HTC Defeats Apple In Slide-To-Unlock Patent Dispute 149
another random user sends this quote from the BBC:
"HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London. The judge ruled that HTC had not infringed four technologies that Apple had claimed as its own. He said Apple's slide-to-unlock feature was an 'obvious' development in the light of a similar function on an earlier Swedish handset. Lawyers fighting other lawsuits against Apple are likely to pay close attention to the decision regarding its slide-to-unlock patent."
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
It may be obvious to us techy-types, but it's nice to see that it's not only us that sees it that way. I wonder if it'll affect the other litigation against the Galaxy Nexus? Pretty sure that same patent is used in that case.
Is someone keeping track of all this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is someone keeping track of all the pre-iPhone tech/software that Apple copied in order to create the iPhone out of thin air?
It would be useful to paste it as a generic response to Apple fanboys, like that guy who used to paste the big-ol' response to any suggested spam solution ("Your spam solution will not work because...").
I never knew that Apple had copied swipe-to-unlock from the Swedish Neonode N1 phone.
Rant (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the perfect opportunity for me to rant on HTC's slide to unlock implementation. Their phones use a custom (non-stock android) lock screen that must have been designed be a total idiot. Instead of sliding to the side, you slide straight up and down. Further, the slider bar is the width of the entire screen, so it is huge. Now, this is stupid beyond belief because millions of people carry their phone in their pocket, so of course as the phone is pulled in and out of the pocket.... it unlocks.
Worse, when a call is coming in, sliding up ignores the call, sliding down answers the call. I have answered or ignored literally DOZENS of phone calls by accident because of this garbage. I actually have to put my phone in my pocket either upside down or right side up in anticipation of which way the slider will go if I take my phone out to answer a call.
Their locking implementation really has to go down in the annals of GUI design as one of the worst designs ever.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever used a briefcase? Any ancient clamshell case with slide-to-unlock clips (sewing kits, tool cases, etc)? This concept is ancient.
The fact that putting it on a screen is patentable is retarded, and the fact that it was only overturned because somebody else had it on a screen before and not the obviousness of the process itself is even more retarded.
Re:Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, what you're seeing now is the eventual outcome of the vast majority of legal endeavors. That silly "common sense" almost always prevails, because, shockingly enough, judges are humans with the capacity to understand the details of a case and see past the misdirection the media throws at the general public. Of course, that misdirection is always highest at the start of a lawsuit, because an audacious corporation making outrageous claims is a good sensationalist story that people will pay attention to, and that brings prestige and profit.
Within the past few years, there have been several lawsuits brought up that the media could make a circus out of, and now they're all starting to conclude. The judgments will be made according to a mix of law and interpretation that the judge thinks is fair. Since it's ludicrously unlikely for a judge to actually agree with the absurd assertions the media has put forth, everything will seem like a sudden outburst of common sense when it's really just business as usual for the American legal system.
Pro151 is right (though at the moment modded at -1): it won't last long. I'd expect that by the end of the week, there will be some new legal shenanigans reported and sensationalized, so the anti-corporate zealots can have their Two Minutes Hate against those evil abusive companies, and the pro-corporate zealots can shout about how this is all the fault of government interfering in business, and the nonconformists can tout their crazy plans for how to fix everything by abolishing society and rebuilding it effectively the same but with all the problems magically gone. Everybody feels good about their particular opinion, and the media gets to feel good about starting a rousing discussion. It's a win-win, right?
Popcorn (Score:4, Interesting)
I think at this point I've mentally checked out of the patent wars. 'Mutually assured destruction' was supposed to be a deterrent, not a gameplan. Time to make some popcorn, sit back, and watch the carnage.
Re:Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that putting it on a screen is patentable is retarded, and the fact that it was only overturned because somebody else had it on a screen before and not the obviousness of the process itself is even more retarded.
Generally speaking, judges don't rule on something if they don't have to, especially if it is fuzzy.
In the USA, patents need 3 things to be valid:
- be useful
- be new
- be non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
The third step is often contentious, and judges don't like being overturned on appeal (all the other judges make fun of them and call them names).
So, if a patent fails for not being new, there is no need to rule on a contentious issue.
Of course, some judges are activist judges, but that is a different story.
Re:Unfair to Apple (Score:5, Interesting)