True you do slide it...but it is not just in a straight line like the iPhone slide works. It just has to be in the general direction...not a straight line.
I tested a Galaxy Nexus for 30 days with my IP4s. It does not look or feel or imitate the iPhone at all! It is almost 5 inches long and it does not use a slide to unlock like the iPhone...it shows a picture of a lock and you move it in the general direction to the right to unlock. You can also use facial recognition as well. Apple is really stretching with this one.
I chose to keep the IP4s...it is a better all around device and the battery last so much longer.
I appreciate an open mind.
I still hold that the iPhone 4S is the best phone on the market for the general consumer...and honestly if I wasn't a tinkerer I'd definitely get one.
For now I'm waiting for the NEXT Nexus device or another pure Google device as I feel the GNex is too large even for me and would prefer a 4.3in max size...plus better build quality.
No, it wouldn't. The Neonode device does not use slide to unlock. Samsung is pretending that ANY sliding action must be prior art - and that's just not so.
But then, what would you expect from a company whose attorneys in a trade dress suit can't even tell the difference between the original and their copy?
That's his point...the implementations of the ICS lock screen and iOS lock slider are vastly different...and the only way they are similar is in the fact that you can indeed slide the icon of the GNex horizontally (but arent' restricted to that motion).
Also pay attention...the only thing Samsung here is the hardware, the software is all Google...and I don't give a damn how much of an Apple fanatic you are, you'd have to be downright braindead to suggest that the GNex and ANY Apple device are similar.
I still hold that the iPhone 4S is the best phone on the market for the general consumer...and honestly if I wasn't a tinkerer I'd definitely get one.
For now I'm waiting for the NEXT Nexus device or another pure Google device as I feel the GNex is too large even for me and would prefer a 4.3in max size...plus better build quality.
You are so right about tinkering! I used to have a Droid Bionic too. Along with the Nexus I found myself flashing one rom after another! So much so that it became way to much work! I found myself using the IP4s because ti was just way easier to use. But I find myself wanting to test and see the new Droid Razr Max when it comes out! If it can deliver on the battery life then it will be a heck of a phone!
You slide the lock to the right to unlock it...it isn't along a predetermined path though as long as the end point is the same
Galaxy SII
You slide the entire image out the way...in any direction I believe.
hardly a copy.
I disagree.
If you read the wording of the patent, the top one is fine, the bottom one (the one they are fighting) is clearly in violation.
Edit:
Based on the actual text which I just found:
A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture. In addition, there is a need for sensory feedback to the user regarding progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition that is required for the transition to occur.
They are *both* in violation. Clearly.
Whether or not the judges agree or some technicality arises etc. will be fun to see, but based on the wording of the granted patent both of these things clearly violate the patent.
You are so right about tinkering! I used to have a Droid Bionic too. Along with the Nexus I found myself flashing one rom after another! So much so that it became way to much work! I found myself using the IP4s because ti was just way easier to use. But I find myself wanting to test and see the new Droid Razr Max when it comes out! If it can deliver on the battery life then it will be a heck of a phone!
I'm not partial to Motorola build designs...I'm shocked no one has designed a simple black box with barely rounded corners (less rounded than the iPhone)
I dunno...I see Android suffering in the near future as the Blitzkrieg approach to gain marketshare isn't sustainable and the OEMs seem to be unaware of that...Google seems to be aware though....but not so open about it...that's just opinion though.
Being about to move an image in any which direction imaginable along a non-predefined path is clearly in violation?
Honestly, I'd think the bottom one is surprisingly LESS in violation than the top one...and Samsung is a copycat.
I refined my original post with the actual text of the patent.
The whole "predefined path" thing is a red herring. It's not actually in there that way, it says only that one implementation *may* include that. It doesn't have to have a predefined path to be in violation apparently.
It seems to clearly cover almost any kind of touch motion that includes sliding and unlocking together.
In all fairness, regardless of what one thinks of Apple, Android, patents, patent law etc., Apple did actually invent this first.
They certainly deserve to win regardless of whether they eventually do or not.
I also agree with AbsoluteDesignz about absurdity of Apple going after Samsung for something that is part of the stock Android 4.0 build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger
It meant DOES NOT work as a sliding switch like Apple's does. It acts completely different...
I cannot accept that ANY sliding motion of any type is covered by Apple's patent.... That would be insane....
You added an odd qualifier this time. "Switch' to make it 'sliding switch'. Does the sliding effect how the display switches from a locked mode to an unlocked mode or not? It sure likes you have to slide it to switch modes.
Again, I don't think Apple has a case here but I was commenting on your comment "that it is NOT a slide to unlock feature."
For total transparency, I'll admit that I like and use Android. I should also say that I own a Mac and am quite happy with it. I'm not some biased little idiot screaming "f*ck Apple, Android FTW!!", just putting my (hopefully unbiased) opinion out there.
Now that that's out of the way, this suit is absolutely bogus. Here's my reasoning:
1. If there had been any time for Apple to sue over this patent, it should have been anytime between when Android first came out and just before Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) came out. The reason I think this is because on stock Android's default lockscreen, the ONLY way to unlock the phone is a straight horizontal slide from far left to far right, much like Apple's version. A slide from the opposite side (right to left) usually mutes/unmutes the phone. Any Android version 2.3.7 and below employs this feature and that's when it most resembled iOS's "slide to unlock", not now.
2. As others have pointed out, this suit is absolutely unnecessary simply for the fact that there are at least 5 different ways to unlock the Galaxy Nexus: Face unlock, the standard slide to unlock (the one being argued about here), PIN unlock (4 digits), password unlock (letters, numbers, other characters), pattern unlock, and maybe 1 or two more since I've never seen a Galaxy Nexus in-person. Even if this suit goes in Apple's favor, all Google has to do is take out the slide to unlock feature and (more than likely) pay a fine. Big whoop.
3. The slide to unlock feature on the Galaxy Nexus is (for the most part) completely different than iOS's slide to unlock. I do concede, you are "sliding" something to another location, but in Apple's method, you are constrained to the same straight horizontal, left-to-right motion every single time. With the Galaxy Nexus, you put your finger on the lock icon and you can move it anywhere within the circle that shows up. And supposedly, future updates will allow you to add/subtract things to unlock to and where to place them, furthering the disparity between the two. Not only that, but the start and end points for the methods employed by Android and iOS are different. GN: center to right, iPhone: far left to far right. Again, I am forced to reference my first point, when this suit would have been more applicable.
I think we can all agree (iOS and Android fans alike) this patent slinging is getting ridiculous, regardless of who wins...
I also agree with AbsoluteDesignz about absurdity of Apple going after Samsung for something that is part of the stock Android 4.0 build.
That's ridiculous.
Either Apple's claim is valid or it isn't. The fact that Android 4.0 (which came out many years after the patent was issued) uses the same design can't possibly have any bearing on the validity of Apple's claim.
Either Apple's claim is valid or it isn't. The fact that Android 4.0 (which came out many years after the patent was issued) uses the same design can't possibly have any bearing on the validity of Apple's claim.
The point being made is Samsung did not make design or build Android Ice Cream Sandwich....GOOGLE did....so Apple should go after the company that actually designed the software they say infringes on their IP.....
No, it wouldn't. The Neonode device does not use slide to unlock. ...
The Neonode DOES use slide to unlock, for the first time years before the iPhone. But we're not discussing here the validity of Apple's patent -- it was granted, justly or not, and the question now is whether it is being impinged on by the Galaxy Nexus. Most likely, it isn't, but that's yet to see...
The Neonode DOES use slide to unlock, for the first time years before the iPhone. But we're not discussing here the validity of Apple's patent -- it was granted, justly or not, and the question now is whether it is being impinged on by the Galaxy Nexus. Most likely, it isn't, but that's yet to see...
The Neonode did slide to unlock before the iPhone. That is true.
Did Neonode's file a patent? If they didn't file a patent then that will weaken any claim they have. If they did then you'd have to examine the scope of their patent and how it's used across devices. Simply having a general patent doesn't mean you can't conceive of a more specific patent that does something differently. That happens all the time. The Neonode didn't even use a capacitance touchscreen which in itself could be damning if their patent filing is too specific (or so vague that it renders it moot).
The Neonode did slide to unlock before the iPhone. That is true.
Did Neonode's file a patent? ...
Not that I'm aware of; but there's their products as prior art. Consequently, Apple's patent needed to be very specific in order to have sufficient novelty. As a result of this, Galaxy Nexus can easily be shown in court to differ sufficiently from Apple's patent.
I still hold that the iPhone 4S is the best phone on the market for the general consumer...and honestly if I wasn't a tinkerer I'd definitely get one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
You are so right about tinkering! I used to have a Droid Bionic too. Along with the Nexus I found myself flashing one rom after another! So much so that it became way to much work! I found myself using the IP4s because ti was just way easier to use. But I find myself wanting to test and see the new Droid Razr Max when it comes out! If it can deliver on the battery life then it will be a heck of a phone!
I've often wondered what the tinkering is intended to achieve. Is the end point some actual enhanced functionality or just non-standard personalization of the interface? Or something else again? Is it worth the effort?
The point being made is Samsung did not make design or build Android Ice Cream Sandwich....GOOGLE did....so Apple should go after the company that actually designed the software they say infringes on their IP.....
I believe the rationale is that only one of those companies is selling a product that uses a design that may infringe on the patent.
Apple's goal (it seems) is to make it hard for hardware manufacturers to invest in Android. If different aspects of the OS are toxic, it gets a lot less attractive, even at "free."
I've often wondered what the tinkering is intended to achieve. Is the end point some actual enhanced functionality or just non-standard personalization of the interface? Or something else again? Is it worth the effort?
Tinkering is all of the above. It is modifying aesthetic or functional aspects of something. Changing the background wallpaper is a type of tinkering. It is also a way of discovering how something works (like disassembling a clock to see it's inner workings).
Some people just like to tinker because it's fun. It doesn't have to have a purpose or end goal. Other people want something to "just work". Nothing wrong with either way. Everyone is different which is why having choices is great.
Comments
And how do you move to the other icon? Sliding.
True you do slide it...but it is not just in a straight line like the iPhone slide works. It just has to be in the general direction...not a straight line.
I tested a Galaxy Nexus for 30 days with my IP4s. It does not look or feel or imitate the iPhone at all! It is almost 5 inches long and it does not use a slide to unlock like the iPhone...it shows a picture of a lock and you move it in the general direction to the right to unlock. You can also use facial recognition as well. Apple is really stretching with this one.
I chose to keep the IP4s...it is a better all around device and the battery last so much longer.
I appreciate an open mind.
I still hold that the iPhone 4S is the best phone on the market for the general consumer...and honestly if I wasn't a tinkerer I'd definitely get one.
For now I'm waiting for the NEXT Nexus device or another pure Google device as I feel the GNex is too large even for me and would prefer a 4.3in max size...plus better build quality.
No, it wouldn't. The Neonode device does not use slide to unlock. Samsung is pretending that ANY sliding action must be prior art - and that's just not so.
But then, what would you expect from a company whose attorneys in a trade dress suit can't even tell the difference between the original and their copy?
That's his point...the implementations of the ICS lock screen and iOS lock slider are vastly different...and the only way they are similar is in the fact that you can indeed slide the icon of the GNex horizontally (but arent' restricted to that motion).
Also pay attention...the only thing Samsung here is the hardware, the software is all Google...and I don't give a damn how much of an Apple fanatic you are, you'd have to be downright braindead to suggest that the GNex and ANY Apple device are similar.
I appreciate an open mind.
I still hold that the iPhone 4S is the best phone on the market for the general consumer...and honestly if I wasn't a tinkerer I'd definitely get one.
For now I'm waiting for the NEXT Nexus device or another pure Google device as I feel the GNex is too large even for me and would prefer a 4.3in max size...plus better build quality.
You are so right about tinkering! I used to have a Droid Bionic too. Along with the Nexus I found myself flashing one rom after another! So much so that it became way to much work! I found myself using the IP4s because ti was just way easier to use. But I find myself wanting to test and see the new Droid Razr Max when it comes out! If it can deliver on the battery life then it will be a heck of a phone!
Galaxy Nexus:
You slide the lock to the right to unlock it...it isn't along a predetermined path though as long as the end point is the same
Galaxy SII
You slide the entire image out the way...in any direction I believe.
hardly a copy.
I disagree.
If you read the wording of the patent, the top one is fine, the bottom one (the one they are fighting) is clearly in violation.
Edit:
Based on the actual text which I just found:
A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture. In addition, there is a need for sensory feedback to the user regarding progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition that is required for the transition to occur.
They are *both* in violation. Clearly.
Whether or not the judges agree or some technicality arises etc. will be fun to see, but based on the wording of the granted patent both of these things clearly violate the patent.
You are so right about tinkering! I used to have a Droid Bionic too. Along with the Nexus I found myself flashing one rom after another! So much so that it became way to much work! I found myself using the IP4s because ti was just way easier to use. But I find myself wanting to test and see the new Droid Razr Max when it comes out! If it can deliver on the battery life then it will be a heck of a phone!
I'm not partial to Motorola build designs...I'm shocked no one has designed a simple black box with barely rounded corners (less rounded than the iPhone)
I dunno...I see Android suffering in the near future as the Blitzkrieg approach to gain marketshare isn't sustainable and the OEMs seem to be unaware of that...Google seems to be aware though....but not so open about it...that's just opinion though.
I disagree.
If you read the wording of the patent, the top one is fine, the bottom one (the one they are fighting) is clearly in violation.
Being about to move an image in any which direction imaginable along a non-predefined path is clearly in violation?
Honestly, I'd think the bottom one is surprisingly LESS in violation than the top one...and Samsung is a copycat.
And how do you move to the other icon? Sliding.
It meant DOES NOT work as a sliding switch like Apple's does. It acts completely different...
I cannot accept that ANY sliding motion of any type is covered by Apple's patent.... That would be insane....
Being about to move an image in any which direction imaginable along a non-predefined path is clearly in violation?
Honestly, I'd think the bottom one is surprisingly LESS in violation than the top one...and Samsung is a copycat.
I refined my original post with the actual text of the patent.
The whole "predefined path" thing is a red herring. It's not actually in there that way, it says only that one implementation *may* include that. It doesn't have to have a predefined path to be in violation apparently.
It seems to clearly cover almost any kind of touch motion that includes sliding and unlocking together.
In all fairness, regardless of what one thinks of Apple, Android, patents, patent law etc., Apple did actually invent this first.
They certainly deserve to win regardless of whether they eventually do or not.
It meant DOES NOT work as a sliding switch like Apple's does. It acts completely different...
I cannot accept that ANY sliding motion of any type is covered by Apple's patent.... That would be insane....
You added an odd qualifier this time. "Switch' to make it 'sliding switch'. Does the sliding effect how the display switches from a locked mode to an unlocked mode or not? It sure likes you have to slide it to switch modes.
Again, I don't think Apple has a case here but I was commenting on your comment "that it is NOT a slide to unlock feature."
Now that that's out of the way, this suit is absolutely bogus. Here's my reasoning:
1. If there had been any time for Apple to sue over this patent, it should have been anytime between when Android first came out and just before Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) came out. The reason I think this is because on stock Android's default lockscreen, the ONLY way to unlock the phone is a straight horizontal slide from far left to far right, much like Apple's version. A slide from the opposite side (right to left) usually mutes/unmutes the phone. Any Android version 2.3.7 and below employs this feature and that's when it most resembled iOS's "slide to unlock", not now.
2. As others have pointed out, this suit is absolutely unnecessary simply for the fact that there are at least 5 different ways to unlock the Galaxy Nexus: Face unlock, the standard slide to unlock (the one being argued about here), PIN unlock (4 digits), password unlock (letters, numbers, other characters), pattern unlock, and maybe 1 or two more since I've never seen a Galaxy Nexus in-person. Even if this suit goes in Apple's favor, all Google has to do is take out the slide to unlock feature and (more than likely) pay a fine. Big whoop.
3. The slide to unlock feature on the Galaxy Nexus is (for the most part) completely different than iOS's slide to unlock. I do concede, you are "sliding" something to another location, but in Apple's method, you are constrained to the same straight horizontal, left-to-right motion every single time. With the Galaxy Nexus, you put your finger on the lock icon and you can move it anywhere within the circle that shows up. And supposedly, future updates will allow you to add/subtract things to unlock to and where to place them, furthering the disparity between the two. Not only that, but the start and end points for the methods employed by Android and iOS are different. GN: center to right, iPhone: far left to far right. Again, I am forced to reference my first point, when this suit would have been more applicable.
I think we can all agree (iOS and Android fans alike) this patent slinging is getting ridiculous, regardless of who wins...
I also agree with AbsoluteDesignz about absurdity of Apple going after Samsung for something that is part of the stock Android 4.0 build.
That's ridiculous.
Either Apple's claim is valid or it isn't. The fact that Android 4.0 (which came out many years after the patent was issued) uses the same design can't possibly have any bearing on the validity of Apple's claim.
That's ridiculous.
Either Apple's claim is valid or it isn't. The fact that Android 4.0 (which came out many years after the patent was issued) uses the same design can't possibly have any bearing on the validity of Apple's claim.
The point being made is Samsung did not make design or build Android Ice Cream Sandwich....GOOGLE did....so Apple should go after the company that actually designed the software they say infringes on their IP.....
No, it wouldn't. The Neonode device does not use slide to unlock. ...
The Neonode DOES use slide to unlock, for the first time years before the iPhone. But we're not discussing here the validity of Apple's patent -- it was granted, justly or not, and the question now is whether it is being impinged on by the Galaxy Nexus. Most likely, it isn't, but that's yet to see...
The Neonode DOES use slide to unlock, for the first time years before the iPhone. But we're not discussing here the validity of Apple's patent -- it was granted, justly or not, and the question now is whether it is being impinged on by the Galaxy Nexus. Most likely, it isn't, but that's yet to see...
The Neonode did slide to unlock before the iPhone. That is true.
Did Neonode's file a patent? If they didn't file a patent then that will weaken any claim they have. If they did then you'd have to examine the scope of their patent and how it's used across devices. Simply having a general patent doesn't mean you can't conceive of a more specific patent that does something differently. That happens all the time. The Neonode didn't even use a capacitance touchscreen which in itself could be damning if their patent filing is too specific (or so vague that it renders it moot).
The Neonode did slide to unlock before the iPhone. That is true.
Did Neonode's file a patent? ...
Not that I'm aware of; but there's their products as prior art. Consequently, Apple's patent needed to be very specific in order to have sufficient novelty. As a result of this, Galaxy Nexus can easily be shown in court to differ sufficiently from Apple's patent.
I appreciate an open mind.
I still hold that the iPhone 4S is the best phone on the market for the general consumer...and honestly if I wasn't a tinkerer I'd definitely get one.
You are so right about tinkering! I used to have a Droid Bionic too. Along with the Nexus I found myself flashing one rom after another! So much so that it became way to much work! I found myself using the IP4s because ti was just way easier to use. But I find myself wanting to test and see the new Droid Razr Max when it comes out! If it can deliver on the battery life then it will be a heck of a phone!
I've often wondered what the tinkering is intended to achieve. Is the end point some actual enhanced functionality or just non-standard personalization of the interface? Or something else again? Is it worth the effort?
I think we can all agree (iOS and Android fans alike) this patent slinging is getting ridiculous, regardless of who wins...
Android is a stolen OS. Apple as no choice but to protect its IP.
The point being made is Samsung did not make design or build Android Ice Cream Sandwich....GOOGLE did....so Apple should go after the company that actually designed the software they say infringes on their IP.....
I believe the rationale is that only one of those companies is selling a product that uses a design that may infringe on the patent.
Apple's goal (it seems) is to make it hard for hardware manufacturers to invest in Android. If different aspects of the OS are toxic, it gets a lot less attractive, even at "free."
I've often wondered what the tinkering is intended to achieve. Is the end point some actual enhanced functionality or just non-standard personalization of the interface? Or something else again? Is it worth the effort?
Tinkering is all of the above. It is modifying aesthetic or functional aspects of something. Changing the background wallpaper is a type of tinkering. It is also a way of discovering how something works (like disassembling a clock to see it's inner workings).
Some people just like to tinker because it's fun. It doesn't have to have a purpose or end goal. Other people want something to "just work". Nothing wrong with either way. Everyone is different which is why having choices is great.