Apple invents the gesture in this particular use case where it had never been done before and now that everyone wants to copy they get ripped.
Plain sucks.
Apple didn't invent the touchscreen slide to unlock, Neonode did - multiple years before the iPhone existed. If you want to split hairs, though, "Slide to unlock" has been a concept of mechanical locking mechanisms pretty much for as long as locks have existed.
Says someone likely to have never had an original idea in his life. It takes a lot of work and to make something innovative, it takes 5 minutes to copy it. Without protection, you forfeit progression.
Because "slide to unlock" is so original and never been done before in any medium ever.
I see the point you make, yet the outcome is that any patent can be nullified: every invention to date is the application of previous ideas in new use-cases.
I assumed patents are there to protect innovation by those who accomplish something new - the fundamental definition of Apple since its birth. But there is a repeated history of businesses and legal systems working against Apple.
Now this precedence has been set, I hope Apple walks in and takes everything rhey like - Google's search, MS's servers and enterprise, and Samsungs fabs.
Not angry at you, just furious at the total lack of foresight demonstrated by patenting and the systems supposedly designed to reinforce them.
Actually they didn't it, Neonode invented and even released a phone with slide to unlock, 3 years before the iPhone. Though Apple's implementation was more elegant. This patent should have never been granted in the first place as the only thing separating the two was a slide bar graphic. Here is Neonode's patent filing http://www.google.com/patents/US8095879?dq=8095879&ei=YHdCT56bFerE2wXU8qiVCA and a picture;
No. This is slide to confirm or deny, used throughout the system - clumsy use for a touch screen with very limited capabilities. Apple used 'slide to unlock' as a key sales point for ease-of-use.
What is patentable? It seems this question is still being answered, with even unique and defining qualities of products failing to be protected. How will new companies innovate when their contributiins are immediately stolen by others?
I love watching Jobs' keynote introducing the first iPhone. Really
Puts tech decelopment over the past twrnty years into perspective!
The problem, as they say, is not software patents per se, but rather the quality of patents. Joel Spolsky (former Microsofter) had this to say:
"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry that maybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.
The problem, as they say, is not software patents per se, but rather the quality of patents. Joel Spolsky (former Microsofter) had this to say:
"<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Software developers don’t actually </span>
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">invent</em>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious </span>
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">inventions</em>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> in the software industry that </span>
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">may</em>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">be, in </span>
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">some </em>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.</span>
Then that guy SHOULD be inventing and patenting all of this allegedly easy stuff. It's easy in retrospect, isn't it? Seems like sour grapes. People who would rather criticize than invent when they're capable are sorry specimens.
Then that guy SHOULD be inventing and patenting all of this allegedly easy stuff. It's easy in retrospect, isn't it? Seems like sour grapes. People who would rather criticize than invent when they're capable are sorry specimens.
I've come to the conclusion that those who are incapable of innovation are also incapable of recognising it. Why would they be able to?
Actually they didn't it, Neonode invented and even released a phone with slide to unlock, 3 years before the iPhone. Though Apple's implementation was more elegant. This patent should have never been granted in the first place as the only thing separating the two was a slide bar graphic. Here is Neonode's patent filing http://www.google.com/patents/US8095879?dq=8095879&ei=YHdCT56bFerE2wXU8qiVCA and a picture;
So you think this is the same because the finger touches the screen and unlocks the phone with a swipe? You realise "swipe-to-unlock" is just the name of the invention, not the invention itself?
Where's the part where the finger has to track a specifically defined path with graphical feedback and deviation from which causes the action to fail?
I think if you simplify anything enough it looks the same as something else.
I like to ask the judges a dialectic question. If the iPhone does not meet high enough standards, why the consumers are willing to pay a high premium for iPhone? If the judges care to look around, most of the iPhone features have been copied by an army of cloners. So what are the unique features that the consumers are paying for?
I'll rephrase your question: How can million of users be so stupid to pay a premium....? Well, because Apple has a great marketing department that convinces the users to pay that premium.
But a judge in a patent can only take the points into account which are described in the law. And apparently the judge has decided that the swipe to unlock is too trivial. And personally I think the judge is correct. All technology companies file too many trivial inventions for patent approval.
Hopefully big companies like Apple will lose more cases like this to motivate them to support the patent system. We need to stop the war on non-practicing entities. It is destroying the patent system. If we don't change course soon, China will soon be a better place to protect your intellectual property. I know it sounds preposterous, but that's where things are headed right now. China gets better every year and the U.S. Gets worse.
Please define "non-practicing entities".
Before you do, I would just like to say that I personally sold an idea (patent pending) many years ago (the days before Kickstarter) in which I was far too poor (just out of college) to realize and bring to market myself.
So I would've be considered a non-practicing entity if a) I was unable to find a buyer for my design; and or b) one of the companies decided to just take my idea regardless of NDA, make a couple of changes, and again... because I was non-practicing, they should be allowed to do so.
Edited: maybe I'm misunderstanding your rant. Are you FOR or AGAINST non-practicing entities?
Intellectual asset/property management, the filing process, and the recourse through the courts around the world... ARE the biggest dilemma of our time (outside of politics, lifestyle and environmental issues).
I follow a lot of tech, design, culture and photography blogs... and there is not one other issue that gets more views, comments both derisive and factual, than the above topic.
As is often the case, one creative's project... is another's "meh" moment and not worth the money to license ("I thought of that", or "I could've done that", etc.), or the general public's consideration of respect by paying for it.
I fully understand SJ's "my baby moment" and desire to protect his and his team's creation. At one time, I also respected his desire to go after the blatant copy-cat thieves to redress the molestation. I've come to the conclusion though, that by going "thermo-nuclear", he and Apple are the very reason why many of the GOOD reasons for patent protection may get thrown out with the (baby) bath water when reform finally comes.... which it will.
Last evening I finally got around to watching a very good discussion on copyrights on YT as they pertain to photographers. A must see... even at a little over an hours length... because the take away (mine anyway), is that unless your willing to spend a lot of time and money filing, pursuing, and negotiating settlements either on your own or with a specialized companies help, you should probably just keep your mouth shut, your head down, and market yourself with that time and money to find good self-sustaining opportunities for your creative endeavors. Besides, you will always be at the mercy of the courts because so much is considered "grey area case-by-case judgement and settlement".
Essentially, that is exactly what Apple has done while these patent disputes have winded through the court systems. They've continued to innovate, expand, enhance, produce and market their devices and services, and are clever enough to hear and abide by their own preaching in that "it's the whole enchilada that matters and not one single ingredient that makes an iPhone what it is, and Apple desirable and profitable because of that".
So in the end:
[LIST=1] [*] Did thermo-nuclear work at all? [*] Did it bring a lot of bad press and derision from the public? [*] Did it... or has it... become the cataclysmic tech event that just "might" cause reform that harms patent protection more than it helps? [*] Would Samsung and Co. be in any other position than they are today, IF Apple would have only called them out rather than sued? [*] Has Apple seen ANY monetary rewards (judgements) yet... and when if ever will they? [*] ... and finally... aside from a lot of lawyers getting wealthy from the windfall... has it accomplished anything? Anything at all positive? [/LIST]
My personal observations and answers to the above are all emphatically "NO".... and that's why IMHO I've changed my mind about the decision to even pursue the slightest infringement these days. Better to work with people, get them to see your side...or simply call them out for being a jerk and let social media take it up from there.
For the photography enthusiasts and pros, as well as designers on these forums, you really should watch this:
[B]Copyright Interview with ImageRights and Peter Coulson | RGG EDU Originals[/B]
So you think this is the same because the finger touches the screen and unlocks the phone with a swipe? You realise "swipe-to-unlock" is just the name of the invention, not the invention itself?
Where's the part where the finger has to track a specifically defined path with graphical feedback and deviation from which causes the action to fail?
I think if you simplify anything enough it looks the same as something else.
By this logic, I unlock my Samsung phone with nothing resembling Apple's slide-to-unlock as there is no specifically defined path, no graphical feedback, and deviation doesn't cause the action to fail. At all.
I'm again going to go against most commenters. I think this decision makes perfect sense in light of existing rulings and the European patent systems, and is a good decision. What is bothersome is that Samsung gets away with designing phones that are sold as "cheaper iPhones".
It's a GERMANY ONLY ruling. Do understand that distinction?
It's also been found to be unworthy of patent protection in England, Wales and Holland lawsuits. In fact the only judge of the 16 who have heard arguments and ruled on slide-to-unlock so far to not to find it invalid is the one some here like to hate on: Judge Koh.
So, 100's of millions of approved and pending patents all meet high standards ? Have German court looked at how silly idea look and still get patient because it is new idea that no one has has either came up with of filed patient for..
This is real stupid on German court's part. They can put in essential category and ask Apple to share with reasonable royalty but invalidating means millions of patents can be invalidated based on some "high standard" and world becomes lawless/patenless. Just copy, make it cheap and sell to reap of innovative company who spent millions/billions on research and development.
So, 100's of millions of approved and pending patents all meet high standards ? Have German court looked at how silly idea look and still get patient because it is new idea that no one has has either came up with of filed patient for..
This is real stupid on German court's part. They can put in essential category and ask Apple to share with reasonable royalty but invalidating means millions of patents can be invalidated based on some "high standard" and world becomes lawless/patenless. Just copy, make it cheap and sell to reap of innovative company who spent millions/billions on research and development.
Here in the US a high percentage of these "method" patents will be found invalid if used in a lawsuit. It's only been a relatively few years that software patents as a class were even considered patent worthy in the first place. Innovation happened just fine without them, with businesses and individuals somehow founding a way to profit from their ideas.
Here in the US a high percentage of these "method" patents will be found invalid if used in a lawsuit. It's only been a relatively few years that software patents as a class were even considered patent worthy in the first place. Innovation happened just fine without them, with businesses and individuals somehow founding a way to profit from their ideas.
Yet Apple enjoyed a period of almost 8 years of some protection from that particular patent, and at the time Apple's slide to unlock was unveiled, it was in fact new, shiny, useful and different, all necessary ingredients of a disruptive device. Now superseded by Touch ID, slide to unlock seems almost quaint, but it and hundreds of other methods within the iOS UI gave Apple an edge that lasted long enough to establish the iPhone as the premier product in its category.
Yet Apple enjoyed a period of almost 8 years of some protection from that particular patent, and at the time Apple's slide to unlock was unveiled, it was in fact new, shiny, useful and different, all necessary ingredients of a disruptive device. Now superseded by Touch ID, slide to unlock seems almost quaint, but it and hundreds of other methods within the iOS UI gave Apple an edge that lasted long enough to establish the iPhone as the premier product in its category.
I agree. I think Mr. Jobs knew some of it was a bluff, and a well-played one to be sure. Of course some of the patent claims found invalid when asserted might have been a surprise to him.
Comments
Omg.
Apple invents the gesture in this particular use case where it had never been done before and now that everyone wants to copy they get ripped.
Plain sucks.
Apple didn't invent the touchscreen slide to unlock, Neonode did - multiple years before the iPhone existed. If you want to split hairs, though, "Slide to unlock" has been a concept of mechanical locking mechanisms pretty much for as long as locks have existed.
Because "slide to unlock" is so original and never been done before in any medium ever.
I assumed patents are there to protect innovation by those who accomplish something new - the fundamental definition of Apple since its birth. But there is a repeated history of businesses and legal systems working against Apple.
Now this precedence has been set, I hope Apple walks in and takes everything rhey like - Google's search, MS's servers and enterprise, and Samsungs fabs.
Not angry at you, just furious at the total lack of foresight demonstrated by patenting and the systems supposedly designed to reinforce them.
What is patentable? It seems this question is still being answered, with even unique and defining qualities of products failing to be protected. How will new companies innovate when their contributiins are immediately stolen by others?
I love watching Jobs' keynote introducing the first iPhone. Really
Puts tech decelopment over the past twrnty years into perspective!
That's Commie/Google talk.
The problem, as they say, is not software patents per se, but rather the quality of patents. Joel Spolsky (former Microsofter) had this to say:
"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry that maybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.
The other 40,000-odd software patents issued every year are mostly garbage that any working programmer could “invent” three times before breakfast..." (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html)
Then that guy SHOULD be inventing and patenting all of this allegedly easy stuff. It's easy in retrospect, isn't it? Seems like sour grapes. People who would rather criticize than invent when they're capable are sorry specimens.
I've come to the conclusion that those who are incapable of innovation are also incapable of recognising it. Why would they be able to?
So you think this is the same because the finger touches the screen and unlocks the phone with a swipe? You realise "swipe-to-unlock" is just the name of the invention, not the invention itself?
Where's the part where the finger has to track a specifically defined path with graphical feedback and deviation from which causes the action to fail?
I think if you simplify anything enough it looks the same as something else.
I like to ask the judges a dialectic question. If the iPhone does not meet high enough standards, why the consumers are willing to pay a high premium for iPhone? If the judges care to look around, most of the iPhone features have been copied by an army of cloners. So what are the unique features that the consumers are paying for?
I'll rephrase your question: How can million of users be so stupid to pay a premium....? Well, because Apple has a great marketing department that convinces the users to pay that premium.
But a judge in a patent can only take the points into account which are described in the law. And apparently the judge has decided that the swipe to unlock is too trivial. And personally I think the judge is correct. All technology companies file too many trivial inventions for patent approval.
Please define "non-practicing entities".
Before you do, I would just like to say that I personally sold an idea (patent pending) many years ago (the days before Kickstarter) in which I was far too poor (just out of college) to realize and bring to market myself.
So I would've be considered a non-practicing entity if a) I was unable to find a buyer for my design; and or b) one of the companies decided to just take my idea regardless of NDA, make a couple of changes, and again... because I was non-practicing, they should be allowed to do so.
Edited: maybe I'm misunderstanding your rant. Are you FOR or AGAINST non-practicing entities?
I follow a lot of tech, design, culture and photography blogs... and there is not one other issue that gets more views, comments both derisive and factual, than the above topic.
As is often the case, one creative's project... is another's "meh" moment and not worth the money to license ("I thought of that", or "I could've done that", etc.), or the general public's consideration of respect by paying for it.
I fully understand SJ's "my baby moment" and desire to protect his and his team's creation. At one time, I also respected his desire to go after the blatant copy-cat thieves to redress the molestation. I've come to the conclusion though, that by going "thermo-nuclear", he and Apple are the very reason why many of the GOOD reasons for patent protection may get thrown out with the (baby) bath water when reform finally comes.... which it will.
Last evening I finally got around to watching a very good discussion on copyrights on YT as they pertain to photographers. A must see... even at a little over an hours length... because the take away (mine anyway), is that unless your willing to spend a lot of time and money filing, pursuing, and negotiating settlements either on your own or with a specialized companies help, you should probably just keep your mouth shut, your head down, and market yourself with that time and money to find good self-sustaining opportunities for your creative endeavors. Besides, you will always be at the mercy of the courts because so much is considered "grey area case-by-case judgement and settlement".
Essentially, that is exactly what Apple has done while these patent disputes have winded through the court systems. They've continued to innovate, expand, enhance, produce and market their devices and services, and are clever enough to hear and abide by their own preaching in that "it's the whole enchilada that matters and not one single ingredient that makes an iPhone what it is, and Apple desirable and profitable because of that".
So in the end:
[LIST=1]
[*] Did thermo-nuclear work at all?
[*] Did it bring a lot of bad press and derision from the public?
[*] Did it... or has it... become the cataclysmic tech event that just "might" cause reform that harms patent protection more than it helps?
[*] Would Samsung and Co. be in any other position than they are today, IF Apple would have only called them out rather than sued?
[*] Has Apple seen ANY monetary rewards (judgements) yet... and when if ever will they?
[*] ... and finally... aside from a lot of lawyers getting wealthy from the windfall... has it accomplished anything? Anything at all positive?
[/LIST]
My personal observations and answers to the above are all emphatically "NO".... and that's why IMHO I've changed my mind about the decision to even pursue the slightest infringement these days. Better to work with people, get them to see your side...or simply call them out for being a jerk and let social media take it up from there.
For the photography enthusiasts and pros, as well as designers on these forums, you really should watch this:
[B]Copyright Interview with ImageRights and Peter Coulson | RGG EDU Originals[/B]
[VIDEO]
So you think this is the same because the finger touches the screen and unlocks the phone with a swipe? You realise "swipe-to-unlock" is just the name of the invention, not the invention itself?
Where's the part where the finger has to track a specifically defined path with graphical feedback and deviation from which causes the action to fail?
I think if you simplify anything enough it looks the same as something else.
By this logic, I unlock my Samsung phone with nothing resembling Apple's slide-to-unlock as there is no specifically defined path, no graphical feedback, and deviation doesn't cause the action to fail. At all.
What is bothersome is that Samsung gets away with designing phones that are sold as "cheaper iPhones".
This is real stupid on German court's part. They can put in essential category and ask Apple to share with reasonable royalty but invalidating means millions of patents can be invalidated based on some "high standard" and world becomes lawless/patenless. Just copy, make it cheap and sell to reap of innovative company who spent millions/billions on research and development.
Here in the US a high percentage of these "method" patents will be found invalid if used in a lawsuit. It's only been a relatively few years that software patents as a class were even considered patent worthy in the first place. Innovation happened just fine without them, with businesses and individuals somehow founding a way to profit from their ideas.
Yet Apple enjoyed a period of almost 8 years of some protection from that particular patent, and at the time Apple's slide to unlock was unveiled, it was in fact new, shiny, useful and different, all necessary ingredients of a disruptive device. Now superseded by Touch ID, slide to unlock seems almost quaint, but it and hundreds of other methods within the iOS UI gave Apple an edge that lasted long enough to establish the iPhone as the premier product in its category.
Keeps makin' phones