or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Swedish company claims rights to 'slide to unlock' with new UI patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Swedish company claims rights to 'slide to unlock' with new UI patent - Page 2

post #41 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A patent issued to Swedish touchscreen technology company Neonode for a 'sweep gesture' user interface could mean legal trouble for Apple, which is currently embroiled in a dispute with Motorola and Samsung over its 'slide to unlock' patent.

Apple should tell them to go pound sand. And if they sue Apple, BURY THEM.





/Slappy
post #42 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

You can patent a gesture, if the gesture and reaction are specific.

Here in America, you can patent someone else's genes and sue them for their children's unauthorized use of same, provided you're a corporation which sufficient budget. If you can afford to buy a six pack or three of Congressman, you can have any law you like, no matter how transparently stupid or hideously destructive.

And - best of all - provided you have enough money, everyone will admire you for having done it.

All it really takes is a culture which has accepted - without question, down to the very sock fuzz in its rank toenails- the notion that money is the greatest good. It's a little like religion: once you've got them convinced that God is watching, telling them how God feels about what he's seeing is easy.

Once we believe that someone else has the right to own the idea of what every human being can do with his or her fingers, getting us to pay per orgasm is merely a question of how much.

The larger social equivalent of "that's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature" is "that's no crime - that's entrepreneurship!"
post #43 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

Mac life just posted this story.
Apple Scores a Major Win for Multitouch Patents
Patently Apple is reporting that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has published 24 patents today which have been granted to Apple Inc. The first of these “highlights three out of five important Multi-Touch patent wins,” which cover multitouch auto scanning (for “disabling components of a touch-panel device during periods of inactivity to conserve power”), multipoint touchscreens (encapsulating 21 patents dating back to 2004) and Apple’s 3D curved substrate lamination process used for the Magic Mouse. “No matter how you slice it, it's a huge day for Apple on the Multi-touch patent front,” the website proclaims. Today’s patent victories also include 8,125,455 and 8,125,464 which cover "Full scale calibration measurement for multi-touch surfaces” -- less sexy than the others, to be sure, but definitely additional ammunition in Apple’s arsenal nonetheless.
So more ammunition for Apple to fight what the Swedish company claims is theres. NOT!!!


I hope that Apple uses these new patents to sue everybody!

Apple has no choice but to diligently protect its IP.
post #44 of 93
I told you so!

There goes the Apple lawsuit...for now.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #45 of 93
This has been discussed in Sweden years ago, in some years more or less. Neonode had own mobiles for sales but that didn't went well. Then it start talking about Apple using technology that NeoNode have patent on. Many thought they would claim rights when iPhone 3G was out.. but nope, it took 4-6 years.

I think they are just trying to milk money from their patents, because they don't sell mobiles anymore and just doing technologies research or something, i heard. They seems more or less desperate.
post #46 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple should tell them to go pound sand. And if they sue Apple, BURY THEM.

Not just yet Apple is still working on acquiring patents for the shovel, digging, sweating, memorials, epitaphs, and grass.

Also grief. In the future, we'll be charged royalties should we weep when confronting the way in which our entire species which knows "the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Of course when Grief 2.0 causes intolerable pain but brings about no healing, the EULA will have made it clear that the product came with no warranty whatsoever, while helpful hyperlinks connect us to other references which explain how the same terms apply to RayGE 1.3, reMorse 1, revVenge X, and new the new "sueAside3: The Corporation. You've killed everyone else, now blow your own head off!" beta. (The last has problems - people download the free trial but kill themselves before paying for it.)

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.
post #47 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

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.

This. Apple's patent is very specific about the graphical object being moved, and the manner and direction with which it must slide. That makes it unique, hence Apple's patent. Apple's European version of the patent, EP1964022 (B1), is specifically titled "UNLOCKING A DEVICE BY PERFORMING GESTURES ON AN UNLOCK IMAGE", to specify the requirement for the image associated with the gesture. Swiping by other means is another perfectly patentable idea.
"I tried to get a tattoo once but passed out. It wasn't wetting my arm that bothered me, I just couldn't press firmly for 30 seconds."
Reply
"I tried to get a tattoo once but passed out. It wasn't wetting my arm that bothered me, I just couldn't press firmly for 30 seconds."
Reply
post #48 of 93
Apple's patent on unlocking a phone and this gestural UI for a cell phone don't have much relation. They can always sue, but I don't think much would come of it. Maybe the only intersection between the two are the swipe-to-delete and swipe-for-inbox gestures, but this Neonode patent doesn't have much relation to Apple's slide-to-unlock patent.

There's a youtube video demoing the device. A young Myriam Joire (tnkgrl from Engadget Mobile) is in the video too. The N1m uses swipes (gestures) along the edge of the screen as command inputs. They replace the two button input design typical in Symbian UIs. For instance, a swipe left to right would be yes, a swipe right to left would mean no. This is the conceptual model for the N1m.

Apple's slide-to-unlock isn't a gestural input UI, hence, these two patents don't intersect. Apple's patent is a direct manipulation UI for onscreen graphics. There aren't any gesture inputs in Apple's slide-to-unlock at all. Apple's design is one where the onscreen graphics track with the finger, and respond to momentum et al.

"Gesture" here means a detected motion or shape from touch input. For instance, I draw a circle on the screen. The OS recognizes this as a circle and does the corresponding action, whatever it is. The N1m follows this model, but only has a very limited gesture vocabulary set (swipe left/right, swipe up/down along the entire edge). Apple does in fact use gesture inputs: swipe-to-delete for example in a list. In this case, there may be a case. That's may. It depends on how broad the Neonode patent is.

This has already been discussed on AI ad nauseum.
post #49 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

So in the interest of fairness, all the anti-Apple folk will post that since "you can't patent a gesture" this patent is invalid. Right?

yes actually..(late to the party) this is akin to patenting sliding open a window.
post #50 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

Just buy the damn company.

for $100B
post #51 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJJ View Post

This. Apple's patent is very specific about the graphical object being moved, and the manner and direction with which it must slide. That makes it unique, hence Apple's patent. Apple's European version of the patent, EP1964022 (B1), is specifically titled "UNLOCKING A DEVICE BY PERFORMING GESTURES ON AN UNLOCK IMAGE", to specify the requirement for the image associated with the gesture. Swiping by other means is another perfectly patentable idea.

That's not the way it works.

If Neonode's patent is broader than Apple's then Neonode can still prevent Apple from using their patent. A narrow patent does not give you the right to ignore a broader patent.
"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 #52 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

There is nothing in the N1M that beat Apple to the punch if you look at the original iPhone.

Apple's patent is different.
It's not just the gesture but the bitmap underneath it.
You have to slide the button fully for the purpose of initial unlocking.
It also does not not have to be at the bottom.

N1M is yes or no after while using device or to wake up from sleep.

Time will tell.
post #53 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This patent isn't a problem for Apple. . . .
. . .
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.

I'd agree. Their patent is written very specifically.

A top patent consultant told me that the main thing he does to help people with their patents is to erase things: change solid lines to dotted ones, erase specific language and use more general language, etc. It appears Neonode's idea of what a mobile computing device should look and work like has painted them into a corner with regard to this feature.
post #54 of 93
If Neofuck's patent was just granted, doesn't Apple nullify theirs and not the other way around?
post #55 of 93

post #56 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Nor has Apple's patent passed any challenge for validity. A request for re-exam is almost certainly in the future. In the opinion of a patent blogger "who will not be named", most software patents are invalid as issued.

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?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #57 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's not the way it works.

If Neonode's patent is broader than Apple's then Neonode can still prevent Apple from using their patent. A narrow patent does not give you the right to ignore a broader patent.

And ambiguous questions like this are why so many cases HAVE to go to court to get resolved. A lot of the results will have more to do with the lawyering in pretrial terminology definitions than the actual merits of the patents before the legal process started.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #58 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixPenceRicher View Post

Here's a video posted on June 29, 2007 showing the Neonode N1M device:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0

Looks like there may be a possibility that Neonode beat Apple to the punch. If so, I'm sure they'll work out a mutually acceptable solution.

I watched the video and i don't think Neonode can make the claim stick. The gesture is not 'slide to unlock' but is a 'yes' slide. Early in the presentation, the demonstrator goes through the gestures, e.g. up in the middle always brings up the number pad, left to right at the bottom equals 'yes', right to left is 'no'. In the demonstration, the user is bringing up the lock function then making a 'yes' gesture. On Apple devices, the user is displayed a virtual lock and must slide the virtual lock to unlock the device. I don't see it as a clear cut win for Neonode.
post #59 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A patent issued to Swedish touchscreen technology company Neonode for a 'sweep gesture' user interface could mean legal trouble for Apple, which is currently embroiled in a dispute with Motorola and Samsung over its 'slide to unlock' patent.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Neonode says it was issued U.S. Patent which covers gesture-based interaction with a touch sensitive surface, a description that is similar to Apple's "slide to unlock" patent.

According to Neonodes head of IP, Yossi Shain, the '879 patent was first filed for in 2002 and the company has been shopping the technology around since the IP was issued on January 10, 2012, reports TechCrunch.

Apple is supposedly the first target for Neonode, though Shain said the company is looking for "friendly licensing" deals before pursuing patent infringement lawsuits.

Neonode claims that it has successfully marketed and sold licenses of other touchscreen patents to to a number of "tier-one" OEMs and ODMs, with the technology being used in devices such as e-readers from Sony and Barnes and Noble, according to TechCrunch.

The '879 patent is meant to complement the Swedish company's other U.S. Patents, and the relating , which cover tech for small to midsize touchscreen devices. In addition, Neonode reportedly has similar patents pending in other undisclosed countries.


Patent drawings illustrating Neonode's swipe gesture UI. Source:


If Apple is indeed sued over the '879 patent, it wouldn't be the first time the company has seen Neonode in a court hearing. In August 2011, Samsung trotted out a relatively obscure device made by the Swedish company in defense of an Apple suit regarding "slide to unlock" functionality.

A European Windows CE handset, the Neonode N1m was shown as evidence that Apple's claims were not inventive as the device was manufactured before the iPhone maker filed its "slide to unlock" U.S. Patent in 2005. The Apple complaint was ultimately dismissed.

Most recently, however, Apple was successful in winning a German injunction against Motorola' use of gesture-based device unlocking after leveraging a European counterpart to its '849 patent.

Despite the European win, the Neonode IP could prove disruptive to Apple's continuing legal battle against Motorola and Samsung if the Swedish company forces the Cupertino, Calif., company to pay licensing fees or takes the matter to court.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]

I don't see how this is a slide to unlock based on what is shown here.
post #60 of 93
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.
post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple should tell them to go pound sand. And if they sue Apple, BURY THEM.

/Slappy

Reported.
post #62 of 93
Yawn. Skip ahead to the court rulings, please.

"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 #63 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by artificialintel View Post

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"
post #64 of 93
Might Samsung be subsidizing/pushing Neonode to attack its rival?

To further drive its point home, or just out of spite?
post #65 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

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.
post #66 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.
post #67 of 93
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.
post #68 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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 Apples patent would create.
post #69 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

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?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

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.
post #71 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

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.
post #72 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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.

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'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 #73 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

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.
post #74 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

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.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #75 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken View Post

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.
post #76 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post


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.
post #77 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle172 View Post



post #78 of 93
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)
post #79 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

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.
post #80 of 93
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?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Swedish company claims rights to 'slide to unlock' with new UI patent