that's not an explanation of how patents work.

it's a ridiculous thing to patent. and that is presumably why MS didn't patent it. but that doesn't mean that apple can patent a feature that is no longer new.

if you file enough ridiculous patents in enough jurisdictions sooner or later you will find a judge somewhere that will block the sale of some devices. or else cause an expensive legal battle.

it's the patent equivalent of cock blocking.

Or as obvious as a heated front windscreen for a car.

Oh. Wait. Ford did do that.

I kind of agree, it's a touch screen phone how else can you reasonably unlock it.

However, to argue what you can and can't apply for a patent for draws a very fine line in the sand and one that would be open to even wider lawsuits than we see now.

Somebody somewhere owns a patent for a touch screen interface for a smartphone (I don't know if that is apple or one of the other phone manufacturers, or even some random bloke who thought it up a filed for it), every touch screen phone will have to licence that patent from the owner otherwise NONE of the phones on the market could exist. You could say that it is stupid that that patent exists, but it is perfectly valid.

There needs to be some system to protect ideas, but the current system does seem to be flawed in many areas. The idea is to protect the small man from having his ideas stollen, but the truth seems to be that it is big companies throwing their weight around and trying to snap up every possible feature patent in order to get one up on their competitor. I'm sure some even try and find features that their competitor uses that they have not patented and then apply for that patent so they can make money from them. It's underhanded and is currently just a money making game by each firms legal department.

There should maybe be a method of applying a 'community patent', that stops firms applying for patents that are the only way to use certain products. Maybe those patents would be owned by the people and licensed via government in order to make revenue for public spending to reduce the burden on tax payers. The patent would obviously apply only to the country it is sold in, so a phone sold in the UK would have the money paid to the UK government and phones bought in the US go to US funding (actually, this is a pretty good idea. Can I patent it??).

I've watched the video, and I don't see any interaction with the display during the unlocking action. The user isn't making gestures at any on-screen items.

Plus, the lower swipe space isn't located on the display. It's a subtle point, and may or may not make any difference. Clearly the Dutch court didn't think so though. One of the oddities of the European courts system is that each member state can make it's own decisions regarding such matters, and the Dutch court stopped short of actually invalidating the patent.

This is probably why Apple went back to their patent drawing board and filed the 2009 application to attempt to strengthen it's standing.

Uhm....at 4.15 he clearly uses his finger to swipe along the bottom of the screen just above the buttons. Then again at 4.25.

you weren't watching the same video as me.

Can someone remind me how the SonyEricsson p800 (c.2001) and then the p900 unlocked thier screens when the keyboard was unattached please?

Totally agree, imbeciles or people at the patent office who're intimidated by huge salaried Apple lawyers!

Well, he is actually a she, which shows how much attention you were paying to the video...

It looks to me as though the swipe is across the three soft buttons below the display rather than on the display its self.

not really - unless burglars now have to apply to the police before they can burgle somewhere, in the same way that companies apply to patent offices for patents.

Iain

Seems a bit of a problem for a burglar if he wants to claim 'prior usage' on his technique.

Not quite true. Someone somewhere owns a patent for a particular touchscreen technology, and someone somewhere else owns a patent for a different method of achieving the same thing, and so on. Granting a patent for an end result is stupid and anti-competitive. Patents should only be granted for techniques. Unless Apple can prove Google or anyone else actually copied their code bit-for-bit, they can go do one as far as I'm concerned.

swipe gesture for a patent argument could not be 100% cuz it has non mobile uses pre mobile. I worked for a company that used touch screen pre smartphone in Food processing machines with a swipe type gesture.

So when i get a new phone thats not apple it can't lock via screen ????

I paid perfect attention to it thank you. Smartarse. No sound on computer at work. Is that ok with you?

She, is swiping about a cm up from the base of the buttons.

Yes of course they can but if they infringe on a patent thats been granted they have to license it (assuming of course the patent holder is willing to license it).

Patent holders do not have to license their patents unless they have been made as part of a standard. In which case they have to be licensed under what is called FRAND, which basically means a fair price as it's necessary.

For example Nokia own a lot of patents on what makes a phone a phone. When GSM was being made a standard Nokia said they would license the patents under FRAND which is why their technology was chosen and not another competing system so that anyone that pays can use the same technology.

no. classic deliberate misinterpretation

i'm addressing a point that was made that the patent office should not allow these abusive patents. whilst true i'm saying that this is analogous to saying that the police are responsible for burglaries. the police should stop burglaries. but the responsibility still lies with the burglar. the patent office should catch these ridiculous patents. but we don't live in a world where we all try to get away with as much as we can until we get caught. if apple file enough patent applications the odd wrongen is bound to get through.

There's prior art on this from a multitude of sources. The ONLY reason that it got through the U.S. patents office is because it's up individual companies to protest it when they're sued.

It shouldn't be too hard to contest if it were brought to court.

Apple would be better off investing a few billion from its war chest on a semiconductor fab, rather than patent wars.

A stupid patent granted by a stupid patent office....only in America. At least the Dutch court had someone with at least one brain cell that could see granting a patent for this was stupid.


You need to watch again. She clearly swipes just above the 3 buttons. Maybe remove your apple tinted glasses will help you see it better.

once they've been applied i don't think you can get them off. you used to be able to buy different tinted glasses from the app store, but apple pulled them all. said they weren't necessary.

Might not be applicable as I'm not sure it counts under the pre-defined path as they also unlock it with a swipe up and there's no indication as to the path needed.

Whereas in the patent application and on the iPhone there is a distinct pre-defined path for unlock

There were several gestures used on the phone, the swipe up (whilst the phone is unlocked) depending if its done on the left, right or the middle of the screen do different things. Left hand swipe up brings up the menu. The middle swipe up brings up the keypad, and the right hand swipe up brings up the settings menu.These three gestures are explained at around 3min 12 sec mark.

From the 4min 3sec mark, it shows you how to lock the phone, and then how to unlock it. You swipe left to right to unlock it. Shes does this (lock unlock procedure ) twice, just to make it absolutely clear. To me its clear as day, that she does a left to right swipe to unlock the phone.

I presume she could have done that anywhere on the screen though not specifically at the bottom. Therefore it doen't fall under the pre-determined path requirement for the patent.

Sorry, but now your just being silly. I believe the apple patent is for the gesture (left to right to unlock), and not the position of where it is on the screen.

Here is an article about the patent. It also shows a diagram that was included with the patent.

Not at all.... read the title of the patent


note the UNLOCK image part, I see no unlock IMAGE part on that demo

Note that it also says


So it requires firstly an unlock image and secondly the image must be defined along with the gesture.

Wording of patents is very important. You can't pick and choose parts of it, all conditions must be met. The patent isn't granted purely on gestures, it includes a number of conditions.