German court rules against Apple 'swipe-to-unlock' patent protection

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 68
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,095member

    Funny you should mention "mathematical solutions". Mathematical formulae are not patentable. A program is a description of work for a computer to execute. There's an order of magnitude difference due to the use of programing languages.


    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

    Also, the opinion you hold is not "increasingly shared".
    I'm afraid you are incorrect.
    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=56c7a189-e138-4016-85dd-16d3e90a7322

    It's not the first time the USPTO has been found to be "doing it wrong" and probably won't be the last.

    EDIT: Keep an eye on the Planet Blue case. Unlike simple business method patents this case involves very specific and "tangible" claims rather than anything abstract. Yet the District Court has already ruled the patent claims to be ineligible. It's now in appeal at the Federal level. The outcome will be a big indicator how US courts will handle software patents going forward.
  • Reply 62 of 68
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I'm afraid you are incorrect.

    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=56c7a189-e138-4016-85dd-16d3e90a7322



    It's not the first time the USPTO has been found to be "doing it wrong" and probably won't be the last.



    EDIT: Keep an eye on the Planet Blue case. Unlike simple business method patents this case involves very specific and "tangible" claims rather than anything abstract. Yet the District Court has already ruled the patent claims to be ineligible. It's now in appeal at the Federal level. The outcome will be a big indicator how US courts will handle software patents going forward.



    Actually, that link reinforces what I've been saying over and over again. Ideas are not patentable!

     

    "In particular, these cases developed the principle that an “abstract idea” is not patentable (even though 35 U.S.C. §101 does not expressly say this). In turn, the U.S. Patent Office drafted instructions to its Examiners on how to examine software patents for “subject matter eligibility”, i.e., patentability under 35 U.S.C. §101. Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp., the criteria for subject matter eligibility for “process” and “machine” inventions were somewhat different. Oversimplifying a bit, a “machine” claim that specified a particular machine (e.g., a special-purpose computer) was usually subject-matter eligible, but even a general-purpose machine was often subject-matter eligible as long as the patent claim specified hardware components such as central processing unit, memory, input/output unit, etc."

  • Reply 63 of 68
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,095member

    Actually, that link reinforces what I've been saying over and over again. Ideas are not patentable!
    Well of course ideas are not patentable. Ideas have NEVER been patentable. The SCOTUS ruling didn't change it. What it did do was begin roping in the runaway patenting of methods and processes "on a computer" which IMO should not have been allowed to begin with. The USPTO is now changing its examination of those types of patents because of recent judicial actions.

    So absolutely yes, courts are increasingly leaning towards restricting the patentability of software just as I said and the USPTO is following suit just as they should.

    Edit: [@]SpamSandwich[/@] there's a number of changes already made and others being considered regarding software patents. The USPTO has published quite a bit to the Federal Register in the last few months. You might find it beneficial to browse thru some of it as it's not like it was as little as 14 months ago. Also know that the USPTO invites your comments on software patents. You have a interest that deserves to be considered.
    http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/2014-interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-0
  • Reply 64 of 68
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    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.

    What you're saying is that "everything is a mouse trap", yet a better one needs to be found and should be patented.
    zoetmb wrote: »

    I always thought it was completely ridiculous that Amazon won that patent for one-click.   If anything should be obvious, it's storing a customer's shipping and billing address and then making use of the fact that you already know it.    Ideas are not supposed to be patentable - only the specific implementation and unique design characteristics of those ideas.   I'm not a patent attorney, but I fail to see how one-click would ever qualify.   It's just a link to perform an automated action - something developed long before Amazon even existed.    I would love to see some judge throw out that patent although there's probably less than 10 years left on it. 

    It's a good thing the idiots in the patent office don't grant copyrights - if they did, you'd have to get a license to make a film or write a book of a specific genre.   They would have granted a copyright to "science fiction" or "romance" or "westerns", etc. 

    Your post brought to mind an app that I've been enthusiastic about since around the beginning of the year, IFTTT aka If This Then That.

    Actually it's a clever and far easier take on the years old Automator for OSX, which I've used quite often in the past.

    I just did a simple search to see if they've applied for a patent, and turned up evudense that some others are certainky trying to. I obviously don't agree any company or person should ever get one, whether purely software or coupled to hardware like bttn.

    http://phandroid.com/2012/07/15/microsofts-ifttt-clone-for-android-onx-is-actually-pretty-cool/

    http://www.google.com/patents/US20140351800

    http://www.psfk.com/2014/06/physical-button-ifttt-commands-real-world.html
  • Reply 65 of 68
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    majani wrote: »
    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.
    Turn unlock on. Failing to perform an unlock gesture correctly but still unlocking your phone is a fail. A bit like keeping your fingerprints in an unsecured file in an accessible location. Definitely a Samsung product!
  • Reply 66 of 68
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    e1618978 wrote: »
    I've been a programmer for 30 years, Mr angry, and never seen any software that deserved a patent.
    The genius worth protecting is in the design (the thinking), not the programming (the doing). Though you have a point in that most software is actually designed by the builder so isn't worth protecting - it also rarely works well enough to be useful.
  • Reply 67 of 68
    mcdave wrote: »
    The genius worth protecting is in the design (the thinking), not the programming (the doing). Though you have a point in that most software is actually designed by the builder so isn't worth protecting - it also rarely works well enough to be useful.

    From beginning to end that comment is laughably incoherent and illogical.
  • Reply 68 of 68
    majanimajani Posts: 92member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by McDave View Post





    Turn unlock on. Failing to perform an unlock gesture correctly but still unlocking your phone is a fail.



    Eh, no. If I don't swipe for long enough, it won't unlock, so I suppose there is that. Or does Apple have a patent on unlocking not working? I don't have to follow a per-determined path the way I use my phone, though I can use pattern unlock. I don't think this feature is present on iPhones though considering the products that Apple has blatantly copied from Android and/or other products, I expect to see it soon.

     

    If I enable a pin code, pressing the power button brings me straight to a pin code screen, though again, I have the option of using various levels of security here. I don't have a fingerprint-enabled phone so no idea how it works on either platform, though I assume it's almost exactly the same as the fingerprint unlock I've got on my laptop.

     

    Samsung's current incarnation of 'swipe to unlock' is more akin to the original swipe to unlock that Apple copied from the Neonode N1m.

Sign In or Register to comment.