I'm trying to understand if you guys who are defending this patent are doing so based on existing terminology/law or on principal.
If it's on principal, I don't think you can seriously defend it. Convoluting the conversation with claims of using capacitive screen as opposed to lack of it doesn't take away from the bottom line which is Apple saw this METHOD and patented it. It's the method ultimately that they claim is their own while disguising the patent as the IMPLEMENTATION of it. well guess what, technology is limited in ways it can implement that method. not to say that the technology is unique, in fact it isn't. the problem is lack of feasible technology that would allow anyone else to implement the method without the capacitive screen.
Props to apple for being the first to implement this idea to the mass market in a pretty package but in no way should this be considered unique after seeing that neonode video. whatever excuse you come up with such as "real world action??" is a fabrication to divert attention away from the concept. how much simpler can it get? 1. screen is locked 2. wake device 3. swipe finger from one side to the other and screen is unlocked. yes or no doesn't matter at this point. the concept is right there for a company to manipulate and claim as their own
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?
He is trying to avoid the obvious fact. The Neonode device unlocked in a different way. It did not use the swipe to unlock the device. So it is not obvious to Neonode and unlocking is not invented by Neonode.
It MAY be true that they saw this first. If so, they certainly didn't patent what they saw. If you think otherwise, you need to look at the video again and then consider why Apple's patent application is titled "Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image."
(Also, be sure that you're viewing the Neonode N1m video from 2007.)
It MAY be true that they saw this first. If so, they certainly didn't patent what they saw. If you think otherwise, you need to look at the video again and then consider why Apple's patent application is titled "Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image."
(Also, be sure that you're viewing the Neonode N1m video from 2007.)
I really don't get how anyone can defend the two parts stated in this thread 1) Apple stole from them when there is no proof of such) and 2) how Apple very detailed patent definition could be considered the same rudimentary actions as used in the June 29th, 2007 ? the day the iPhone was released ? video. You'd have to erase all but 5 words in Apple's patent filing to make them remotely comparable.
To be clear, that does not mean Apple had ninja spies in Neonode back in 2003 stealing all their ideas, seeing this one on swiping for gestures (yet somehow not seeing FingerWorks swiping gestures), and then passing them off to Apple to reinvent in an actual useful way. But there is no evidence to suggest these ninja spies existed or that Apple actually stole or bowered anything from Neonode? least of the which the very specific patent in question.
edit: This video would have been better evidence for an argument that it predates iPhone OS 1.0 as it's from December 2009 and shows clearly the lockscreen with an arrow pointing from left to right. Again, this is not proof of who was first and covers none of the details in Apple's patent, but it would at least have shown Neonode demonstrating the slide left to unlock before the original iPhone was announced.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was introduced before iPad 2. I don't think it had reached the market yet when Apple introduced the iPad 2. Immediately after, Samsung made a public statement that the Tab needed to be redesigned, and out popped what you know today as the Tab 10.1.
iOS still doesn't have gesture unlock code??? (I haven't seen it on iOS 5 on iPad 2 unless I am not seeing it...)
I looooove that on my droid. I'd love it on my iPad too. I hope Apple copies that from Android. I've got muscle memory already, I can unlock my phone without looking in car w/ Droid.
Unlock codes? FAIL. LAME. Gesture unlock = bigger innovation than swipe to unlock with code. Plus Google has facial recognition unlock now, although I see that more as a toy than useful...unless it proves to be accurate in reality.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was introduced before iPad 2. I don't think it had reached the market yet when Apple introduced the iPad 2. Immediately after, Samsung made a public statement that the Tab needed to be redesigned, and out popped what you know today as the Tab 10.1.
Samsung!!!! They are awesome. I want Samsung to make a Galaxy Note slider, or perhaps a keyboard case. I will buy one. Then I will use it instead of my Mac half the time probably. I might have a bit of a bulge in my pants, but, eh, I'll just let other people's imagination run wild with that.
"Software that is a mere computerized or automated implementation of established manual procedures, such as sorting and filing information, transmitting information, etc. is not patentable." - - or legislation to that effect should be enough to invalidate such stupid software patents as one-click ordering, and its ilk.
the notion of a software patent is a good one. Provided that, like all patents, it is specific. Vague patents are the real problem.
Also it wouldn't hurt to have a limit on how long one can sit on someone violating a patent before you speak up. Like trademarks, if you sit around for 5 years and do nothing then clearly you never really cared so the judges are more apt to toss the case. Letting folks sit for 18 of the 20 years they have a patent with folks violating it left and right and then in year 19 when someone strikes gold filing a suit shouldn't be allowed. THe point of a patent is to protect your IP, not make you a fortune.
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.
Never before in the history of tech has such a mindset existed.
Nothing has been created in a void and everything including the iPhone was built off the shoulders of giants.
Do I believe that Apple should be able to patent (and copyright/trademark) their specific implementation of slide to unlock? certainly (though patent maybe not but the other 2 yes).
Do I believe any company should be able to monopolize the mere act of interacting with a touchscreen to remove a screensaver (which is what it is) so you can interact with the device? no.
The fact that Apple can and has and IMO rightfully adapt and modify existing ideas into their products yet for some reason no one else can is hypocritical to me.
Take the notification pane for instance. I have no qualms with Apple using this...it's a great idea, and very useful and unless it was a direct line for line rip of Android's it is perfectly legitimate. No one seems to mind the fact that Apple was inspired by Android and WebOS.
Android 4.0s folder creation method on the other hand? Evil, theft, GRAND theft, stealing, blah blah blah.
Hell, let's back up a bit...Google had Android...a modular OS designed to be hardware agnostic from the get (despite what people say it was always capable of being on touchscreen only devices, the first prototype however, was a qwerty BB style device)...Apple comes out to rave reviews...EVERYONE recognizes the paradigm shift in smartphones...so everyone acts accordingly to survive in this new world.
All of a sudden everyone is a "thief"...because inspiration and trends seemingly no longer exist in the post iOS world :-/
Sad times.
Note 2.0: Samsung is omitted from defense as they are the most blatant infringers I've seen beyond Chinese KiRF manufacturers...though I still think the Tab should't have been banned.
Not necessarily true. The BB-style prototype pic is from Gizmodo on Dec 17 2007. Here's the official video from Nov 11 2007, where Google is announcing Android to the world. Skip to 2:55.
I really don't get how anyone can defend the two parts stated in this thread 1) Apple stole from them when there is no proof of such) and 2) how Apple very detailed patent definition could be considered the same rudimentary actions as used in the June 29th, 2007 — the day the iPhone was released — video. You'd have to erase all but 5 words in Apple's patent filing to make them remotely comparable.
Apple likely borrowed the idea (improved on it, was inspired, whatever) -- I'm just saying it's the most logical explanation, and you may choose to disregard it (as most readers here will, simple confirmatory bias). If Neonode had filed for a patent, the wording would likely be no less elaborate than the wording of Apple's patent, so there no reason to downplay the gesture just because it's simple.
Quote:
To be clear, that does not mean Apple had ninja spies in Neonode back in 2003 stealing all their ideas, seeing this one on swiping for gestures (yet somehow not seeing FingerWorks swiping gestures), and then passing them off to Apple to reinvent in an actual useful way. But there is no evidence to suggest these ninja spies existed or that Apple actually stole or bowered anything from Neonode… least of the which the very specific patent in question.
Just to set the timeframe straight, the first Neonode model was showcased in March 2002 on CeBIT in Germany. That's about 5 years before the iPhone was announced, and likely long before it was even conceived.
So there's no need for "ninjas", the information was public in 2003. And, Apple had not bought FingerWorks at the time.
It then took two years for Neonode to start to market the device, under which time it had acquired a "vaporware" status. The first model was released in July 2004, more than three years before the iPhone.
The model in the video I linked to earlier is a later model, and had been released in March 2005 -- as indicated in tnkgrl's video, it was already 2-3 years old in the eve of iPhones release! It was also about the time when Apple acquired FingerWorks.
Neonode released one more model, N2, demonstrated during the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona in February 2007. This model was the result of two years of software improvements, and already contained not only the swipe-to-unlock gesture but also visual cues (arrows) incorporated throughout the interface, albeit without the animation detailed in Apple's later patent filing.
Quote:
edit: This video would have been better evidence for an argument that it predates iPhone OS 1.0 as it's from December 2009 and shows clearly the lockscreen with an arrow pointing from left to right. Again, this is not proof of who was first and covers none of the details in Apple's patent, but it would at least have shown Neonode demonstrating the slide left to unlock before the original iPhone was announced.
I tend to view YouTube videos not as evidence, but as illustrations. There are dozens of videos demonstrating the slide-to-unlock before the iPhone was announced (I saw quite a few of them tonight, and could give you the links if googling is too much).
The bottomline is, the gesture was there many years before Apple filed to patent it, and therefore is unpatentable due to lack of novelty. The only thing Apple might claim as an improvement is the implementation including a visual cue, which becomes rather obvious once the rest of the hardware can easily support animated objects.
Apple awarded patent for touchscreen slide-to-unlock gesture
But still a rectangle thing is my favorite by far. Unbelivable
This one is also quite bizzare:
HTC agreed to pay Microsoft $5 per shipped Android set.
CaptainJack
"I think people are forgetting the big reason that HTC is paying Microsoft to License Android, and that is indemnity. Apple started going around suing everyone that made an Android phone with multi-touch, for various patent infringements including HTC.
Microsoft saw this and stepped in with the various multi-touch patents they have in place as well. They informed any manufacturers that anyone licensing their OS would be provided indemnity from IP lawsuits, as Microsoft would pay their legal defense and come to their aid in patent suits that came as a result. HTC saw this as a cheap way to license patents and protect themselves from Apple's lawyers and they have been paying for a Windows Phone 7 License for every Android device ever since. "
Now the question is does Apple have Enough Balls to do it against Microsoft ?!
All this patent things will be extremely funny to follow
the notion of a software patent is a good one. Provided that, like all patents, it is specific. Vague patents are the real problem.
Also it wouldn't hurt to have a limit on how long one can sit on someone violating a patent before you speak up. Like trademarks, if you sit around for 5 years and do nothing then clearly you never really cared so the judges are more apt to toss the case. Letting folks sit for 18 of the 20 years they have a patent with folks violating it left and right and then in year 19 when someone strikes gold filing a suit shouldn't be allowed. THe point of a patent is to protect your IP, not make you a fortune.
The bottomline is, the gesture was there many years before Apple filed to patent it, and therefore is unpatentable due to lack of novelty.
Again you fail to understand that Apple is not patenting a left-to-right finger movement but, rather, the innovation involved with implementing a gesture that is conceptually linked in its performance with an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism. This makes it novel and clearly different from what Neonode has done, in which there is no attempt to relate the gesture to the process of manipulating a lock of any type. In my opinion, they definitely deserve a patent.
Again you fail to understand that Apple is not patenting a left-to-right finger movement but, rather, the innovation involved with implementing a gesture that is conceptually linked in its performance with an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism. This makes it novel and clearly different from what Neonode has done, in which there is no attempt to relate the gesture to the process of manipulating a lock of any type. In my opinion, they definitely deserve a patent.
The semantics are irrelevant. Whether the gesture resembles "an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism" or not is completely immaterial, and in fact, it doesn't resemble anything widely used (what do you open by sliding your thumb across it, really?). The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it. You shouldn't be able to patent something old just because you see some deep new meaning in it.
What you're trying to convince me is roughly this: Neonode designed a mouse trap, but they didn't understand it can trap mice (?!), so Apple should be granted a patent for finding a similarity between Neonode's invention and another device that traps mice, and drawing on Neonode's device to emphasize that resemblance.
Can you answer this: would Apple's slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there? Could one unlock iPhone's screen without looking at it? Does the unlock work if the back light is dimmed, or the outside light is too bright for one to read the screen?
If you answered the above questions with "yes", then you know whether Apple's addition to the method is dispensable.
The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it.
Clearly Apple was not attempting to patent the left-to-right finger movement/gesture, and the USPTO was apparently able to figure that out on their own.
The issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
It's clearly useful. It is novel with notable differences from the Neonode implementation. If it had been obvious, Neonode would have done what Apple did (which cannot be thought of as anything less than an improvement), but they didn't. Apparently the idea of attempting to conceptually connect their left-to-right gesture with the process of unlatching something never occurred to them. It only became obvious once they saw the iPhone. (Just my guess, admittedly, but this is what seems most likely.)
The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it.
Clearly Apple was not attempting to patent the left-to-right finger movement/gesture, and the USPTO was apparently able to figure that out on their own.
The issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
It's clearly useful. It is novel with notable differences from the Neonode implementation. If it had been obvious, Neonode would have have done what Apple did (which cannot be thought of as anything less than an improvement), but they didn't. Apparently the idea of attempting to conceptually connect their left-to-right gesture with the process of unlatching something never occurred to them. It only became obvious once they saw the iPhone. (Just my guess, admittedly, but this is what seems most likely.)
Comments
If it's on principal, I don't think you can seriously defend it. Convoluting the conversation with claims of using capacitive screen as opposed to lack of it doesn't take away from the bottom line which is Apple saw this METHOD and patented it. It's the method ultimately that they claim is their own while disguising the patent as the IMPLEMENTATION of it. well guess what, technology is limited in ways it can implement that method. not to say that the technology is unique, in fact it isn't. the problem is lack of feasible technology that would allow anyone else to implement the method without the capacitive screen.
Props to apple for being the first to implement this idea to the mass market in a pretty package but in no way should this be considered unique after seeing that neonode video. whatever excuse you come up with such as "real world action??" is a fabrication to divert attention away from the concept. how much simpler can it get? 1. screen is locked 2. wake device 3. swipe finger from one side to the other and screen is unlocked. yes or no doesn't matter at this point. the concept is right there for a company to manipulate and claim as their own
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?
He is trying to avoid the obvious fact. The Neonode device unlocked in a different way. It did not use the swipe to unlock the device. So it is not obvious to Neonode and unlocking is not invented by Neonode.
Apple saw this METHOD and patented it.
It MAY be true that they saw this first. If so, they certainly didn't patent what they saw. If you think otherwise, you need to look at the video again and then consider why Apple's patent application is titled "Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image."
(Also, be sure that you're viewing the Neonode N1m video from 2007.)
It MAY be true that they saw this first. If so, they certainly didn't patent what they saw. If you think otherwise, you need to look at the video again and then consider why Apple's patent application is titled "Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image."
(Also, be sure that you're viewing the Neonode N1m video from 2007.)
I really don't get how anyone can defend the two parts stated in this thread 1) Apple stole from them when there is no proof of such) and 2) how Apple very detailed patent definition could be considered the same rudimentary actions as used in the June 29th, 2007 ? the day the iPhone was released ? video. You'd have to erase all but 5 words in Apple's patent filing to make them remotely comparable.
To be clear, that does not mean Apple had ninja spies in Neonode back in 2003 stealing all their ideas, seeing this one on swiping for gestures (yet somehow not seeing FingerWorks swiping gestures), and then passing them off to Apple to reinvent in an actual useful way. But there is no evidence to suggest these ninja spies existed or that Apple actually stole or bowered anything from Neonode? least of the which the very specific patent in question.
edit: This video would have been better evidence for an argument that it predates iPhone OS 1.0 as it's from December 2009 and shows clearly the lockscreen with an arrow pointing from left to right. Again, this is not proof of who was first and covers none of the details in Apple's patent, but it would at least have shown Neonode demonstrating the slide left to unlock before the original iPhone was announced.
Samsung has two versions of the Galaxy Tab 10.1?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was introduced before iPad 2. I don't think it had reached the market yet when Apple introduced the iPad 2. Immediately after, Samsung made a public statement that the Tab needed to be redesigned, and out popped what you know today as the Tab 10.1.
iOS still doesn't have gesture unlock code??? (I haven't seen it on iOS 5 on iPad 2 unless I am not seeing it...)
I looooove that on my droid. I'd love it on my iPad too. I hope Apple copies that from Android. I've got muscle memory already, I can unlock my phone without looking in car w/ Droid.
Unlock codes? FAIL. LAME. Gesture unlock = bigger innovation than swipe to unlock with code. Plus Google has facial recognition unlock now, although I see that more as a toy than useful...unless it proves to be accurate in reality.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was introduced before iPad 2. I don't think it had reached the market yet when Apple introduced the iPad 2. Immediately after, Samsung made a public statement that the Tab needed to be redesigned, and out popped what you know today as the Tab 10.1.
Samsung!!!! They are awesome. I want Samsung to make a Galaxy Note slider, or perhaps a keyboard case. I will buy one. Then I will use it instead of my Mac half the time probably. I might have a bit of a bulge in my pants, but, eh, I'll just let other people's imagination run wild with that.
I hate software patents.
the notion of a software patent is a good one. Provided that, like all patents, it is specific. Vague patents are the real problem.
Also it wouldn't hurt to have a limit on how long one can sit on someone violating a patent before you speak up. Like trademarks, if you sit around for 5 years and do nothing then clearly you never really cared so the judges are more apt to toss the case. Letting folks sit for 18 of the 20 years they have a patent with folks violating it left and right and then in year 19 when someone strikes gold filing a suit shouldn't be allowed. THe point of a patent is to protect your IP, not make you a fortune.
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.
Never before in the history of tech has such a mindset existed.
Nothing has been created in a void and everything including the iPhone was built off the shoulders of giants.
Do I believe that Apple should be able to patent (and copyright/trademark) their specific implementation of slide to unlock? certainly (though patent maybe not but the other 2 yes).
Do I believe any company should be able to monopolize the mere act of interacting with a touchscreen to remove a screensaver (which is what it is) so you can interact with the device? no.
The fact that Apple can and has and IMO rightfully adapt and modify existing ideas into their products yet for some reason no one else can is hypocritical to me.
Take the notification pane for instance. I have no qualms with Apple using this...it's a great idea, and very useful and unless it was a direct line for line rip of Android's it is perfectly legitimate. No one seems to mind the fact that Apple was inspired by Android and WebOS.
Android 4.0s folder creation method on the other hand? Evil, theft, GRAND theft, stealing, blah blah blah.
Hell, let's back up a bit...Google had Android...a modular OS designed to be hardware agnostic from the get (despite what people say it was always capable of being on touchscreen only devices, the first prototype however, was a qwerty BB style device)...Apple comes out to rave reviews...EVERYONE recognizes the paradigm shift in smartphones...so everyone acts accordingly to survive in this new world.
All of a sudden everyone is a "thief"...because inspiration and trends seemingly no longer exist in the post iOS world :-/
Sad times.
Note 2.0: Samsung is omitted from defense as they are the most blatant infringers I've seen beyond Chinese KiRF manufacturers...though I still think the Tab should't have been banned.
Not necessarily true. The BB-style prototype pic is from Gizmodo on Dec 17 2007. Here's the official video from Nov 11 2007, where Google is announcing Android to the world. Skip to 2:55.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=1FJHYqE0RDg
I really don't get how anyone can defend the two parts stated in this thread 1) Apple stole from them when there is no proof of such) and 2) how Apple very detailed patent definition could be considered the same rudimentary actions as used in the June 29th, 2007 — the day the iPhone was released — video. You'd have to erase all but 5 words in Apple's patent filing to make them remotely comparable.
Apple likely borrowed the idea (improved on it, was inspired, whatever) -- I'm just saying it's the most logical explanation, and you may choose to disregard it (as most readers here will, simple confirmatory bias). If Neonode had filed for a patent, the wording would likely be no less elaborate than the wording of Apple's patent, so there no reason to downplay the gesture just because it's simple.
To be clear, that does not mean Apple had ninja spies in Neonode back in 2003 stealing all their ideas, seeing this one on swiping for gestures (yet somehow not seeing FingerWorks swiping gestures), and then passing them off to Apple to reinvent in an actual useful way. But there is no evidence to suggest these ninja spies existed or that Apple actually stole or bowered anything from Neonode… least of the which the very specific patent in question.
Just to set the timeframe straight, the first Neonode model was showcased in March 2002 on CeBIT in Germany. That's about 5 years before the iPhone was announced, and likely long before it was even conceived.
So there's no need for "ninjas", the information was public in 2003. And, Apple had not bought FingerWorks at the time.
It then took two years for Neonode to start to market the device, under which time it had acquired a "vaporware" status. The first model was released in July 2004, more than three years before the iPhone.
The model in the video I linked to earlier is a later model, and had been released in March 2005 -- as indicated in tnkgrl's video, it was already 2-3 years old in the eve of iPhones release! It was also about the time when Apple acquired FingerWorks.
Neonode released one more model, N2, demonstrated during the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona in February 2007. This model was the result of two years of software improvements, and already contained not only the swipe-to-unlock gesture but also visual cues (arrows) incorporated throughout the interface, albeit without the animation detailed in Apple's later patent filing.
edit: This video would have been better evidence for an argument that it predates iPhone OS 1.0 as it's from December 2009 and shows clearly the lockscreen with an arrow pointing from left to right. Again, this is not proof of who was first and covers none of the details in Apple's patent, but it would at least have shown Neonode demonstrating the slide left to unlock before the original iPhone was announced.
I tend to view YouTube videos not as evidence, but as illustrations. There are dozens of videos demonstrating the slide-to-unlock before the iPhone was announced (I saw quite a few of them tonight, and could give you the links if googling is too much).
The bottomline is, the gesture was there many years before Apple filed to patent it, and therefore is unpatentable due to lack of novelty. The only thing Apple might claim as an improvement is the implementation including a visual cue, which becomes rather obvious once the rest of the hardware can easily support animated objects.
Apple awarded patent for touchscreen slide-to-unlock gesture
But still a rectangle thing is my favorite by far. Unbelivable
This one is also quite bizzare:
HTC agreed to pay Microsoft $5 per shipped Android set.
CaptainJack
"I think people are forgetting the big reason that HTC is paying Microsoft to License Android, and that is indemnity. Apple started going around suing everyone that made an Android phone with multi-touch, for various patent infringements including HTC.
Microsoft saw this and stepped in with the various multi-touch patents they have in place as well. They informed any manufacturers that anyone licensing their OS would be provided indemnity from IP lawsuits, as Microsoft would pay their legal defense and come to their aid in patent suits that came as a result. HTC saw this as a cheap way to license patents and protect themselves from Apple's lawyers and they have been paying for a Windows Phone 7 License for every Android device ever since. "
Now the question is does Apple have Enough Balls to do it against Microsoft ?!
All this patent things will be extremely funny to follow
the notion of a software patent is a good one. Provided that, like all patents, it is specific. Vague patents are the real problem.
Also it wouldn't hurt to have a limit on how long one can sit on someone violating a patent before you speak up. Like trademarks, if you sit around for 5 years and do nothing then clearly you never really cared so the judges are more apt to toss the case. Letting folks sit for 18 of the 20 years they have a patent with folks violating it left and right and then in year 19 when someone strikes gold filing a suit shouldn't be allowed. THe point of a patent is to protect your IP, not make you a fortune.
Nominated for Post of Year.
The bottomline is, the gesture was there many years before Apple filed to patent it, and therefore is unpatentable due to lack of novelty.
Again you fail to understand that Apple is not patenting a left-to-right finger movement but, rather, the innovation involved with implementing a gesture that is conceptually linked in its performance with an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism. This makes it novel and clearly different from what Neonode has done, in which there is no attempt to relate the gesture to the process of manipulating a lock of any type. In my opinion, they definitely deserve a patent.
Again you fail to understand that Apple is not patenting a left-to-right finger movement but, rather, the innovation involved with implementing a gesture that is conceptually linked in its performance with an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism. This makes it novel and clearly different from what Neonode has done, in which there is no attempt to relate the gesture to the process of manipulating a lock of any type. In my opinion, they definitely deserve a patent.
The semantics are irrelevant. Whether the gesture resembles "an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism" or not is completely immaterial, and in fact, it doesn't resemble anything widely used (what do you open by sliding your thumb across it, really?). The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it. You shouldn't be able to patent something old just because you see some deep new meaning in it.
What you're trying to convince me is roughly this: Neonode designed a mouse trap, but they didn't understand it can trap mice (?!), so Apple should be granted a patent for finding a similarity between Neonode's invention and another device that traps mice, and drawing on Neonode's device to emphasize that resemblance.
Can you answer this: would Apple's slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there? Could one unlock iPhone's screen without looking at it? Does the unlock work if the back light is dimmed, or the outside light is too bright for one to read the screen?
If you answered the above questions with "yes", then you know whether Apple's addition to the method is dispensable.
The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it.
Clearly Apple was not attempting to patent the left-to-right finger movement/gesture, and the USPTO was apparently able to figure that out on their own.
The issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
It's clearly useful. It is novel with notable differences from the Neonode implementation. If it had been obvious, Neonode would have done what Apple did (which cannot be thought of as anything less than an improvement), but they didn't. Apparently the idea of attempting to conceptually connect their left-to-right gesture with the process of unlatching something never occurred to them. It only became obvious once they saw the iPhone. (Just my guess, admittedly, but this is what seems most likely.)
The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it.
Clearly Apple was not attempting to patent the left-to-right finger movement/gesture, and the USPTO was apparently able to figure that out on their own.
The issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
It's clearly useful. It is novel with notable differences from the Neonode implementation. If it had been obvious, Neonode would have have done what Apple did (which cannot be thought of as anything less than an improvement), but they didn't. Apparently the idea of attempting to conceptually connect their left-to-right gesture with the process of unlatching something never occurred to them. It only became obvious once they saw the iPhone. (Just my guess, admittedly, but this is what seems most likely.)