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 3

post #81 of 93
2/29/12 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Apple has been using slide to unlock for nearly 5 years. Anyone else think that if you haven't made a copyright claim in 2 years maximum then the claim is invalid?

You can't file for patent infringement unless you've been issued a patent can you? In the this particular case that happened in the past couple of months, not years ago.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #82 of 93
2/29/12 at 9:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You can't file for patent infringement unless you've been issued a patent can you? In the this particular case that happened in the past couple of months, not years ago.

Right. You can not file for patent infringement until a patent has been issued so there's nothing NeoNode could have done to stop Apple from using the technology until recently.

They could, however, have moved to have Apple's patent invalidated on the basis of prior art, but that would have been expensive and risky before their patent was issued. And the fact that they aren't even using the technology would have made it more difficult to do so.

Now that they have a patent, they can sue Apple for infringement if they think Apple infringes.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 93
2/29/12 at 10:09am
Wow! It seems that for some people here, Apple can do no wrong. It is, after all, an all-things-Apple site, but the older I get, the more shades of gray I see. Things just aren't black or white anymore, but that's just me, I guess. For what is worth, the gestures for both companies seem similar in purpose and Apple MAY have to license the technology; it MAY be quite the opposite as well, but I'll leave that to the lawyers to figure out.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 93
2/29/12 at 10:34am
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.

Honestly, has anyone ever bought or even seen one of these n1m's before all of these patent arguments?
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 93
2/29/12 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dré Gamer View Post

Honestly, has anyone ever bought or even seen one of these n1m's before all of these patent arguments?

Apparently Apple did. They mentioned them in their US patent application (or was it the EU one) as an example of prior art.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #86 of 93
2/29/12 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

All we know is Neonode patented a very vague patent for a gesture on a touchscreen and that Neonode released a device that had some rudimentary capability to register a gesture. It's certainly not like the iPhone in any sense. I think it even uses IR above the display to register the gestures.

Here is Apple's very specific and detailed slide to unlock innovation: http://www.google.com/patents/US2009...page&q&f=false

If Apple could successfully sue MS for blatantly using their GUI concepts I have a feeling Neonode's patent won't hold up to well.

Don't you mean Xerox's GUI concept?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #87 of 93
2/29/12 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Don't you mean Xerox's GUI concept?

You know damn well I don't mean the tech that Apple licensed from Xerox PARC.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #88 of 93
2/29/12 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eehd View Post

Wow! It seems that for some people here, Apple can do no wrong. It is, after all, an all-things-Apple site, but the older I get, the more shades of gray I see. Things just aren't black or white anymore, but that's just me, I guess. For what is worth, the gestures for both companies seem similar in purpose and Apple MAY have to license the technology; it MAY be quite the opposite as well, but I'll leave that to the lawyers to figure out.

What you see to be missing is that "seem similar in purpose" is not an argument that carries any weight in a patent matter. The only thing that matters is the specific patent claims and whether Apple's product SPECIFICALLY does exactly what the patent claims.

The above discussion suggests that this might not be the case here - since Neonode's patent specifically states that the icon does not move.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 93
3/1/12 at 11:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, quite sure. Where has any final judgement found Apple's slide-to-unlock patent valid and infringed?

Mannheim Germany is the one I remember offhand, and it was a slam dunk final win. With the caveat that a ruling in court A still gets subject to the full appeals process. An injunction is final after the fact, that wasn't a preliminary injunction.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...n-against.html

The other one I think was actually just slide-to-unlock surviving attempts by Samsung to have it tossed, so it wouldn't be final yet, but looking positive. Apparently an expected ruling is in two weeks (16 March), in the same court. Precedent anyone???
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #90 of 93
3/2/12 at 3:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Mannheim Germany is the one I remember offhand, and it was a slam dunk final win. With the caveat that a ruling in court A still gets subject to the full appeals process. An injunction is final after the fact, that wasn't a preliminary injunction.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...n-against.html

The other one I think was actually just slide-to-unlock surviving attempts by Samsung to have it tossed, so it wouldn't be final yet, but looking positive. Apparently an expected ruling is in two weeks (16 March), in the same court. Precedent anyone???

The patent's validity hasn't yet been challenged in the German court (AFAIK), and was not really a consideration in the Mannheim ruling. For the sake of an injunction the German court cared more that a patent had been issued. Whether the patent was actually valid to begin with was not their concern at the moment. There's a reason these guys go to the German courts to file for injunctions. Do you see Apple filing the same patent infringement claim in any other EU country? France or GB? Perhaps even Italy? IMHO Apple is concerned that the patent could be ruled invalid and isn't willing to take that chance, at least yet.

If I understood correctly Apple could have blocked the import of Samsung Tab's throughout Europe if they had been able convince the Dutch court that their slide-to-lock patent was probably good. That court used different standards and considered the argument differently than in Germany, and in a setback for Apple said the patent was obvious, trivial and had prior art. For those reasons the Dutch judge said in official court docs that the patent was probably invalid.

EDIT: FOSSPatents is reporting this morning that Apple's Slide-to unlock patent infringement claim against Samsung has been tossed out. That still leaves a German utility model claim to be decided.

The more I read about German legal filings the more I see how different that country is from the rest of Europe. Now a utility model? It's quite differnt from EU patent filings. The first thing I see is that if the prior art (Neonode for instance) didn't originate in Germany, then it won't be considered under a German Utility Model. Curiouser and curiouser. . .
http://www.abitz.de/En/GermanUtilityModels

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #91 of 93
3/2/12 at 5:19am
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?


Correct, minus the part about people being necessarily "anti-Apple folk." As difficult as it sounds, many of us who oppose Apple's lawsuits do so for reasons having to do with the patents being too broad and far-reaching.


We're not hypocrites who believe every Apple patent should be deemed valid and every nonapple patent should be invalidated. We actually use logic and comprehension of the issue to reach our conclusions. Not pointless emotional ties to a brand of all things.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 93
3/2/12 at 8:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The patent's validity hasn't yet been challenged in the German court (AFAIK), and was not really a consideration in the Mannheim ruling. For the sake of an injunction the German court cared more that a patent had been issued. Whether the patent was actually valid to begin with was not their concern at the moment. There's a reason these guys go to the German courts to file for injunctions. Do you see Apple filing the same patent infringement claim in any other EU country? France or GB? Perhaps even Italy? IMHO Apple is concerned that the patent could be ruled invalid and isn't willing to take that chance, at least yet.

If I understood correctly Apple could have blocked the import of Samsung Tab's throughout Europe if they had been able convince the Dutch court that their slide-to-lock patent was probably good. That court used different standards and considered the argument differently than in Germany, and in a setback for Apple said the patent was obvious, trivial and had prior art. For those reasons the Dutch judge said in official court docs that the patent was probably invalid.

EDIT: FOSSPatents is reporting this morning that Apple's Slide-to unlock patent infringement claim against Samsung has been tossed out. That still leaves a German utility model claim to be decided.

The more I read about German legal filings the more I see how different that country is from the rest of Europe. Now a utility model? It's quite differnt from EU patent filings. The first thing I see is that if the prior art (Neonode for instance) didn't originate in Germany, then it won't be considered under a German Utility Model. Curiouser and curiouser. . .
http://www.abitz.de/En/GermanUtilityModels

Just saw the Apple v. Samsung ruling news myself (Florian does say this isn't the case I mentioned above though - that ruling is still scheduled for NLT the 16th). I don't know what to think about the German system now. I unlike you do think the Moto injunction was directly related to Slide-to-unlocks validity, especially since trying to invalidate it would have been one of Moto's tactics in trying to win the case. And winning a patent case that grans a permanent injunction normally requires validity and infringement. (Mueller mentioned Apple would have had to prove validity, and that differences in the cases are largely due to how the terms were "constructed" [defined] in that part of the case)

Now the same court (but different judge?) really add to the confusion (by non-German patent lawyers) and the appeals process just got guaranteed to take center stage.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #93 of 93
3/3/12 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I don't know what to think about the German system now.

Judge's have different opinions on what is valid and what is infringing. Give them that. But Germany does seem like the Eastern District of Texas type of thing. It's dominated by some crazy judges and enables these types of behaviors.
Reply
Reply
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