That patent is a bit broad isn't it? 
Surely HTC, Samsung and other manufacturers should have challenged it as prior art?
Surely HTC, Samsung and other manufacturers should have challenged it as prior art?
Apple Patent touch screen unlocking
1 of 3
What a joke of a ruling!! I say that as an Apple user too.
Where is the sense or justification in ruling on such a thing. What next? Will they patent the word 'Apple' ?
Where is the sense or justification in ruling on such a thing. What next? Will they patent the word 'Apple' ?
This is so childish. I think I might patent using your eyes to look at something and then invoice Humanity with a licence fee.
Originally Posted by mad_dude:
“That patent is a bit broad isn't it? Surely HTC, Samsung and other manufacturers should have challenged it as prior art?”
“That patent is a bit broad isn't it?
Surely HTC, Samsung and other manufacturers should have challenged it as prior art?”
What prior art? Which touch screen devices used a motion gesture unlocking system prior to the iPhone?
Originally Posted by Roush:
“What prior art? Which touch screen devices used a motion gesture unlocking system prior to the iPhone?”
“What prior art? Which touch screen devices used a motion gesture unlocking system prior to the iPhone?”
Had it on my android tablet earlier this year.
Originally Posted by BT@home:
“Had it on my android tablet earlier this year.”
“Had it on my android tablet earlier this year.”
I'm sure you did, but I'm also sure that tablet didn't exist in 2005 when Apple filed for this patent. The whole idea of prior art is that it needs to exist at a time before the patent applicant asserts that they invented it.
There is no Android product that pre-dates the iPhone or iOS (or iPhone OS as it was then).
To me it just a desperate company trying everything it can to defeat the competition , now that Jobs has gone and this time can't come back to save them they realise that there will be no more innovation (or theft of others ideas, whichever way you want to put it) , the sooner they are put out of their misery the better
patent was filed June 2009 .... yes, seems very broad .... might actually get invalidated anyway?
they're not doing a very good job of defeating the competition right now .... 20% for iOS phones to android OS phones 50% in the shipped/sales chart
they're not doing a very good job of defeating the competition right now .... 20% for iOS phones to android OS phones 50% in the shipped/sales chart
Originally Posted by barky99:
“patent was filed June 2009 .....”
“patent was filed June 2009 .....”
The touch screen unlocking patent was filed in December 2005.
it wont affect the majority of handsets. the patent specifically mentions swiping in a predetermined manner to unlock. Most other phones you can swipe anywhere on the screen to unlock.
Drat, I picked up the wrong patent initially, so edited this post.
I think Samsung used the Neonode N1 as prior art for this one in the Netherlands and won.
Side note - I always wanted a Neonode. What a cool little phone! Never actually seen one though.
I think Samsung used the Neonode N1 as prior art for this one in the Netherlands and won.
Side note - I always wanted a Neonode. What a cool little phone! Never actually seen one though.
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“I think this is whats gonna destroy apple in the long run. They really don't have a bloody clue.”
“I think this is whats gonna destroy apple in the long run. They really don't have a bloody clue.”
You do know all the other companies do the same sort of patents don't you.
Why shouldn't they, or anyone else, try and protect their intellectual property? It's also the fault of the patent offices for allowing some of these things to actually go through as a patent.
Originally Posted by pumazooma:
“You do know all the other companies do the same sort of patents don't you.
Why shouldn't they, or anyone else, try and protect their intellectual property? It's also the fault of the patent offices for allowing some of these things to actually go through as a patent.”
“You do know all the other companies do the same sort of patents don't you.
Why shouldn't they, or anyone else, try and protect their intellectual property? It's also the fault of the patent offices for allowing some of these things to actually go through as a patent.”
there is no internal consistency to that post.
how are apple both protecting their intellectual property as well being true that the patent offices shouldn't let them through.
this is patent trolling. try enough of them and some of them will stick.
the patent office should catch them, but blaming them for this is like blaming the police for burglaries.
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“there is no internal consistency to that post.
how are apple both protecting their intellectual property as well being true that the patent offices shouldn't let them through.
this is patent trolling. try enough of them and some of them will stick.
the patent office should catch them, but blaming them for this is like blaming the police for burglaries.”
“there is no internal consistency to that post.
how are apple both protecting their intellectual property as well being true that the patent offices shouldn't let them through.
this is patent trolling. try enough of them and some of them will stick.
the patent office should catch them, but blaming them for this is like blaming the police for burglaries.”
No patent trolling is when you have patents but don't actually implement what is patented.
All you then do is sue other people for using them
Patent protection when you have actually implemented it is something totally different. If there is prior art then of course it shouldn't be granted. If there isn't then under US law there is no reason it shouldn't be granted so long as it isn't obvious.
Now in 2005 this wasn't obvious, just watch the original iPhone launch in 2007 and hear the reaction when the phone was unlocked.
It maybe an obvious gesture now as most phones have it, but you have to think back to the patent filing date, not the granted date
Originally Posted by Rich2k:
“No patent trolling is when you have patents but don't actually implement what is patented.
All you then do is sue other people for using them
Patent protection when you have actually implemented it is something totally different. If there is prior art then of course it shouldn't be granted. If there isn't then under US law there is no reason it shouldn't be granted so long as it isn't obvious.
Now in 2005 this wasn't obvious, just watch the original iPhone launch in 2007 and hear the reaction when the phone was unlocked.
It maybe an obvious gesture now as most phones have it, but you have to think back to the patent filing date, not the granted date”
“No patent trolling is when you have patents but don't actually implement what is patented.
All you then do is sue other people for using them
Patent protection when you have actually implemented it is something totally different. If there is prior art then of course it shouldn't be granted. If there isn't then under US law there is no reason it shouldn't be granted so long as it isn't obvious.
Now in 2005 this wasn't obvious, just watch the original iPhone launch in 2007 and hear the reaction when the phone was unlocked.
It maybe an obvious gesture now as most phones have it, but you have to think back to the patent filing date, not the granted date”
prior art or newness is not the only criterion necessary for patent.
there is also the requirement of non-obviousness or an innovative step. and that is where this patent will fall down. the fact that it hadn't been done before doesn't mean it wasn't obvious.....
phone's had always had screen locks operated by buttons. in a world where the buttons on phones are replaced by touch screen it is obvious, necessarily obvious that all the previous functions operated by the buttons would be replaced by the screen and the touch UI.
and it doesn't matter whether this is obvious to you and I. in terms of a patent it 'must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art.'
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“prior art or newness is not the only criterion necessary for patent.
there is also the requirement of non-obviousness or an innovative step. and that is where this patent will fall down. the fact that it hadn't been done before doesn't mean it wasn't obvious.....
phone's had always had screen locks operated by buttons. in a world where the buttons on phones are replaced by touch screen it is obvious, necessarily obvious that all the previous functions operated by the buttons would be replaced by the screen and the touch UI.
and it doesn't matter whether this is obvious to you and I. in terms of a patent it 'must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art.'”
“prior art or newness is not the only criterion necessary for patent.
there is also the requirement of non-obviousness or an innovative step. and that is where this patent will fall down. the fact that it hadn't been done before doesn't mean it wasn't obvious.....
phone's had always had screen locks operated by buttons. in a world where the buttons on phones are replaced by touch screen it is obvious, necessarily obvious that all the previous functions operated by the buttons would be replaced by the screen and the touch UI.
and it doesn't matter whether this is obvious to you and I. in terms of a patent it 'must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art.'”
Watch the iPhone launch keynote, a room full of people skilled in the art' and you'll notice that it wasn't obvious at the time
Originally Posted by Roush:
“What prior art? Which touch screen devices used a motion gesture unlocking system prior to the iPhone?”
“What prior art? Which touch screen devices used a motion gesture unlocking system prior to the iPhone?”
it was done in 2003 on a Windows smartphone, there's videos all over the web and Samsung used the actual phone to get that part of a lawsuit dropped against apple in a dutch court.
As usual, it was done by someone else years before Apple but Apple want people to think it's theirs.
This will NEVER hold up in any court due to the earlier phone using it and proving Apple just nicked it
here's the phone, skip to around 4 minutes to see the sliding to unlock (slide up for menu, sideways to unlock)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS...ature=youtu.be
Originally Posted by Rich2k:
“Watch the iPhone launch keynote, a room full of people skilled in the art' and you'll notice that it wasn't obvious at the time”
“Watch the iPhone launch keynote, a room full of people skilled in the art' and you'll notice that it wasn't obvious at the time”
A room full of Apple fans in the main so not the sharpest tools in the box. If Jobs had done a big dump on the stage they would have been amazed at that and started to cheer.
Jees, lets bash Apple again for being a business!!!
Look, Samsung, Sony, Nokia and HTC all attempt to patent as much as they possibly can. Only Apple seems to come out in a bad light when a patent gets granted.
The patent that has been granted is quite specific to being 'Slide to Unlock'. This has been one of the iconic features of the iphone since day one and is right to be protected by Apple. If this had launched on a Samsung phone prior to the iphone, and was an iconic feature of one of their phones, then Samsung would be right to claim the patent (and sure as hell they would have done if they could have).
The question to prior art is a difficult one and only seems to be challenged by those companies who didn't get the patent and are pissed of that another got it and not them. If we're looking at prior art to debunk patent application, then every sci fi series and film is going to be trawled through for some hope that something similar was implied on film 20 years prior.
The fact is that Microsoft, for some reason, did not try and patent the 'Slide to Unlock' that is reported to have been used in 2003 (I can't view the video at present as youtube is blocked at work). This leaves the door open to whoever is first to file that patent and get it granted. If this patent had been granted shortly after the application in 2005, then nobody would be battering an eyelid about it. But becasue the patent office took six years to grant something that has been in use for 4 years already it makes Apple look bad that they are trying to steal features from other manufacturers.
The patent office needs to be much quicker at granting these patents and products should not be allowed to be released until all patent applications surrounding it have been granted (I don;t havea clue how this would work as I can see that other companies would just contest and block the release of every other product going. None of us would have a new phone no matter what format). The whole system is daft and retrospectively allowing patents to be granted when they were not in place for four years means othe companies have to remove features and that is not fair (again, this is not Apple's fault they applied BEFORE the iphone was released and BEFORE any other smartphones used the same feature).
Look, Samsung, Sony, Nokia and HTC all attempt to patent as much as they possibly can. Only Apple seems to come out in a bad light when a patent gets granted.
The patent that has been granted is quite specific to being 'Slide to Unlock'. This has been one of the iconic features of the iphone since day one and is right to be protected by Apple. If this had launched on a Samsung phone prior to the iphone, and was an iconic feature of one of their phones, then Samsung would be right to claim the patent (and sure as hell they would have done if they could have).
The question to prior art is a difficult one and only seems to be challenged by those companies who didn't get the patent and are pissed of that another got it and not them. If we're looking at prior art to debunk patent application, then every sci fi series and film is going to be trawled through for some hope that something similar was implied on film 20 years prior.
The fact is that Microsoft, for some reason, did not try and patent the 'Slide to Unlock' that is reported to have been used in 2003 (I can't view the video at present as youtube is blocked at work). This leaves the door open to whoever is first to file that patent and get it granted. If this patent had been granted shortly after the application in 2005, then nobody would be battering an eyelid about it. But becasue the patent office took six years to grant something that has been in use for 4 years already it makes Apple look bad that they are trying to steal features from other manufacturers.
The patent office needs to be much quicker at granting these patents and products should not be allowed to be released until all patent applications surrounding it have been granted (I don;t havea clue how this would work as I can see that other companies would just contest and block the release of every other product going. None of us would have a new phone no matter what format). The whole system is daft and retrospectively allowing patents to be granted when they were not in place for four years means othe companies have to remove features and that is not fair (again, this is not Apple's fault they applied BEFORE the iphone was released and BEFORE any other smartphones used the same feature).
Originally Posted by denzil28:
“and BEFORE any other smartphones used the same feature.”
“and BEFORE any other smartphones used the same feature.”
nope, the "Neonode N1m" used it identically 2 years prior to the application which also means they came up with it before this time.
Originally Posted by denzil28:
“Jees, lets bash Apple again for being a business!!!
Look, Samsung, Sony, Nokia and HTC all attempt to patent as much as they possibly can. Only Apple seems to come out in a bad light when a patent gets granted.
The patent that has been granted is quite specific to being 'Slide to Unlock'. This has been one of the iconic features of the iphone since day one and is right to be protected by Apple. If this had launched on a Samsung phone prior to the iphone, and was an iconic feature of one of their phones, then Samsung would be right to claim the patent (and sure as hell they would have done if they could have).
The question to prior art is a difficult one and only seems to be challenged by those companies who didn't get the patent and are pissed of that another got it and not them. If we're looking at prior art to debunk patent application, then every sci fi series and film is going to be trawled through for some hope that something similar was implied on film 20 years prior.
The fact is that Microsoft, for some reason, did not try and patent the 'Slide to Unlock' that is reported to have been used in 2003 (I can't view the video at present as youtube is blocked at work). This leaves the door open to whoever is first to file that patent and get it granted. If this patent had been granted shortly after the application in 2005, then nobody would be battering an eyelid about it. But becasue the patent office took six years to grant something that has been in use for 4 years already it makes Apple look bad that they are trying to steal features from other manufacturers.
The patent office needs to be much quicker at granting these patents and products should not be allowed to be released until all patent applications surrounding it have been granted (I don;t havea clue how this would work as I can see that other companies would just contest and block the release of every other product going. None of us would have a new phone no matter what format). The whole system is daft and retrospectively allowing patents to be granted when they were not in place for four years means othe companies have to remove features and that is not fair (again, this is not Apple's fault they applied BEFORE the iphone was released and BEFORE any other smartphones used the same feature).”
“Jees, lets bash Apple again for being a business!!!
Look, Samsung, Sony, Nokia and HTC all attempt to patent as much as they possibly can. Only Apple seems to come out in a bad light when a patent gets granted.
The patent that has been granted is quite specific to being 'Slide to Unlock'. This has been one of the iconic features of the iphone since day one and is right to be protected by Apple. If this had launched on a Samsung phone prior to the iphone, and was an iconic feature of one of their phones, then Samsung would be right to claim the patent (and sure as hell they would have done if they could have).
The question to prior art is a difficult one and only seems to be challenged by those companies who didn't get the patent and are pissed of that another got it and not them. If we're looking at prior art to debunk patent application, then every sci fi series and film is going to be trawled through for some hope that something similar was implied on film 20 years prior.
The fact is that Microsoft, for some reason, did not try and patent the 'Slide to Unlock' that is reported to have been used in 2003 (I can't view the video at present as youtube is blocked at work). This leaves the door open to whoever is first to file that patent and get it granted. If this patent had been granted shortly after the application in 2005, then nobody would be battering an eyelid about it. But becasue the patent office took six years to grant something that has been in use for 4 years already it makes Apple look bad that they are trying to steal features from other manufacturers.
The patent office needs to be much quicker at granting these patents and products should not be allowed to be released until all patent applications surrounding it have been granted (I don;t havea clue how this would work as I can see that other companies would just contest and block the release of every other product going. None of us would have a new phone no matter what format). The whole system is daft and retrospectively allowing patents to be granted when they were not in place for four years means othe companies have to remove features and that is not fair (again, this is not Apple's fault they applied BEFORE the iphone was released and BEFORE any other smartphones used the same feature).”
Presumably MS didnt patent it simply because its such a stupid thing to patent in the first place.
Its kinda like someone putting a patent on the turning on of a television via the remote. Only an imbecile would do that.
1 of 3
