Where does this show it was invented before the iPhones unlock. they had been working on the iPhone years before it was released.
This particular device is from March 2005. Its predecessor using the same unlock gesture is from 2004. The iPhone is from 2007, so is the patent application for slide to unlock. It should have been rejected for want of novelty.
The original purpose of the unlock slide as a very specific gesture was to prevent it from unlocking in your pocket and accidentally dialing your wife while you are making out with your girlfriend.
Is the WinPhone unlock an equally deliberate sliding action or is it just slide up anywhere on the screen?
The Windows Phone is more like a panel sitting infront of the home screen that you slide up to reveal the home screen. You have to slide it just over half way for it to continue on its own.
It could easily be argued that it isn't a slide to unlock as the only mention of lock on the phone is when you have to enter a pin to unlock the phone. In this case you slide the panel up which pulls a keypad up underneath, and then its an enter pin to unlock.
Other manufacturers shouldn't be to worried. As it's not well designed what locking a phone actually is.
The Windows Phone also displays quite a lot of info on the lock screen along with controls for music. So it's not really locked if you can see your next apointment and play music.
This may force Taiwan to seriously consider reunification with the mainland. Then the U.S. will be forced to send troops to Cupertino to prevent Apple from going nuclear.
There is no doubt Google infringed on apples ideas. They could definitely come up with their own ideas but that would take originality, god forbid its much easier to duplicate someone.
What's so new and novel about taking the sliding power/lock switch and putting on the screen? It's another one of their bullshit software patents.
Now Taiwan thinks there should be a new category: Too Smart To Patent?
Can anybody see, any more, how Apple completely and utterly changed the entire LOOK of virtually everything you carry around all day? And they did it the old fashioned way: spent billions on developing it (plus a few sessions with The Steve).
This may force Taiwan to seriously consider reunification with the mainland. Then the U.S. will be forced to send troops to Cupertino to prevent Apple from going nuclear.
That would be awesome. I think Steve Job's brain in in some mainframe in Cupertino somewheres. It's like motherbrain but....Steviebrain.
The Chinese and Koreans need to stop copying Apple and create their own products.
Copying is a sign of an immature society.
The Japanese use to copy U.S. products in the 1960s. Those old enough to experience it can laugh at the crappy clones the Japanese companies produced. But the Japanese grew up and now create their own products.
Grow up Taiwan.
And I though Google and Microsoft were American companies!! Must refresh Geography again!
Wow how stupid can the taiwanese be? Right now I can think of a a bajillion ways to unlock a damn touch screen. Idiots. The taiwanese government should encourage their companies to be more innovative rather than protect copycat technology. This is the reason why it is better to support companies like apple because at least apple helps propel technology into the future. Support the innovators not the imitators.
This may force Taiwan to seriously consider reunification with the mainland. Then the U.S. will be forced to send troops to Cupertino to prevent Apple from going nuclear.
That's a funny thought. "World war III caused by slide to unlock disagreement between two countries"
What's so new and novel about taking the sliding power/lock switch and putting on the screen? It's another one of their bullshit software patents.
Then again what is so new with touch screens that really work, grid pattern icons and then a music player and a phone? So why are every other manufacturer's product resembles the iPhone after it came out?
The simplest ideas change so many things. You don't think that slide to lock came out of nowhere do you.... I am sure there were so many ideas about the simple matter of unlocking the iPhone were rejected till they hit on the right one. An all those ideas cost money and time.
Then again what is so new with touch screens that really work, grid pattern icons and then a music player and a phone? So why are every other manufacturer's product resembles the iPhone after it came out?
The simplest ideas change so many things. You don't think that slide to lock came out of nowhere do you.... I am sure there were so many ideas about the simple matter of unlocking the iPhone were rejected till they hit on the right one. An all those ideas cost money and time.
It came out of necessity since SJ hates buttons. Nothing about the "switch" is any different than the same physical switch already in use for decades. Saying they deserve to have patent protection on this vs. copyright on the actual computer code in use is ridiculous.
A Dutch court ruled an earlier Apple patent on the slide to unlock gesture was invalid because of prior art. The Neonode N1m phone running Windows CE had a similar gesture in 2006, but it didn't display a graphic. Apple added that to the new patent, but it's entirely possible a court will rule that to be "obvious" and unpatentable.
The patent application was submitted in Dec., 2005.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
What's so new and novel about taking the sliding power/lock switch and putting on the screen? It's another one of their bullshit software patents.
Where does this show it was invented before the iPhones unlock. they had been working on the iPhone years before it was released.
Part of the problem with patent law is determining who OWNS an idea. In some cases a patent can be granted to the person/company who implements an idea first rather than the one that thinks it up. Personally I think it's ridiculous, the whole idea of this and similar unlock schemes being patentable in the first place.
Apple's patent includes specific information about underlying graphics (which the Neonode phone did not have) so I suppose that makes it unique but to claim Apple invented slide-to-unlock (without assuming they filed patent long ago) seems silly.
"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," he said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
And for 40 billion, apple can easily afford multiple warheads. Get out of mountain view NOW!
Apple's patent includes specific information about underlying graphics (which the Neonode phone did not have) so I suppose that makes it unique but to claim Apple invented slide-to-unlock (without assuming they filed patent long ago) seems silly.
This is the biggest problem with people's impressions of what patents actually are.
Patents are not claims on ideas, they are claims on implementing ideas.
There can be 100 different "slide to unlock" patents, but they must all be unique in implementation somehow.
Software patents are more difficult and likely more subject to litigation, because there is no way to immediately see how something was implemented. Companies have to be dragged into courts to expose their code and algorithms and prove it is uniquely implemented.
Furthermore, even if the Neonode did have something similar before the patent application, then only they fall under the "prior art" umbrella, not everyone else. Prior art can be used to invalidate a patent if the described idea was common at the time.
Comments
Where does this show it was invented before the iPhones unlock. they had been working on the iPhone years before it was released.
This particular device is from March 2005. Its predecessor using the same unlock gesture is from 2004. The iPhone is from 2007, so is the patent application for slide to unlock. It should have been rejected for want of novelty.
I'm not familiar with Win7, but it seems a growing opinion that Win 8 may infringe:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/w...k-patent/15789
This means that the company that controls 82% of the desktop and according to AppleInsider has a vested interest in Android's proliferation now also has another reason to throw its full weight into joining the international effort to invalidate this patent.
If this patent survives it may be among the most vetted patents in history.
Oh God, we need patent reform!
The original purpose of the unlock slide as a very specific gesture was to prevent it from unlocking in your pocket and accidentally dialing your wife while you are making out with your girlfriend.
Is the WinPhone unlock an equally deliberate sliding action or is it just slide up anywhere on the screen?
The Windows Phone is more like a panel sitting infront of the home screen that you slide up to reveal the home screen. You have to slide it just over half way for it to continue on its own.
It could easily be argued that it isn't a slide to unlock as the only mention of lock on the phone is when you have to enter a pin to unlock the phone. In this case you slide the panel up which pulls a keypad up underneath, and then its an enter pin to unlock.
Other manufacturers shouldn't be to worried. As it's not well designed what locking a phone actually is.
The Windows Phone also displays quite a lot of info on the lock screen along with controls for music. So it's not really locked if you can see your next apointment and play music.
I'm not familiar with Win7, but it seems a growing opinion that Win 8 may infringe:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/w...k-patent/15789
This means that the company that controls 82% of the desktop and according to AppleInsider has a vested interest in Android's proliferation now also has another reason to throw its full weight into joining the international effort to invalidate this patent.
If this patent survives it may be among the most vetted patents in history.
Do not Apple and Microsoft have a cross patent licensing agreement? Or does that only extend so far/to certain patents?
damn, apple versus all of Taiwan?
This may force Taiwan to seriously consider reunification with the mainland. Then the U.S. will be forced to send troops to Cupertino to prevent Apple from going nuclear.
There is no doubt Google infringed on apples ideas. They could definitely come up with their own ideas but that would take originality, god forbid its much easier to duplicate someone.
What's so new and novel about taking the sliding power/lock switch and putting on the screen? It's another one of their bullshit software patents.
Now Taiwan thinks there should be a new category: Too Smart To Patent?
Can anybody see, any more, how Apple completely and utterly changed the entire LOOK of virtually everything you carry around all day? And they did it the old fashioned way: spent billions on developing it (plus a few sessions with The Steve).
This may force Taiwan to seriously consider reunification with the mainland. Then the U.S. will be forced to send troops to Cupertino to prevent Apple from going nuclear.
That would be awesome. I think Steve Job's brain in in some mainframe in Cupertino somewheres. It's like motherbrain but....Steviebrain.
I'm ready for war!
The Chinese and Koreans need to stop copying Apple and create their own products.
Copying is a sign of an immature society.
The Japanese use to copy U.S. products in the 1960s. Those old enough to experience it can laugh at the crappy clones the Japanese companies produced. But the Japanese grew up and now create their own products.
Grow up Taiwan.
And I though Google and Microsoft were American companies!! Must refresh Geography again!
This may force Taiwan to seriously consider reunification with the mainland. Then the U.S. will be forced to send troops to Cupertino to prevent Apple from going nuclear.
That's a funny thought. "World war III caused by slide to unlock disagreement between two countries"
What's so new and novel about taking the sliding power/lock switch and putting on the screen? It's another one of their bullshit software patents.
Then again what is so new with touch screens that really work, grid pattern icons and then a music player and a phone? So why are every other manufacturer's product resembles the iPhone after it came out?
The simplest ideas change so many things. You don't think that slide to lock came out of nowhere do you.... I am sure there were so many ideas about the simple matter of unlocking the iPhone were rejected till they hit on the right one. An all those ideas cost money and time.
Then again what is so new with touch screens that really work, grid pattern icons and then a music player and a phone? So why are every other manufacturer's product resembles the iPhone after it came out?
The simplest ideas change so many things. You don't think that slide to lock came out of nowhere do you.... I am sure there were so many ideas about the simple matter of unlocking the iPhone were rejected till they hit on the right one. An all those ideas cost money and time.
It came out of necessity since SJ hates buttons. Nothing about the "switch" is any different than the same physical switch already in use for decades. Saying they deserve to have patent protection on this vs. copyright on the actual computer code in use is ridiculous.
A Dutch court ruled an earlier Apple patent on the slide to unlock gesture was invalid because of prior art. The Neonode N1m phone running Windows CE had a similar gesture in 2006, but it didn't display a graphic. Apple added that to the new patent, but it's entirely possible a court will rule that to be "obvious" and unpatentable.
The patent application was submitted in Dec., 2005.
What's so new and novel about taking the sliding power/lock switch and putting on the screen? It's another one of their bullshit software patents.
I'd say it was new and novel 6 years ago.
Where does this show it was invented before the iPhones unlock. they had been working on the iPhone years before it was released.
Part of the problem with patent law is determining who OWNS an idea. In some cases a patent can be granted to the person/company who implements an idea first rather than the one that thinks it up. Personally I think it's ridiculous, the whole idea of this and similar unlock schemes being patentable in the first place.
Apple's patent includes specific information about underlying graphics (which the Neonode phone did not have) so I suppose that makes it unique but to claim Apple invented slide-to-unlock (without assuming they filed patent long ago) seems silly.
I can think of a couple of gestures (no copyright) the Taiwanese government might be seeing a lot of in the near future.
But then they would have to keep the camera turned on all the time.
"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," he said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
And for 40 billion, apple can easily afford multiple warheads. Get out of mountain view NOW!
Apple's patent includes specific information about underlying graphics (which the Neonode phone did not have) so I suppose that makes it unique but to claim Apple invented slide-to-unlock (without assuming they filed patent long ago) seems silly.
This is the biggest problem with people's impressions of what patents actually are.
Patents are not claims on ideas, they are claims on implementing ideas.
There can be 100 different "slide to unlock" patents, but they must all be unique in implementation somehow.
Software patents are more difficult and likely more subject to litigation, because there is no way to immediately see how something was implemented. Companies have to be dragged into courts to expose their code and algorithms and prove it is uniquely implemented.
Furthermore, even if the Neonode did have something similar before the patent application, then only they fall under the "prior art" umbrella, not everyone else. Prior art can be used to invalidate a patent if the described idea was common at the time.