just funny.

People are too pretentious here.
post #66 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

And the patent wars continues. Samsung's gonna be ready if Apple decides to enter the TV market.


except for whatever OS Samsung uses and their screen tech what patents do they have? other companies make TV's and TV screens with similar features

the asians seem to be only good at consumer electronics when it's an open device like a tv or blu ray player and your only feature is the lowest price. in this second generation of smart consumer devices its going to be Apple, google, Microsoft and other US companies that will rule
post #67 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

You are very condescending person. Funny, when someone posts something with evidence you can't refute how you don't reply.

How does that explain why you were totally wrong in your post and I totally destroyed your arguments?

And I'm still waiting for you to post evidence to back up your silly claims.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #68 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by howyoudoin View Post

If software patents shouldn't be allowed then you are saying a company could copy the exact look and feel of Mac OS X and iOS without repercussion? Really?

No, what I'm saying is that it's a doube-edged sword and people need to becareful. There's a difference on copyrights and patents of spefific icons, but there shouldn't be for overall functionality.

It's just when it comes to software, it's all ambigious. I can copyright/patent the spefific design of Ford Mustang, not the four wheels and an engine.

UI is very complicated. Especially on phones.
post #69 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

How does that explain why you were totally wrong in your post and I totally destroyed your arguments?

And I'm still waiting for you to post evidence to back up your silly claims.

Destory my argument? I think not. Your logical consistency sucks.

Were you not the same one who said the iPhone 4S would work with ALL iPhone 4 cases....yet I provided you with quotes and links (from company spokes people) and you DON'T reply? Lolz, you're too funny.

EDIT: Also, back up claims? Where are your links? Hmm? How can you tell me to back something up with links when you have yet to do so yourself?
post #70 of 192
The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.

Another note though I have questions for the board:

Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?

Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?

Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?
post #71 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

...
Your entire argument is post hoc, ergo propter hoc because you think you saw the same tech in a magazine years before Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 but patents and ideas aren't created and dated the moment you take notice of them.

Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."

Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.

I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it

It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.
post #72 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.

Another note though I have questions for the board:

Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?

Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?

Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?

I'd like to see a special category defined for software that uses aspects of patent rights and copyrights to protect well defined code for a certain duration.
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 #73 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."

Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.

I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it

It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.

1) The point of posting in a forum to get your point across, which means you have to defend your point if it's weak. You've tried to defend it by skirting the issue which means you aren't sure that Neonode had any patents, prior art or anything else before Apple or other companies.

2) You've also failed to read the patent text supplied by Shrike:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...0&postcount=18 Just look at number one to see the technology in the iPhone is nothing like that of Neonode's primitive design.

3) FingerWorks, created in 1998, bought by Apple in 2005, and still filing patents as late as 2008. You think it's possible FingerWorks might predate Neonode's 2001 formation? Especially considering FingerWork's focus was on multi-touch interfaces not trying to make a phone that looks like a glucose meter.
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 #74 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

People who post this image (and there seems to be a lot unless it's always you), simply don't understand anything at all about invention, design, patents or much of anything else.

It is still a funny image and not because it is slide to unlock but because that lock wouldn't work since it is installed backwards.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #75 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It is still a funny image and not because it is slide to unlock but because that lock wouldn't work since it is installed backwards.

HA! Good observation.
post #76 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

The patent wording seems real specific so I'm not exactly against it.

Another note though I have questions for the board:

Do you guys feel that with the speed of technological advancement, software patents should be given for shorter periods of time?

Also, should software be covered by trademark and copyright but not patentable?

Video games which are at times exponentially more complex than the codes in software patents are not patentable....is that wrong? Should they be patentable?

You just made things more complicated.

Games and even movies have millions of lines of code. So........? If Apple games and made mario, they'd copyright jumping.

On a serious note, though, I think that might hold true. I think that's when you run into issues fo emulators and roms. Which, in irony, 'illegally' copying old games (ESPECIALLY LIMITED) is what keeps then thriving. I have more stuff....but no time. lol!
post #77 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

They are clearly intended to do the exact thing that the patent system was designed to accomplish. One could argue that the implementation could be fixed or even that they flat out don't succeed at that intention, but to argue that they are subversive in some way or that the whole intention is wrong is just nonsense.

Utter crap.
post #78 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Plenty of alternatives exist, including far more inventive ones.

So why aren't they in use? Why does everybody seem to use a variant of the slide to unlock feature?
post #79 of 192
I patented the "zip up to close" gesture.
post #80 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Right... On patents (Wikipedia): "Novelty is a patentability requirement. An invention is not patentable if the claimed subject matter was disclosed before the date of filing, or before the date of priority if a priority is claimed, of the patent application."

Whether Neonode patented this or not affects only Neonode's ability to claim their rights. It has no bearing on the fact that 2 years later this is not patentable, neither by Apple nor by anyone else. It is in the public domain.

I don't need to show you videos of the phone from 2005 (lolwut?), because I don't care if you believe me or not (and I know you do, even if you don't admit it

It is not impossible that Apple, oblivious of technological developments in one of the most advanced countries in the world, came up with the idea on their own. This only goes to illustrate how flawed the patent system is. However, I strongly doubt this was the case.

I think this is the case more or less. If palm had os features before Apple, but apple copyrighted/patented it fisrt ten Palm lost. Definte issue there.
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