On the contrary, once Apple redesign the entire TV paradigm, just as they did with the phone and patent it up to the eyeballs we will see Apple suing Samsung et al who 'suddenly have the same ideas' after all these years of the existing paradigm.
They need to have something big then. I don't think Siri is that (Um.....isn't the Xbox 360 voice controlled?). They just MIGHT have something huge. Might.
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.
Whoa, dude, language. You might want to tone it down a bit. I just got an infraction for using language mahself.
No need to worry about Solip, he is the maven of the boards. Just look at his post count, Kasper and AppleInsider are about to award him a Rolex.
He is the most fair and objective poster on the boards and supports ALL of his claims with hard evidence. If I was him and someone implied I was behaving like a troll, I'd passionately fire back like he did, also. He is dead to rights, IMO.
Now the touchscreen on this device isn't capacitive like the iPhone. It's not pressure like WinMo device. It's an array of [infrared] diodes up and down and left and right.
"The first two gestures to learn are right to left for Yes, at the bottom and the next gesture to learn is left to right for No.
"There are 3 menus that sweep from bottom to the top starting at each of these [hardware] icons."
Is the same as:
A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
It's fraking amazing you think those are the same things. So the Neonode has no touch-senstitive display, it has no unlock image that moves along the display as the user moves his finger along the touch sensitive display.
No I never said those were the same, don't put words in my mouth. I only expressed the opinion that the slide-to-unlock gesture was implemented by Neonode two years before Apple filed for their related patent and before Apple implemented the same idea in the original iPhone.
The Neonode does have a touch-sensitive display, although it's based on a different touch technology. The words that you have bolded in Apple's patent describe a touch-sensitive display, which the Neonode's display also is, they don't specify the technology (capacitive is your own addition).
Quote:
Again, you've also failed to prove that FingerWorks didn't have a patent in place before Neonode.
I cannot prove that a patent doesn't exist. If you believe that it does, prove it (by linking to the patent/application). This info is public. There is no list of non-existing patent applications.
Quote:
PS: There is a reason Apple bought FingerWorks, not Neonode back in 2005.
I am sure there is, but neither I nor you know what this reason is. Has it occurred to you that Apple may not be infallible?
Apple has every moral right to ask that companies not copy its innovations but instead develop their own. Insisting on innovation does not stifle competition. People are sadly misinformed when they suggest that the patent system was intended to protect or promote COMPETITION. In actuality, its purpose is to promote INNOVATION, which is what tends to happen when copying is prohibited. If competitors can't innovate, perhaps they deserve to be stifled; strangling might be a bit too severe.
THIS patent was given to Apple but it ISN'T Apple's innovation. Unless you believe that adding an animation to a gesture you stole from others is true innovation. Which you probably do. So... good luck with "strangling" anyone with this lame patent. I'm happy with my lock pattern, and don't need a picture to guide me when swiping to unlock.
I cannot prove that a patent doesn't exist. If you believe that it does, prove it (by linking to the patent/application). This info is public. There is no list of non-existing patent applications.
You're claiming Apple stole this innovation so it's therefore up to you to defend that point. You've repeatedly failed to do so. You keep trying to move the argument and play this "woes me" card like you're being attacked and asked to supply info that doesn't exist, but all I've asked of it proof that what you claim is true. You could have avoided getting beat down here if you merely worded it to say that you think or you suspect that Apple might not have been the originator of the tech as stated in the patent, but you didn't do that. You made wild claims so you should be ready to defend them.
Maybe I should patent a system that blocks users that post inane trolling statements, or statements that are so sup par and not well thought out that they might as well be trolling statements.
THIS patent was given to Apple but it ISN'T Apple's innovation. Unless you believe that adding an animation to a gesture you stole from others is true innovation. Which you probably do. So... good luck with "strangling" anyone with this lame patent. I'm happy with my lock pattern, and don't need a picture to guide me when swiping to unlock.
If you look carefully at what was done before, which involved infrared to detect movement (NOT sliding, since screen contact was not required), you'll appreciate the movement was not a sliding gesture at all, much less representative of moving a component of a locking mechanism.
Surely the finger moved from left to right or from bottom to top or vice versa, but these movements were obviously not designed as metaphors. They were set up simply as ways to indicate "yes" or "no" to whatever functional choices were specified. Hence claiming after the fact that it was really "slide to unlock" doesn't cut it. It was a simple yes or no signal without any linkage to the concept of manipulating a lock.
Apple doesn't need to directly attack google regarding its patents. All apple has to do is create enough litigative hell that manufacturers get scared off. Hello windows mobile 7 phones! I hope bill appreciates the irony
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
It is quite possible that FingerWorks had a similar idea, but the patent filing was a year too late for the idea to be patentable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You're claiming Apple stole this innovation so it's therefore up to you to defend that point. You've repeatedly failed to do so. You keep trying to move the argument and play this "woes me" card like you're being attacked and asked to supply info that doesn't exist, but all I've asked of it proof that what you claim is true. You could have avoided getting beat down here if you merely worded it to say that you think or you suspect that Apple might not have been the originator of the tech as stated in the patent, but you didn't do that.
I did say that Apple may have independently come up with the idea (twice, quoted above). That does say something about your selective reading of my arguments.
I also provided links (Google yourself for dozens more) describing and showing the implementation of slide-to-unlock on a touch screen, and pre-dating the iPhone by more than two years.
The "wild claim" that you suggest I made was that the idea is unpatentable and Apple's patent should be revoked. A Dutch judge had apparently a similar "wild idea".
I also reply to all of your increasingly irrational posts simply because of the previous good impressions that I've had from your reasoning and objectivity. Sadly, those impressions are rapidly fading.
Then who IS a patent troll? By that definiton, if you hold a patent....you a trolling.
I also think it's stupid to have to keep making stuff to have patent. Not everyone has the R&D for that?
No, you're a troll if you SIT on a patent, waiting for others to invest effort in bringing the idea to market only to demand a toll ? like a troll sitting under a bridge.
Obviously, not everyone can bring a patent to market immediately, but they shouldn't be allowed to sit on it and impede progress for two decades. They can sell the patent to a bigger company, of course. Now if that company never attempts to bring a product to market, then they are trolls...
Works had a similar idea, but the patent filing was a year too late for the idea to be patentable.
Finally, you know as well as I do that apart from the legal side, or from what one poster can prove to the rest, there is the moral issue. Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them. Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?
I watched the video. It's clear a "Swipe for Yes" crude implementation, not specifically a gesture meant to unlock the device. In the video, the person turned it on and accessed a menu without have to swipe left-to-right.
iOS uses Swipe-to-Unlock specifically to prevent the notorious accidental "pocket use" by requiring a physical button to be pressed and then a specific touch gesture before you can use the device.
Not the same concept or implementation as "swipe for yes". I don't think the phone in the video even has a "locked" state short of turning its display off.
If anything, it's similar only to how you answer a phone call on an iPhone while the device is locked, which is actually a double action where the device is unlocked and the call is answered; when the device is unlocked, you only press a button to answer, not swipe.
The irony deepens, since Windows Mobile is also an alleged infringer and will have no choice but to throw their full weight into invalidating this patent:
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles innovation it is because they act as if they exist in a void, that nothing existed before them and everything that comes after and builds upon or horizontally from their good idea is blatant theft and has no right to exist.
Never before in the history of tech has such a mindset existed.
Nothing has been created in a void and everything including the iPhone was built off the shoulders of giants.
Do I believe that Apple should be able to patent (and copyright/trademark) their specific implementation of slide to unlock? certainly (though patent maybe not but the other 2 yes).
Do I believe any company should be able to monopolize the mere act of interacting with a touchscreen to remove a screensaver (which is what it is) so you can interact with the device? no.
The fact that Apple can and has and IMO rightfully adapt and modify existing ideas into their products yet for some reason no one else can is hypocritical to me.
Take the notification pane for instance. I have no qualms with Apple using this...it's a great idea, and very useful and unless it was a direct line for line rip of Android's it is perfectly legitimate. No one seems to mind the fact that Apple was inspired by Android and WebOS.
Android 4.0s folder creation method on the other hand? Evil, theft, GRAND theft, stealing, blah blah blah.
Hell, let's back up a bit...Google had Android...a modular OS designed to be hardware agnostic from the get (despite what people say it was always capable of being on touchscreen only devices, the first prototype however, was a qwerty BB style device)...Apple comes out to rave reviews...EVERYONE recognizes the paradigm shift in smartphones...so everyone acts accordingly to survive in this new world.
All of a sudden everyone is a "thief"...because inspiration and trends seemingly no longer exist in the post iOS world :-/
Sad times.
Note 2.0: Samsung is omitted from defense as they are the most blatant infringers I've seen beyond Chinese KiRF manufacturers...though I still think the Tab should't have been banned.
Comments
On the contrary, once Apple redesign the entire TV paradigm, just as they did with the phone and patent it up to the eyeballs we will see Apple suing Samsung et al who 'suddenly have the same ideas' after all these years of the existing paradigm.
They need to have something big then. I don't think Siri is that (Um.....isn't the Xbox 360 voice controlled?). They just MIGHT have something huge. Might.
deleted
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.
It's still pretty funny
Whoa, dude, language. You might want to tone it down a bit. I just got an infraction for using language mahself.
No need to worry about Solip, he is the maven of the boards. Just look at his post count, Kasper and AppleInsider are about to award him a Rolex.
He is the most fair and objective poster on the boards and supports ALL of his claims with hard evidence. If I was him and someone implied I was behaving like a troll, I'd passionately fire back like he did, also. He is dead to rights, IMO.
Just to be clear you're saying that: Is the same as: It's fraking amazing you think those are the same things. So the Neonode has no touch-senstitive display, it has no unlock image that moves along the display as the user moves his finger along the touch sensitive display.
No I never said those were the same, don't put words in my mouth. I only expressed the opinion that the slide-to-unlock gesture was implemented by Neonode two years before Apple filed for their related patent and before Apple implemented the same idea in the original iPhone.
The Neonode does have a touch-sensitive display, although it's based on a different touch technology. The words that you have bolded in Apple's patent describe a touch-sensitive display, which the Neonode's display also is, they don't specify the technology (capacitive is your own addition).
Again, you've also failed to prove that FingerWorks didn't have a patent in place before Neonode.
I cannot prove that a patent doesn't exist. If you believe that it does, prove it (by linking to the patent/application). This info is public. There is no list of non-existing patent applications.
PS: There is a reason Apple bought FingerWorks, not Neonode back in 2005.
I am sure there is, but neither I nor you know what this reason is. Has it occurred to you that Apple may not be infallible?
Excellent point, I'll bet that one was patented too.
Apple has every moral right to ask that companies not copy its innovations but instead develop their own. Insisting on innovation does not stifle competition. People are sadly misinformed when they suggest that the patent system was intended to protect or promote COMPETITION. In actuality, its purpose is to promote INNOVATION, which is what tends to happen when copying is prohibited. If competitors can't innovate, perhaps they deserve to be stifled; strangling might be a bit too severe.
THIS patent was given to Apple but it ISN'T Apple's innovation. Unless you believe that adding an animation to a gesture you stole from others is true innovation. Which you probably do. So... good luck with "strangling" anyone with this lame patent. I'm happy with my lock pattern, and don't need a picture to guide me when swiping to unlock.
I cannot prove that a patent doesn't exist. If you believe that it does, prove it (by linking to the patent/application). This info is public. There is no list of non-existing patent applications.
You're claiming Apple stole this innovation so it's therefore up to you to defend that point. You've repeatedly failed to do so. You keep trying to move the argument and play this "woes me" card like you're being attacked and asked to supply info that doesn't exist, but all I've asked of it proof that what you claim is true. You could have avoided getting beat down here if you merely worded it to say that you think or you suspect that Apple might not have been the originator of the tech as stated in the patent, but you didn't do that. You made wild claims so you should be ready to defend them.
Maybe I should patent a system that blocks users that post inane trolling statements, or statements that are so sup par and not well thought out that they might as well be trolling statements.
image: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/constructive.png
THIS patent was given to Apple but it ISN'T Apple's innovation. Unless you believe that adding an animation to a gesture you stole from others is true innovation. Which you probably do. So... good luck with "strangling" anyone with this lame patent. I'm happy with my lock pattern, and don't need a picture to guide me when swiping to unlock.
If you look carefully at what was done before, which involved infrared to detect movement (NOT sliding, since screen contact was not required), you'll appreciate the movement was not a sliding gesture at all, much less representative of moving a component of a locking mechanism.
Surely the finger moved from left to right or from bottom to top or vice versa, but these movements were obviously not designed as metaphors. They were set up simply as ways to indicate "yes" or "no" to whatever functional choices were specified. Hence claiming after the fact that it was really "slide to unlock" doesn't cut it. It was a simple yes or no signal without any linkage to the concept of manipulating a lock.
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.
It is quite possible that FingerWorks had a similar idea, but the patent filing was a year too late for the idea to be patentable.
You're claiming Apple stole this innovation so it's therefore up to you to defend that point. You've repeatedly failed to do so. You keep trying to move the argument and play this "woes me" card like you're being attacked and asked to supply info that doesn't exist, but all I've asked of it proof that what you claim is true. You could have avoided getting beat down here if you merely worded it to say that you think or you suspect that Apple might not have been the originator of the tech as stated in the patent, but you didn't do that.
I did say that Apple may have independently come up with the idea (twice, quoted above). That does say something about your selective reading of my arguments.
I also provided links (Google yourself for dozens more) describing and showing the implementation of slide-to-unlock on a touch screen, and pre-dating the iPhone by more than two years.
The "wild claim" that you suggest I made was that the idea is unpatentable and Apple's patent should be revoked. A Dutch judge had apparently a similar "wild idea".
I also reply to all of your increasingly irrational posts simply because of the previous good impressions that I've had from your reasoning and objectivity. Sadly, those impressions are rapidly fading.
That's APPLE. They bring CULTURE to it's products.
Then who IS a patent troll? By that definiton, if you hold a patent....you a trolling.
I also think it's stupid to have to keep making stuff to have patent. Not everyone has the R&D for that?
No, you're a troll if you SIT on a patent, waiting for others to invest effort in bringing the idea to market only to demand a toll ? like a troll sitting under a bridge.
Obviously, not everyone can bring a patent to market immediately, but they shouldn't be allowed to sit on it and impede progress for two decades. They can sell the patent to a bigger company, of course. Now if that company never attempts to bring a product to market, then they are trolls...
Works had a similar idea, but the patent filing was a year too late for the idea to be patentable.
Finally, you know as well as I do that apart from the legal side, or from what one poster can prove to the rest, there is the moral issue. Apple has no moral rights to use this patent to stifle competition, when clearly others implemented the idea before them. Are you willing to accept this, or do you want to look no better than the mindless trolls around here?
I watched the video. It's clear a "Swipe for Yes" crude implementation, not specifically a gesture meant to unlock the device. In the video, the person turned it on and accessed a menu without have to swipe left-to-right.
iOS uses Swipe-to-Unlock specifically to prevent the notorious accidental "pocket use" by requiring a physical button to be pressed and then a specific touch gesture before you can use the device.
Not the same concept or implementation as "swipe for yes". I don't think the phone in the video even has a "locked" state short of turning its display off.
If anything, it's similar only to how you answer a phone call on an iPhone while the device is locked, which is actually a double action where the device is unlocked and the call is answered; when the device is unlocked, you only press a button to answer, not swipe.
The irony deepens, since Windows Mobile is also an alleged infringer and will have no choice but to throw their full weight into invalidating this patent:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/w...k-patent/15789
Meanwhile, in another story AI hasn't run, it looks like Apple will be busy defending themselves against allegations of fraud:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Insider...F/6884599.html
That second article was run on AI over a month ago, if memory serves. Old news.
The first is likely moot, as Apple and MS seem to have pretty extensive cross-licensing deals, as they are rarely at odds over IP in recent years.
Never before in the history of tech has such a mindset existed.
Nothing has been created in a void and everything including the iPhone was built off the shoulders of giants.
Do I believe that Apple should be able to patent (and copyright/trademark) their specific implementation of slide to unlock? certainly (though patent maybe not but the other 2 yes).
Do I believe any company should be able to monopolize the mere act of interacting with a touchscreen to remove a screensaver (which is what it is) so you can interact with the device? no.
The fact that Apple can and has and IMO rightfully adapt and modify existing ideas into their products yet for some reason no one else can is hypocritical to me.
Take the notification pane for instance. I have no qualms with Apple using this...it's a great idea, and very useful and unless it was a direct line for line rip of Android's it is perfectly legitimate. No one seems to mind the fact that Apple was inspired by Android and WebOS.
Android 4.0s folder creation method on the other hand? Evil, theft, GRAND theft, stealing, blah blah blah.
Hell, let's back up a bit...Google had Android...a modular OS designed to be hardware agnostic from the get (despite what people say it was always capable of being on touchscreen only devices, the first prototype however, was a qwerty BB style device)...Apple comes out to rave reviews...EVERYONE recognizes the paradigm shift in smartphones...so everyone acts accordingly to survive in this new world.
All of a sudden everyone is a "thief"...because inspiration and trends seemingly no longer exist in the post iOS world :-/
Sad times.
Note 2.0: Samsung is omitted from defense as they are the most blatant infringers I've seen beyond Chinese KiRF manufacturers...though I still think the Tab should't have been banned.