Dutch judge says Apple's 'slide to unlock' patent is likely invalid

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 81
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ameldrum1 View Post


    If you know better (as you generally seem to), there is a shortage of judges in many jurisdictions. All you'd need to do is study law for 7 years or so, do a clerkship, pass some more exams, practise law for 20 years or so, then get appointed (or elected).



    At that point your legal opinion will be valid.



    Until then, why don't we go with the guy who knows what he is talking about eh?



    The German judge or the Australian one?



    Those guys that also know what they are talking about?
  • Reply 42 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The German judge or the Australian one?



    Those guys that also know what they are talking about?



    They also need to work withing those laws that apply to the jurisdiction and the case at hand. The Netherlands case was much more extensive than the one the German Court is handling. And IMO the German laws appear pretty restrictive as to the types of testimony and evidence that accepted at this stage in the proceedings. It's pretty much Samsung's responsibility to prove Apple's design patent invalid, and/or their right to even file for an emergency injunction, but without being able to ask them any questions.



    It's a completely different and much more narrow effort from Apple in Germany than it was in the Netherlands.



    EDIT: BTW, we'll all know more about the Australian status within a few days. A "directions hearing", which is more or less a somewhat informal get-together with the Judge and involved parties to discuss how they wish to proceed, is scheduled for the 29th.
  • Reply 43 of 81
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    It's funny isn't it? Any patent troll that sues Apple, and we have endless posts about how crap the patent system is, how people/companies are being handed out bullshit patents left right and centre, and how the whole system needs a major overhaul.



    Oh, but if someone suggests that Apple has been awarded a patent when they shouldn't have been, because the idea is obvious, we have the opposite outcry. Post after post about how "innovative" a slide-to-unlock gesture is.



    Sorry, can't have it both ways. It is utterly ludicrous that Apple was awarded a patent for the slide to unlock gesture. It's pretty obvious and not very clever - Android's gesture unlock is more innovative but I'm not sure even that warrants a patent.



    There is no necessary logical inconsistency in holding both positions, as superficially portrayed by you, so, actually, one could have it both ways.
  • Reply 44 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    BULLSHIT. Get real. If you can create another non-stick material, then you can name and patent it. You are not patenting the idea of non-stick, but the molecule combination used to make Teflon.



    If teflon is so non-stick, how the hell does it stick to the pan?
  • Reply 45 of 81
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    BULLSHIT. Get real. If you can create another non-stick material, then you can name and patent it. You are not patenting the idea of non-stick, but the molecule combination used to make Teflon.



    And I suppose you could enlighten us as to some more ideas that have been patented that shouldn't be patented. Would you be so kind?



    Because all I see here is?



    Idea: means by which to lock the device

    Implementation: slide to unlock



    Slide to unlock isn't an idea, it's an implementation thereof. So by your rules, it should be fine.
  • Reply 46 of 81
    kozchriskozchris Posts: 209member
    One off this may be invalid but when you look at Apple products as a whole, (iPhone, iPad) there is some serious copying going on.
  • Reply 47 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason this makes me so mad is that even though it's a bit trivial, it's one of the truly original things about the iPhone and multi-touch when it came out.



    If Apple can't get protection for stuff like this then there doesn't seem to be much point to patents at all. You might as well just take the China attitude of letting anyone copy anyone else whenever they want.



    Whatever you hear to the contrary, the fact is that multi-touch was a truly original breakthrough as was it's application to the iPhone UI and almost everything about it. Apple dutifully recorded everything they were doing and patented it to the hilt.



    If all of that end up meaning nothing at all, then truly ... what is the point?



    The world would be in a horrible place if not for the creatives and the geniuses that invent things like this. It's the core of what makes us different from the other animals. Yet capitalism and the legal system treats creatives like so much cannon fodder for the most part.



    I think it's just sad.



    Well... I don't mean to trivialize the importance of protecting one's inventions or, ideas. I'm just expressing a little surprise this whole cat fight boils down to something, while I suppose neat, but to me, is far from some of the real innovations of apple. Something so easily worked around by samsung.
  • Reply 48 of 81
    jack99jack99 Posts: 157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Cite all the locks you swipe to unlock in your home, your car, or any other apparatus you own.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    The two slide locks on my storage building?



    EDIT: Forgot the one drop down door in the utility room. It has a slide lock too.



    Touche. Funny how a bit of common sense can put an irrational fanboy in his place.
  • Reply 49 of 81
    jack99jack99 Posts: 157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    It's funny isn't it? Any patent troll that sues Apple, and we have endless posts about how crap the patent system is, how people/companies are being handed out bullshit patents left right and centre, and how the whole system needs a major overhaul.



    Oh, but if someone suggests that Apple has been awarded a patent when they shouldn't have been, because the idea is obvious, we have the opposite outcry. Post after post about how "innovative" a slide-to-unlock gesture is.



    Sorry, can't have it both ways. It is utterly ludicrous that Apple was awarded a patent for the slide to unlock gesture. It's pretty obvious and not very clever - Android's gesture unlock is more innovative but I'm not sure even that warrants a patent.





    Ehhh, I wouldn't worry about it. You're correct point for point. But you're not going to convince hypocrites. The linchpin of a hypocrite's way of thinking is a distorted reality.
  • Reply 50 of 81
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason this makes me so mad is that even though it's a bit trivial, it's one of the truly original things about the iPhone and multi-touch when it came out.



    Slide to unlock doesn't use multi touch and the judge thinks it can be invalid because prior art.



    The phone presented doesn't use a long press but slide



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Idea: A substance to which stuff can't stick...



    WHOOPS, THERE GOES TEFLON.







    No, is not the idea of non sticking what is patented but the method
  • Reply 51 of 81
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post


    Despite its army of lawyers and despite its litigious tendencies, it looks like Apple is losing big time. Innovatioins need patent protection. But copies of prior art, and obvious inventions need to be bounced before they can be used to stifle innovations by others.



    The patent system needs a HUGE overhaul when crap can receive a patent, and then those invalid patents can be used to hurt others.



    In the fifties, Boris Vian, well known writer, engineer from the best-breed-school École Centrale Paris, political activist and otherwise genius, registered an invention in the French patenting system, consisting of a torus of elastic material filled with air used to protect wheels against shocks. Yeah, a pneumatic. Invented half a century earlier in France and already registered there. He did this to prove that the system was broken. This is the year 2012.
  • Reply 52 of 81
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post


    Ehhh, I wouldn't worry about it. You're correct point for point. But you're not going to convince hypocrites. The linchpin of a hypocrite's way of thinking is a distorted reality.



    You are, Sir, mistaken.

    1- They are hypocrites: then they do not live in distorted reality

    2- They are not hypocrites and believe what they say: then they do live in distorted reality

    3- They are right and you wrong

    4- They are right, and you are right too, but your points of view are irreconcilable nonetheless



    Any of these may be true. It's however not yours to decide which is right, unless God talks to you...



    Note: I'm not trying to judge who's right here, just pointing out a logical fallacy
  • Reply 53 of 81
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post


    If teflon is so non-stick, how the hell does it stick to the pan?



    Let me guess.



    1- Because it's manufactured in conditions it won't be used in, very high temperatures or pressure.

    2- Because it's manufactured with a one-time process, like cooked bricks are since 5000BC.



    Not sure which is right, but both would answer your question. If you want to know more, ask a nanomechanics engineer.
  • Reply 54 of 81
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    The German judge or the Australian one?



    Those guys that also know what they are talking about?



    Those guys who apply differing laws and jurisprudence? I don't quite see why you people get so heated up anyway. Our opinion won't change the decision, and the decision won't affect our air, drinks or ability to get laid. So, what's the fuss...



    Well, if your ability to get laid lies in commenting on Ai... I don't wanna know who's your partner
  • Reply 55 of 81
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    So the judge will end up supporting part of Apple's patents, but not all of them...so it is sad. Sorry dude, but once this goes to court it is up to the judge. No use in complaining that Apple won't win 100% of the time.



    Of course, people call "FOUL FOUL FOUL" at Android, but have you seen iOS 5. It's notification system has the "Look and Feel" of Android. So why is that okay? Because Apple did it and not Google?



    Has Google patented it? If not, then it's fine, isn't it? In the end, one thing is sure: the more ruckus all this makes, the more public awareness is raised about Software Patents. Maybe the best thing possible would be a transition to a pure Capitalistic Service & Social Society, where all software is Open Source, cannot be patented, and what companies sell is hardware and technical expertise...



    I dream of the Apple iRobot, an Apple-made robot that cares for elderly people, young children,disabled people, very beautiful and reliable, so easy to operate even a child can... and with cybernetic opensource software to run it. People would buy it for the looks and reliability...
  • Reply 56 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post


    Ehhh, I wouldn't worry about it. You're correct point for point. But you're not going to convince hypocrites. The linchpin of a hypocrite's way of thinking is a distorted reality.





    I don't see is as hypocrisy as much as it is cognitive dissonance. Citing facts just causes discomfort to those who suffer from CD. Facts cause them to have to shift their denial into high gear, which, in turn, often causes them to lash out at the person causing them discomfort.



    I think it explains much of the nastiness we see here by the more rabid posters.
  • Reply 57 of 81
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,629member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason this makes me so mad is that even though it's a bit trivial, it's one of the truly original things about the iPhone and multi-touch when it came out.



    If Apple can't get protection for stuff like this then there doesn't seem to be much point to patents at all. You might as well just take the China attitude of letting anyone copy anyone else whenever they want.



    Whatever you hear to the contrary, the fact is that multi-touch was a truly original breakthrough as was it's application to the iPhone UI and almost everything about it. Apple dutifully recorded everything they were doing and patented it to the hilt.



    If all of that end up meaning nothing at all, then truly ... what is the point?



    The world would be in a horrible place if not for the creatives and the geniuses that invent things like this. It's the core of what makes us different from the other animals. Yet capitalism and the legal system treats creatives like so much cannon fodder for the most part.



    I think it's just sad.



    I disagree - I love Apple but don't think they should be able to get a patent for "slide to unlock" (aside from perhaps a copyright on the art). Do you think that in a videogame, someone should be able to get a patent for a virtual opening of a door or window? How about opening a file cabinet? Likewise, I don't think Amazon should have been able to get a patent for "one-click" which Apple had to license from them.



    Multi-touch overall? Maybe the specific implementation. But no one should get a patent for emulating virtually what people do in real life as a concept. The technology behind it? Sure.
  • Reply 58 of 81
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Idea: A substance to which stuff can't stick...



    WHOOPS, THERE GOES TEFLON.









    No, TEFLON is a particular implementation of that idea. You can't/shouldn't patent "substance to which stuff can't stick" based on TEFLON, but only "substance, which we call TEFLON, with molecular structure as described, to which stuff can't stick".
  • Reply 59 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post


    Apple is a giant transnational corporation which cares about only one thing: maximizing total profits.



    They do so in many ways, including making great products, but also by wrangling bullshit patents and using them to hurt innocent competitors.



    Absolutely.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Apple is so visible that it pushes the industry in industrial design [the photocopying is at an all-time high] to Green compliance, to recycling other old waste, to redefining the retail space from a giant eye sore of overkill down to a clean, minimalist style, to the ways they run their internal operations, etc.



    Two of the coolest places and most electric places to work and learn are Apple and PIXAR. That's all due to Steve and the mind share he developed and cultivated in both environments. The third one being NeXT.



    Nothing in the IT industry surpasses them and not one place is remotely as diverse, engaging and an absolute refreshing place to work and/or visit than the companies Steve developed.



    Hell, even Disney is in a renaissance due to the PIXAR merger and the talent it brought to revitalize Disney--once considered the coolest place on the planet to work.



    Spoken like a true fanboy.
  • Reply 60 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xsu View Post


    No, TEFLON is a particular implementation of that idea. You can't/shouldn't patent "substance to which stuff can't stick" based on TEFLON, but only "substance, which we call TEFLON, with molecular structure as described, to which stuff can't stick".



    And since THIS is all people seem to quote or care about and I've already expressed I understand your point now, I'll post this AGAIN to see if I can have some light shed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    And I suppose you could enlighten us as to some more ideas that have been patented that shouldn't be patented. Would you be so kind?



    Because all I see here is?



    Idea: means by which to lock the device

    Implementation: slide to unlock



    Slide to unlock isn't an idea, it's an implementation thereof. So by your rules, it should be fine.



Sign In or Register to comment.