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.
Swipe-to-unlock on the Neonode prevents accidental use as well. Nowhere in the video did they access a menu from a lock screen without unlocking. You're making stuff up.
What do you feel would be an appropriate action against this device?:
two different images...but the first should've invalidated the design patent (considering the iPad and the Tab can only be confused from the front) and the second one is the back of the original Tab before Samsung went back to the drawing board to better compete with Apple in the tablet space...or as they like to say here "Stole"
Actually, the first time I slid my finger across something to unlock it was a fingerprint detector on a ThinkPad.
Also patent doesn't just have to be first - it should be non-obvious, and represent IP that has value. I could be the first to build a phone that is unlocked by pressing the letter Q, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of a patent.
This qPhone you mention, I must have one. How much?
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.
Looking at the Neonoe N1m video fom 2007, what struck me as interesting was the fact that there was no attempt to suggest that the yes/no finger movement was intended to represent the action of physically manipulating a locking mechanism. Therefore, it's somewhat of a leap of faith to think that this was the inspiration for Apple's slide-to-unlock idea and it's implementation.
It seems more likely that upon seeing the very clear conceptual linkage to an unlocking action
as represented in Apple's implementation, the Neonode developers and/or fans began applying the benefits of hindsight in their favor!
A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!
Swipe-to-unlock on the Neonode prevents accidental use as well. Nowhere in the video did they access a menu from a lock screen without unlocking. You're making stuff up.
The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".
It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.
Looking at the Neonoe N1m video fom 2007, what struck me as interesting was the fact that there was no attempt to suggest that the yes/no finger movement was intended to represent the action of physically manipulating a locking mechanism. Therefore, it's somewhat of a leap of faith to think that this was the inspiration for Apple's slide-to-unlock idea and it's implementation.
It seems more likely that upon seeing the very clear conceptual linkage to an unlocking action
as represented in Apple's implementation, the Neonode developers and/or fans began applying the benefits of hindsight in their favor!
A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!
Sorry.
Exactly, it was specifically for "yes/no" responses, and its functionality was duplicated by "yes" and "no" buttons on the side.
A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!
Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".
It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.
Are you being intentionally daft? Here's a direct link to the locked screen and the unlock gesture:
This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.
The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.
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.
Fixed:
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, 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.
You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, 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.
You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.
This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.
The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.
Still no indication anywhere that the movement was intended to represent any real-world physical action of manipulating a locking mechanism...
Or are you suggesting that when an icon of a lock appeared it was meant to miraculously indicate that the finger movements were no longer to be thought of as simple "yes" or "no" indicators (as was the case everywhere else) but, instead, an unspecified representation of a real-world action, which the user would happily substitute without any additional clues? Somehow the user was supposed to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context. That's quite a stretch.
I have gotten my point across to anyone who is receptive to it. I am not going to waste my time on the diehards. I'm not in court, but it's a safe bet that those who were in the Dutch court must have presented ample evidence.
I read the text. The biggest difference is the additional visual cue (image). I find that an obvious addition. Your qualification of the design as "primitive" is unnecessary -- the slide-to-unlock gesture is clearly there.
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.
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?
Spare me the Abrahamic school of Morality. Quantify to me the Right vs. Wrong in this patent that does harm to the human species. I'm dying to read this one.
This seems much more constrained than previous reports of this patent and if accurate, means that the android gesture unlock is definitely *not* covered by this patent. There are several lesser tablets that will be in trouble but Android ... not so much.
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, 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.
You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.
The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".
It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.
Don't worry. Some poster will apply a slider to a temperature conversion with the left resulting in Celsius and the right in Fahrenheit and scream prior art.
This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.
The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.
Without iPhone-associated hindsight, there is no reason anyone would consider that the movements associated with selecting "yes" or "no" in connection with a lock icon could mean anything more than, "Do you want the lock on or not? Yes or no."
Why would those movements suddenly be expected to represent something else? For example, is there any indication that this particular lock utilizes a sliding mechanism?
Without iPhone-associated hindsight, there is no reason anyone would consider that the movements associated with selecting "yes" or "no" in connection with a lock icon could mean anything more than, "Do you want the lock on or not? Yes or no."
Why would those movements suddenly be expected to represent something else? For example, is there any indication that this particular lock utilizes a sliding mechanism?
Just because the icon "slides" doesn't mean there is an actual sliding mechanism -_-
You do know people don't actually die in video games either right?
Still no indication anywhere that the movement was intended to represent any real-world physical action of manipulating a locking mechanism...
Or are you suggesting that when an icon of a lock appeared it was meant to miraculously indicate that the finger movements were no longer to be thought of as simple "yes" or "no" indicators (as was the case everywhere else) but, instead, an unspecified representation of a real-world action, which the user would happily substitute without any additional clues? Somehow the user was supposed to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context. That's quite a stretch.
Ugh, you're making stuff up again, where is this "real world action" in the original wording of Apple's patent? And where is this user that has a hard time "to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context."?
Anyway, back on topic: we aren't discussing the overall consistency of Neonode's ground-breaking user interface, but their pioneering use of the slide-to-unlock gesture which is well documented years before Apple filed for a similar patent.
Ugh, you're making stuff up again, where is this "real world action" in the original wording of Apple's patent? And where is this user that has a hard time "to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context."?
Anyway, back on topic: we aren't discussing the overall consistency of Neonode's ground-breaking user interface, but their pioneering use of the slide-to-unlock gesture which is well documented years before Apple filed for a similar patent.
The issue here is your inability to demonstrate that the Neonode developers planned that the very specific movement/gesture used elsewhere for "yes" or "no" in their system would suddenly represent "slide-to-unlock" whenever a lock icon appeared on the screen. Without that intention on their part, it's impossible to make a case that Apple's slide-to-unlock implementation is really their innovation.
If this was their intention, don't you think they would have chosen a door-chain type of icon instead of something that resembled a padlock?
This company will not get sued by Apple for this device I am sure. Its user interface is sufficiently different from the iPhone/iPad. Since this device existed, this proves strongly the other iPhone competitors are simply trying to copy Apple's success.
Comments
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.
Swipe-to-unlock on the Neonode prevents accidental use as well. Nowhere in the video did they access a menu from a lock screen without unlocking. You're making stuff up.
What do you feel would be an appropriate action against this device?:
two different images...but the first should've invalidated the design patent (considering the iPad and the Tab can only be confused from the front) and the second one is the back of the original Tab before Samsung went back to the drawing board to better compete with Apple in the tablet space...or as they like to say here "Stole"
Actually, the first time I slid my finger across something to unlock it was a fingerprint detector on a ThinkPad.
Also patent doesn't just have to be first - it should be non-obvious, and represent IP that has value. I could be the first to build a phone that is unlocked by pressing the letter Q, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of a patent.
This qPhone you mention, I must have one. How much?
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.
Looking at the Neonoe N1m video fom 2007, what struck me as interesting was the fact that there was no attempt to suggest that the yes/no finger movement was intended to represent the action of physically manipulating a locking mechanism. Therefore, it's somewhat of a leap of faith to think that this was the inspiration for Apple's slide-to-unlock idea and it's implementation.
It seems more likely that upon seeing the very clear conceptual linkage to an unlocking action
as represented in Apple's implementation, the Neonode developers and/or fans began applying the benefits of hindsight in their favor!
A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!
Sorry.
Swipe-to-unlock on the Neonode prevents accidental use as well. Nowhere in the video did they access a menu from a lock screen without unlocking. You're making stuff up.
The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".
It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.
Looking at the Neonoe N1m video fom 2007, what struck me as interesting was the fact that there was no attempt to suggest that the yes/no finger movement was intended to represent the action of physically manipulating a locking mechanism. Therefore, it's somewhat of a leap of faith to think that this was the inspiration for Apple's slide-to-unlock idea and it's implementation.
It seems more likely that upon seeing the very clear conceptual linkage to an unlocking action
as represented in Apple's implementation, the Neonode developers and/or fans began applying the benefits of hindsight in their favor!
A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!
Sorry.
Exactly, it was specifically for "yes/no" responses, and its functionality was duplicated by "yes" and "no" buttons on the side.
A Yes-or-No finger movement without required contact with screen or any graphical representation of a locking mechanism does NOT a slide-to-unlock gesture make!
Sorry.
The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".
It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.
Are you being intentionally daft? Here's a direct link to the locked screen and the unlock gesture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...ailpage#t=239s
This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.
The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.
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.
Fixed:
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, 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.
You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.
Fixed:
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, 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.
You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.
So you believe Apple exists in a void?
Are you being intentionally daft? Here's a direct link to the locked screen and the unlock gesture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...ailpage#t=239s
This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.
The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.
Still no indication anywhere that the movement was intended to represent any real-world physical action of manipulating a locking mechanism...
Or are you suggesting that when an icon of a lock appeared it was meant to miraculously indicate that the finger movements were no longer to be thought of as simple "yes" or "no" indicators (as was the case everywhere else) but, instead, an unspecified representation of a real-world action, which the user would happily substitute without any additional clues? Somehow the user was supposed to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context. That's quite a stretch.
I have gotten my point across to anyone who is receptive to it. I am not going to waste my time on the diehards. I'm not in court, but it's a safe bet that those who were in the Dutch court must have presented ample evidence.
I read the text. The biggest difference is the additional visual cue (image). I find that an obvious addition. Your qualification of the design as "primitive" is unnecessary -- the slide-to-unlock gesture is clearly there.
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.
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?
Spare me the Abrahamic school of Morality. Quantify to me the Right vs. Wrong in this patent that does harm to the human species. I'm dying to read this one.
This seems much more constrained than previous reports of this patent and if accurate, means that the android gesture unlock is definitely *not* covered by this patent. There are several lesser tablets that will be in trouble but Android ... not so much.
If accurate? That's the patent filing.
Fixed:
Just a note...when people say Apple stifles slavish copying it is because they act as if their IP is worth defending, 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.
You realize that "builds upon... their good idea" is another way of saying "copy and extend," right? Isn't that what you mean when you say "innovation": copy and extend? If the competition was forced to come up with their own great ideas, what should we call that? "Innovation" is already taken.
iPhone
Slavish Copy
Copy
Inspired
Inspired and Unique
The video specifically says "swipe right for yes, swipe left for no".
It has nothing to do with unlocking it. When I watched the video, the reviewer kept swiping horizontally and nothing would happen.
Don't worry. Some poster will apply a slider to a temperature conversion with the left resulting in Celsius and the right in Fahrenheit and scream prior art.
Are you being intentionally daft? Here's a direct link to the locked screen and the unlock gesture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...ailpage#t=239s
This is around 4 minutes into the video, so probably longer than your attention span.
The "yes" and "no" concept is something else, although it uses the same gesture. For a screen of that size and resolution (remember the year), graphical elements such as selectable buttons would have been a waste to implement and clumsier to use.
Without iPhone-associated hindsight, there is no reason anyone would consider that the movements associated with selecting "yes" or "no" in connection with a lock icon could mean anything more than, "Do you want the lock on or not? Yes or no."
Why would those movements suddenly be expected to represent something else? For example, is there any indication that this particular lock utilizes a sliding mechanism?
Without iPhone-associated hindsight, there is no reason anyone would consider that the movements associated with selecting "yes" or "no" in connection with a lock icon could mean anything more than, "Do you want the lock on or not? Yes or no."
Why would those movements suddenly be expected to represent something else? For example, is there any indication that this particular lock utilizes a sliding mechanism?
Just because the icon "slides" doesn't mean there is an actual sliding mechanism -_-
You do know people don't actually die in video games either right?
Still no indication anywhere that the movement was intended to represent any real-world physical action of manipulating a locking mechanism...
Or are you suggesting that when an icon of a lock appeared it was meant to miraculously indicate that the finger movements were no longer to be thought of as simple "yes" or "no" indicators (as was the case everywhere else) but, instead, an unspecified representation of a real-world action, which the user would happily substitute without any additional clues? Somehow the user was supposed to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context. That's quite a stretch.
Ugh, you're making stuff up again, where is this "real world action" in the original wording of Apple's patent? And where is this user that has a hard time "to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context."?
Anyway, back on topic: we aren't discussing the overall consistency of Neonode's ground-breaking user interface, but their pioneering use of the slide-to-unlock gesture which is well documented years before Apple filed for a similar patent.
Ugh, you're making stuff up again, where is this "real world action" in the original wording of Apple's patent? And where is this user that has a hard time "to mentally switch from the idea of a simple yes/no indicator to a highly conceptualized lock slider in this context."?
Anyway, back on topic: we aren't discussing the overall consistency of Neonode's ground-breaking user interface, but their pioneering use of the slide-to-unlock gesture which is well documented years before Apple filed for a similar patent.
The issue here is your inability to demonstrate that the Neonode developers planned that the very specific movement/gesture used elsewhere for "yes" or "no" in their system would suddenly represent "slide-to-unlock" whenever a lock icon appeared on the screen. Without that intention on their part, it's impossible to make a case that Apple's slide-to-unlock implementation is really their innovation.
If this was their intention, don't you think they would have chosen a door-chain type of icon instead of something that resembled a padlock?
Old news, but sure to bring many clicks.
So, there you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...layer_embedded
This company will not get sued by Apple for this device I am sure. Its user interface is sufficiently different from the iPhone/iPad. Since this device existed, this proves strongly the other iPhone competitors are simply trying to copy Apple's success.