or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's gesture-based unlocking tech channels Android's pattern lock screen
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's gesture-based unlocking tech channels Android's pattern lock screen

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
New documents unearthed on Wednesday show Apple was toying with a gesture-based unlock function for its mobile devices some four years after the idea was introduced in the Android operating system. Cupertino's version, however, is arguably far more advanced than even the latest designs from Google.


Source: USPTO


The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday published two Apple patent applications (1, 2), both titled "Gesture entry techniques," that together form the basis of a device unlocking feature in which a user draws a pattern on screen with the help of illuminated discs. One patent filing deals with the system as a whole, while the other focuses on entering and setting gestures on a mobile device.

As noted in the documents, a gesture or sequence of gestures may be more effective in securing a mobile device than the usual PIN code or password. To that end, Apple proposes users input a shape or shapes on an interface with selectable graphical elements.

In 2008, Google introduced pattern unlocking in its Android operating system, which accepts gesture input on a grid of dots to unlock a device. The feature has been adapted with so-called "picture passwords" (both on Android and Microsoft's Windows 8) that accept various gestures arranged on a photo, but the basic idea still involves entering a series of shapes onto an onscreen image.



Apple's take is very similar, however there are a few key differences in its approach. According to the patent application, users have the ability to rearrange the lock screen's graphical elements and can change their size to produce higher or lower tolerance gestures. For example, larger discs or dots are associated with higher tolerance gestures as it would be easier to move from one hit point to the next.

To make things more difficult for would-be attackers, the system can implement invisible dots or hit areas in the unlock path. Without prior knowledge of the dots' locations, or that they exist at all, it would be prohibitively difficult to guess a correct unlock gesture.

Additionally, graphical assets may be only one of many factors in gesture entry. Apple notes timing, such as acceleration and deceleration of a finger during entry, can be made part of the functional unlock sequence. Pauses are also recognized.

Further, users can add in one or more additional fingers at any point in a tracing sequence to increase code complexity. Circles, shapes and other inputs are also accepted on a limited basis.



In a unique dynamic addition to the process, hidden lines are proposed that can be enabled (registered as part of the gesture) or disabled depending on an estimation of where the system thinks a user is about to move their finger. For example, hidden lines will stay disabled until a user's path comes close to, or crosses an enabled line. This not only increases system complexity, but also accuracy.

Apple's method implements a gesture strength estimation indicator that moves from "low" to "high" based on factors like gesture length, complexity, unpredictability, entropy or randomness, and others. In some embodiments, the strength indicator can be a represented as a progress bar that fills up in proportion to a gesture's perceived strength.



It is doubtful that Apple would incorporate a pattern-style unlocking method in a future iOS build as the company is currently suing Samsung for infringing on the "slide-to-unlock" feature made popular by the iPhone. In addition, with Touch ID expected to be rolling out in more devices, Apple likely has dwindling interest in spending resources to implement the method.

Apple's gesture entry patent application was first filed for in 2012 and credits Brandon J. Casey, Jake M. Logan. Erik M. Cressall and Stephen H. Cotterill as its inventors.
post #2 of 52
Skipping dots to track patterns is interesting, but this clearly won't see the light of day now that Touch ID has taken priority.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #3 of 52
they use this in their retail stores.
post #4 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Skipping dots to track patterns is interesting, but this clearly won't see the light of day now that Touch ID has taken priority.

And this is really meant to block Android from expanding their methods further by patenting around them.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 52

Face recognition plus finger print would be good.  Whatever they use, it should be quick and easy to use.

post #6 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And this is really meant to block Android from expanding their methods further by patenting around them.
So not quite the vaunted intent of patents then? Apple intentionally trying to block technological progress by perverting the reason for protection of intellectual property to prevent others from progressing would be sad if it were true. Personally Id be pretty surprised to find that''s the case.

Impeding progress, an evil intent against the common good, is essentially the exact opposite of the reasons our forefathers gave for patent protection.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/17/14 at 5:32am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And this is really meant to block Android from expanding their methods further by patenting around them.
is that a good use of the patent system?
post #8 of 52
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
(something something something about Android not getting what it wants)

 

YEP.

post #9 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So not quite the vaunted intent of patents then? Apple intentionally trying to block technological progress by perverting the reason for protection of intellectual property to prevent others from progressing would be sad if it were true. Personally Id be pretty surprised to find that''s the case.

Impeding progress, an evil intent against the common good, is essentially the exact opposite of the reasons our forefathers gave for patent protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

is that a good use of the patent system?

Since when does anyone use a comment from someone as an example of good or ill? It's of no importance that someone here thinks that this is why Apple patented this. Apple obviously investigated this for many years, and patented it, as all companies do, including Google, even though they may decide against using it. It's very possible that they thought it was too complex for most people to use. And despite what the article says, as articles themselves say nothing about the thinking in these companies. Apple may still decide to use this.

To say that with TouchID, this is finished is foolish. We might as well say that Apple should abandon the password now that they have TouchID, but they required an even stronger password now, than before, where all we needed was a crummy four digit code. We can look to Samsung to see how well that works where you don't need the password.

It's always possible that Apple might implement this, or part of it in the future, no matter what a writer, who has no connection to the company, thinks. Just keep that in mind.
post #10 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


So not quite the vaunted intent of patents then? Apple intentionally trying to block technological progress by perverting the reason for protection of intellectual property to prevent others from progressing would be sad if it were true. Personally Id be pretty surprised to find that''s the case.

Impeding progress, an evil intent against the common good, is essentially the exact opposite of the reasons our forefathers gave for patent protection.

 

Great isn't it?

 

Enjoy.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #11 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


To say that with TouchID, this is finished is foolish. We might as well say that Apple should abandon the password now that they have TouchID, but they required an even stronger password now, than before, where all we needed was a crummy four digit code. 
 

 

Absolutely none of this makes any sense whatsoever.

 

1. With TouchID, slide to unlock is indeed secondary, if not finished altogether. There is certainly no need for advancement of the concept.

 

2. Abandon the password? Um no. TouchID relies on the use of a passcode as a backup and always will. There is no sensible way to achieve what they already have. At most, they can hopefully eventually relax the 'passcode after restart' restriction, but thats another topic.

 

3. It does NOT require more than a 4 digit passcode. Having more than 4 digits is a USER OPTION.

post #12 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And this is really meant to block Android from expanding their methods further by patenting around them.

Are you telling me... and everyone else here that Android can no longer innovate its own technology to move forward in a more advanced manner now that Apple has patented a more advanced version of the technology? Apple's way cannot be the ONLY way to move forward.
post #13 of 52
Quote:
The feature has been adapted with so-called "picture passwords" (both on Android and Microsoft's Windows 8) that accept various gestures arranged on a photo, but the basic idea still involves entering a series of shapes onto an onscreen image. 

Are the gestures in picture passwords actually tied to the image, or does the image serve merely as a visual cue for the user who may actually perform arbitrary gestures?

post #14 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Great isn't it?

Enjoy.

Unlike you I don't envision Apple being so evil as to clearly act against the public good. On the contrary I think they've actually considered using gesture unlock. Apple recognizes the potential offered by a competitors innovation as much as anyone.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Are you telling me... and everyone else here that Android can no longer innovate its own technology to move forward in a more advanced manner now that Apple has patented a more advanced version of the technology? Apple's way cannot be the ONLY way to move forward.

True but Apple's way is just the "convergence of design" 1smile.gif
post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

True but Apple's way is just the "convergence of design" 1smile.gif

I am no Android fan, but "convergence of design" sounds like a whiny Android hardware partner much more than it sounds like Google. 😉
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So not quite the vaunted intent of patents then? Apple intentionally trying to block technological progress by perverting the reason for protection of intellectual property to prevent others from progressing would be sad if it were true. Personally Id be pretty surprised to find that''s the case.

Impeding progress, an evil intent against the common good, is essentially the exact opposite of the reasons our forefathers gave for patent protection.

It's absolutely the intent of the patent system.

Property protection, plus innovation, equals increased competition.

Increased competition drives innovation, invention and commerce.

I cannot believe you don't understand this.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #18 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Absolutely none of this makes any sense whatsoever.

1. With TouchID, slide to unlock is indeed secondary, if not finished altogether. There is certainly no need for advancement of the concept.

2. Abandon the password? Um no. TouchID relies on the use of a passcode as a backup and always will. There is no sensible way to achieve what they already have. At most, they can hopefully eventually relax the 'passcode after restart' restriction, but thats another topic.

3. It does NOT require more than a 4 digit passcode. Having more than 4 digits is a USER OPTION.

If you fail to open the phone with your finger, after a number of passes, you need that password. The four digit code is the option, and most won't take it, or even be aware it's there.

I said they won't abandon the password.

And, we don't know what Apple will do in the future, are you pretending that you do?
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's absolutely the intent of the patent system.

Property protection, plus innovation, equals increased competition.

Increased competition drives innovation, invention and commerce.

I cannot believe you don't understand this.

Sorry but I would strongly disagree that one of the purposes to be served by patents is to impede progress, which is all that patenting a process, describing it as broadly as possible, never intending to incorporate it and preventing others from doing so too accomplishes. I cannot believe you can't understand that.

In addition you keep insisting that a government license to a limited term monopoly is actually property like any other. It is not.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/17/14 at 7:31am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Unlike you I don't envision Apple being so evil as to clearly act against the public good. On the contrary I think they've actually considered using gesture unlock. Apple recognizes the potential offered by a competitors innovation as much as anyone.

That's a nice thing for you to say.
post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's absolutely the intent of the patent system.

Property protection, plus innovation, equals increased competition.

Increased competition drives innovation, invention and commerce.

I cannot believe you don't understand this.

I find that most people understand little of the patent system. There is nothing wrong with the patent system in theory. The problems we're seeing these days is that there are so many patents applied for that the system can't keep up. If certain administrations didn't cut the funding so much, the problem wouldn't be as great as it is now.

The other problem is that much of the easy stuff has already been invented in many fields. So now, we get the far more complex stuff to be patented. With the underfunded department, examiners are overworked, and so mistakes are more common. I imagine they have some schedule they need to meet. And as patents become more complex, it's easier to make a mistake in the examination, and possibly grant something that shouldn't have been granted.

In addition, it's far more difficult now to look up a relevant patent than it ever was. So it's easier to grant something that may, in similar form, have already been granted.

But what people don't understand about the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails. It hasn't failed yet, but it's become somewhat unwieldy.
post #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But what people don't understand about the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert.

This^
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Sorry but I would strongly disagree that one of the purposes to be served by patents is to impede progress, which is all that patenting a process, describing it as broadly as possible, never intending to incorporate it and preventing others from doing so too accomplishes. I cannot believe you can't understand that.

In addition you keep insisting that a government license to a limited term monopoly is actually property like any other. It is not.

You mistake what the term progress means. It doesn't mean that everyone who wants to can use a patent that another has gotten. Progress means that someone will find a way around that patent—eventually, or that the patent will expire.

Some people think that progress needs to come on a daily basis. That's not correct. It can take years, or decades. We don't "deserve" progress as some think. Progress happens because there are people who work on making it so. But it happens in fits and starts. It's not a smooth curve.

Google has stated publicly, that they should be allowed to use anyone's technology they want to, because those other companies who invented those technologies are impeding progress, while Google, who invented none of it, was in fact, innovating. That's a real joke! They didn't even deny using those technologies. They just felt they have a right to them.
post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This^

Yes, and you should have expanded upon my comment.
post #25 of 52
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 52
They already do this in house. Staff accessing certain apps on their iPads can choose to use their typed password or a gesture.

So don't brush off that they might include this as an option. Especially as slide to unlock is a different part of the game, so what happens with it is moot.

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 #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You mistake what the term progress means. It doesn't mean that everyone who wants to can use a patent that another has gotten. Progress means that someone will find a way around that patent—eventually, or that the patent will expire.

Some people think that progress needs to come on a daily basis. That's not correct. It can take years, or decades. We don't "deserve" progress as some think. Progress happens because there are people who work on making it so. But it happens in fits and starts. It's not a smooth curve.

Google has stated publicly, that they should be allowed to use anyone's technology they want to, because those other companies who invented those technologies are impeding progress, while Google, who invented none of it, was in fact, innovating. That's a real joke! They didn't even deny using those technologies. They just felt they have a right to them.

What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?1rolleyes.gif

So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.

When you have a few minutes Mel read thru this and let me know your personal opinion of the authors views.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/progress.html
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/17/14 at 8:44am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 52

I just wanted you to say something here about what you thought about my comment, not to link to other posts. It would have been easier to just explain your thoughts. I'm curious about your direct thinking about what I said. These posts are nice, and I read a number of them when first posted, but it's not what I meant.
post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I just wanted you to say something here about what you thought about my comment, not to link to other posts. It would have been easier to just explain your thoughts. I'm curious about your direct thinking about what I said. These posts are nice, and I read a number of them when first posted, but it's not what I meant.

Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.

FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=1

That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."

With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?1rolleyes.gif

So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.

When you have a few minutes Mel read thru this and let me know your personal opinion of the authors views.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/progress.html

It was the implication of your response that led me to believe that. If I'm wrong in that, I'm happy to be. I've read too many posts on too many sites from people who believe just that.

What I believe is that the founders knew very well that patents must be owned by the inventor, or an entity that the inventor sets up or sells to. In doing that, they gave that inventor sole rights to decide what to do with that patent, which includes licensing to all, licensing to some, using it himself and not licensing it, or not using it al all, in any way, including not licensing it. They were aware of the consequences of those rules.

But, the factor that is so important here is in the public nature of patents. Before patents became important, guilds owned inventions around Europe and the colonies. They kept every factor of their work secret. It took years before an apprentice was allowed to know these secrets, and the penalty for disclosure was severe, often including murder. This kept Europe from advancing for quite some time.

When patents began to come into play, that is, patents that weren't a Crown given monopoly business, but rather for inventions, it changed everything. Now, information about inventions were no longer the property of guilds, but the public. With it being public, anyone could look at the invention, the plans, schematics, or whatever else was there. By doing so, they could figure out if they wanted to license it, if a license were available, or attempt to work around it.

This ability to see the invention and be encouraged to work around it is what gives the public progress. Before, the guilds had little need to progress, as they owned the technology, and anyone who needed it would pay dearly for the results, but not the technology itself, normally. Therefor, often, technology didn't advance for centuries.

It also didn't expire, obviously. Today, we still have some remainder of those old days with trade secrets. They never expire. So a company could invent something, and if that invention's methods could be kept secret, then no one could figure it out. Doesn't work as well today, of course.

But not licensing an invention while not using it, and not licensing it while using it is little different. If Apple used this tech, let us say, and didn't license it, then Google, and others still couldn't use it. No change there, which is why it's so curious that some people think that this is any different than any other case in licensing. It's not.

People who think that companies spend millions or more on inventing things specifically to keep from other companies are watching too many movies. That doesn't happen. It's hard enough inventing things you think you do need, at the time, at least. But even if you don't use it, why should you license it to others? It's not a company's business to worry about overall progress, when that progress is just playing around, and is nothing really significant.

Progress isn't one thing or the other, it's the gestalt of everything that happens in the arts, technology, science, language, etc. thinking that not licensing a patent that isn't being used is halting, or slowing progress, isn't credible.

Our government was interested in making a better life for its citizens, competing with the UK, and hoping that the future would be better than the present. To a large extent, they succeeded. Nothing is perfect though.

Remember that they wanted to encourage learning and the arts as well, which is why the public library system exists.

We have to be careful to balance the rights of the patent owners and the public. I'm always for that. My old company had 43 patents, and we needed to defend some twice. When we sold the company, those patents moved to the new company, which particularly wanted them. Since patents expire, unless the owner can addendum them, all is not lost. But as I said earlier, we think progress needs to happen daily, which is not the case. So many things that seem ever so far away get here, and then the wait is forgotten.

Considering how much longer we live today than in 1800, 20 years is a much shorter period of our lifetimes. If they could wait back then, we can wait today.
post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I find that most people understand little of the patent system. There is nothing wrong with the patent system in theory. The problems we're seeing these days is that there are so many patents applied for that the system can't keep up. If certain administrations didn't cut the funding so much, the problem wouldn't be as great as it is now.

The other problem is that much of the easy stuff has already been invented in many fields. So now, we get the far more complex stuff to be patented. With the underfunded department, examiners are overworked, and so mistakes are more common. I imagine they have some schedule they need to meet. And as patents become more complex, it's easier to make a mistake in the examination, and possibly grant something that shouldn't have been granted.

In addition, it's far more difficult now to look up a relevant patent than it ever was. So it's easier to grant something that may, in similar form, have already been granted.

The administration doesn't care if there are patent conflicts. They want as many patents as possible. The more conflicts the better. Patent fees generate a pretty good revenue stream but the patent review fees are upwards of $12-20K when there is a challenge. It is not their job to determine if a patent application might be in conflict at the time of application. They let the patent holders and the courts decide. The USPTO is probably one of the few government departments that actually makes a profit. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.

FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=1

That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."

With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?

I just posted an answer to you other post which, hopefully helps.

But I don't believe that the courts opinion means exactly what you are promoting. First of all, a patent, by it's very nature, can't hide anything from the public. Trade secrets can, and do.

But not licensing something that isn't being used by the owner really doesn't fit the description by the court. And even if it did, the court decision is never the final word, because the court often reverses itself in later years, at least partly. So, at best, a temporary decision is made. We've seen a lot of reversals made in recent years about almost every area of society, even those that we thought were settled.

Never the less, I will still insist that companies don't have people inventing things that they don't intend to use, and don't intend to license. Well, I suppose it may happen somewhere, but it's certainly not a business method. However, if a company investigates a line, and comes out with a patentable invention, but the company has moved past the point where it will serve them, they may put that invention aside, and not license it. I think that's valid. If the founders believed as you do, they would have required all patents to be used or licensed, and they didn't. They were, however, very specific in stating that the patent owner had exclusive rights to the distribution of that patent, including no distribution, which follows from that.

Also, most patents are of interest to no one other than the patent holder, so this doesn't come up as often as you may think. And it's fairly easy to have an approximate work-around to many patents. It may not be quite as good, or efficient, but it will work. And if not, then in a few years, the patent will expire.

Back to progress. Progress has to be measured over some reasonable span of time, decades is usually a minimum time, centuries is more common.

Considering that most patents are relatively trivial, such as the ones concerning "feel", I don't see why anyone is getting upset about it.
post #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The administration doesn't care if there are patent conflicts. They want as many patents as possible. The more conflicts the better. Patent fees generate a pretty good revenue stream but the patent review fees are upwards of $12-20K when there is a challenge. It is not their job to determine if a patent application might be in conflict at the time of application. They let the patent holders and the courts decide. The USPTO is probably one of the few government departments that actually makes a profit. 

Ah, no. I can't possibly agree with that.
post #34 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Never the less, I will still insist that companies don't have people inventing things that they don't intend to use, and don't intend to license. Well, I suppose it may happen somewhere, but it's certainly not a business method. However, if a company investigates a line, and comes out with a patentable invention, but the company has moved past the point where it will serve them, they may put that invention aside, and not license it. I think that's valid. If the founders believed as you do, they would have required all patents to be used or licensed, and they didn't. They were, however, very specific in stating that the patent owner had exclusive rights to the distribution of that patent, including no distribution, which follows from that.

And just like that we're back in agreement. That's exactly what I pointed out in posts 6 and 14. Apple at some point considered using at least some of the patents claims. Their intent was not to simply block competitors and the public by filing one.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
 
Ah, no. I can't possibly agree with that.

The reason patents are written in such a way as to be as vague as possible is so that it is nearly impossible to determine if they are in conflict or not and to provide a legal advantage if someone else patents something similar. If the patent office had to guarantee that there were no conflicts at the time of application, they would be sued by thousands of patent holders and applicants if any of their patents were challenged or refused. Besides, patents contribute to what makes America great. People invest in research and new inventions, create new technology which creates jobs, tax revenue, and increased gdp. Why wouldn't the USPTO want more patents? 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?1rolleyes.gif

So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.

When you have a few minutes Mel read thru this and let me know your personal opinion of the authors views.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/progress.html

 

You keep paraphrasing that entire paragraph from the Constitution and you've repeatedly insisted that your 'to "promote progress"' spiel is the entire intent, when it clearly is not.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.

FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=1

That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."

With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?

 

You are misquoting the Copyright Clause from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:  "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

 

The most important part of that quotation is the "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right..." part, because private property is an American right. A right... not a suggestion.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #38 of 52
Now this is some first rate arguing. 👍

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

You are misquoting the Copyright Clause from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:  "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The most important part of that quotation is the "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right..." part, because private property is an American right. A right... not a suggestion.
Exactly per description. It's more a license not property. That's why it expires, unlike ownership of private property. If you insist on thinking of it as property then you should consider it a lease of property actually belonging to the public, the lease document being the patent.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/17/14 at 12:20pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


It's more a license not property. That's why it expires, unlike ownership of private property. If you insist on referring to it as property then you should consider it a lease of property that will end up belonging to the people.

 

It is in fact property, as I continue to note, because the author/inventor of the property in question is free to apply for a patent or not. If they apply for and receive a patent, they receive the financial or other legal benefits associated with patent ownership. If they choose not to apply for a patent, they give up a number of the legal protections available to patent holders, but they also retain their exclusive knowledge which may be competitively advantageous (so long as that knowledge is not developed in parallel by another party who may subsequently choose to apply for a patent...and in that case, the existence of well-documented secret information could conceivably be used to invalidate a patent. That part is debatable since the US changed to "first to file" status).

 

Having said all that, you may dislike the notion that a company could ever be granted patents that might "fence in" a competitor. I assure you that some individuals/companies do nothing but this all day, but it is nothing to fear or be so concerned that the entire USPTO should be burned to the ground to satisfy the baying of tech pundits (or shills paid to appear as if they were "normal" members of the public).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's gesture-based unlocking tech channels Android's pattern lock screen