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."
Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
From what I understand, the search-from-multiple-sources is the Galaxy Nexus' reason for alleged infringement.
Yes, the Firefox awesome bar which searches your local history and online results is effectively being called into question.
Re: (Score:2)
Copernic would pretty well qualify then as the prior art. I was using their unified search program in 1999 at least. Pretty much any search system which used multiple database tables and separate functions for each qualifies which would take you back to probably to what, probably the 70's.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, the search-from-multiple-sources is the Galaxy Nexus' reason for alleged infringement.
Yes, the Firefox awesome bar which searches your local history and online results is effectively being called into question.
Guess they never heard of dogpile... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogpile [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone clarify how Apple's patent on that is even valid?
Searching multiple sources has been around for years, in so many ways, on so much hardware, in so many programs.
Is it because of some obscure legal definition of a "source"? Windows explorer has quite happily search multiple media sources for me for years. Google search has quite happily returned results from a number of sources. Searching multiple sources from one interface has been a cornerstone of search for decades now.
Why was Apple's patent on
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it as "money is speech" issue. With their infinite pockets they're able to ram through UPSTO any kind of crap they want. Plus now that they're too big to ensure future growth conventional way, they are moving to rent-seeking - with monopoly rent being the most attractive options for them. Getting rid of any competition and then squeezing last drops od market (hopefully for them - monopolized) is the only way forward for them and they'll try to accomplish this with any possible method/tool at their
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Slide to unlock is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a bolt...
This is what one looks like for anyone unfamiliar with the term:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Bolt_lock.jpg [wikimedia.org]
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
http://cdn.techpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/apple-slide-to-unlock.jpg [techpp.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Slide to unlock is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever used a bolt...
This is what one looks like for anyone unfamiliar with the term:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Bolt_lock.jpg [wikimedia.org]
And if Apple's patent claimed "sliding an implement from one position to another to unlock a portal" then you'd be right, but it doesn't. In other words, if a physical bolt would infringe Apple's patent, and the physical bolt came first (which it did), then the bolt would anticipate the patent and render it invalid.
But it doesn't... here's the first claim:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
A bolt lock wouldn't infringe that claim, and therefore, a bolt lock also doesn't anticipate that claim.
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the patent text says almost exactly what you claim it doesn't, as the addition of the word "portal" is an attempt at deflection which adds nothing functional to the rebuttal. Slide locks have implementations which secure numerous things, of which portals are but a single example.
You slide the graphical representation of something along a software-defined and graphically-displayed route and the device unlocks once the graphical object contacts the defined unlock region.
The bolt was an example of a physical item for which the slide-unlock, as it is currently implemented, is an exact digital representation.
If you wish to be pedantic, a typical bolt would not infringe the claim (leaving aside the touchscreen in place of a physical object aspect), but a spring-loaded bolt would. One would require continuous contact with the bolt in releasing the lock, or it would reset.
If the touchscreen is what differentiates the claim, then all digital analogues to physical manipulation are open to being patented. If that's the case, our views on what constitute legitimate patents are hopelessly at odds, so further discussion would be pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I repeat:So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?
Because they didn't need to. Apple using it doesn't mean Apple invented it, applying a metaphor in a specific context isn't innovative or inventive as has been confirmed by the court...or maybe you'll agree that by extension because it's implemented on an Android phone that makes it innovative (because previously it was only on an iOS phone)?
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
I repeat:So why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?
Did you not even read the summary (let alone the article)? It seems Apple was not the first:
He said Apple's slide-to-unlock feature was an "obvious" development in the light of a similar function on an earlier Swedish handset.
There are also plenty of examples of people mimicking real world devices in virtual screens. Sliders on mixing desks, rotating switches, radio buttons (why else would they be called radio buttons?) etc. Even if Apple were the first to use this particular interface, it is still not actual innovation to just copy an existing design in a virtual form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You inserted the question: "...why hasn't anyone implement it on a phone before Apple with or without using an actual bolt?" into the argument.
I replied with an example of a phone that did this exactly, and you just bluster on about moving goal posts?
Sam
Re: (Score:2)
i'm sorry i missed the memo where 'existing idea but on a phone' became novel and imaginative
are we agreeing with 'existing idea on the interwebs' is novel and imaginative now too?
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? "Did it first" isn't enough of a justification to get a patent. A patent not only has to be novel, it also has to be non-obvious. Everything was done by someone first. If that was the sole requirement for justifying patents, we wouldn't have the non-obvious requirement. Just because Henry Ford made his cars in black didn't mean the first guy to paint one blue got a patent on blue cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Henry Ford made his cars in black didn't mean the first guy to paint one blue got a patent on blue cars
Don't give Apple any more idea !!
They might decide to paint their new gadget a certain color and then file a patent for that
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the judges, it's the fault of the patent office for being way too grant-happy, and of the idiot politicians who pressure the USPTO to grant more patents because it looks good in national e-peen metrics.
Re: (Score:2)
A worthy post right up until, "Of course, some judges are activist judges, but that is a different story."
Let me rewrite that for you, "Of course, some judges make decisions with which I disagree."
The only difference between an "activist" judge and a non-"activist" judge seems to be a commentator's agreement or disagreement with the judges ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It doesn't take a techy to see it's obvious. They've had slide to unlock mechanical bolts on doors and cabinets for centuries. Animating a physical device doesn't make it newly patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Apples patent on it does date way back, though the description was very clearly for a search dialog on Mac OS, not iOS on mobile (didn't exist yet). It's also based almost entirely on existing patents from other companies, with basically a, "well we'll do all the things these patents talk about, but in this one dialog with voice".
What surprised me is that they didn't run with that patent against any of the other android devices over the years. Maybe the Droid. As far as I know there's nothing really unique about the voice search capabilities of the Nexus over other android devices, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how old this patent is, but what about Google Desktop (which tbh I hated), or the 20 other local search daemons that have done this stuff for years...?
Re: (Score:3)
The Nexus is Google's flagship device that always gets the latest version of Android, that's why Apple have targetted it.
It's not about whether it's more, or less infringing than the others, it's about destroying competition through legal means, rather than actually competing with them through innovation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not with patents no.
If anything this makes patents worse, because it means companies can pick and choose they litigate against, and can genuinely use it to manipulate the market.
In contrast, if such a rule was in place as it was for patents, then it'd mean companies would have to go after the first person that breached the patent and at least bring clarity to the market the second that alleged infringement happens by way of a validity/invalidity ruling. As it stands it's like walking through a minefield - y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All it adds is that the unlock path may be one of multiple options. So, instead of a straight line, like a door bolt, it might be L-shaped like a rifle bolt or whatnot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm trying to say is that in the tech world, there's so much patent trolling going on, it's unreal. Anyone's astonishment at the
Shysters (Score:3, Insightful)
How can anyone with a straight face say that patents promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences? It seems to me that, in all countries, patents serve more to promote the pocketbooks of lawyers.
Re:Shysters (Score:5, Insightful)
However this means that the patent officers are always overworked and underpaid, and the broad scope of knowledge they must possess is ever expanding. I guess you'd have to ask a patent officer how they could revise and reform the system but it is truly becoming a system of little worth to the public at this point.
Re:Shysters (Score:5, Insightful)
They've basically used verbiage and obfuscation to paper up the claims and make it harder for the examiners to figure out what's going on.
In a sensible world, if the patent examiners didn't understand a patent, it wouldn't be granted.
Re: (Score:1)
In a sensible world, if the patent examiners didn't understand a patent, it wouldn't be granted.
But who's going to admit that?
Re: (Score:2)
They've basically used verbiage and obfuscation to paper up the claims and make it harder for the examiners to figure out what's going on.
Pretty much the same thing the banking industry has done with the Federal Trade Commission as of late...
Re: (Score:3)
There's no redeeming quality with patents anymore. If you have a good idea, put it in a product. Any modern product is much more than just the general concept. If we needed patents to have success, why are there generics of just about everything AND the "brand name". If patents were needed, everyone would buy Kangaroo Krunch (a hypothetical generic to Captain Crunch) that sells for 25% less than Captain Crunch rather than Captain Crunch s
Re: (Score:2)
There's no redeeming quality with patents anymore. If you have a good idea, put it in a product.
Okay, let's say I have a great idea, I make a product, and I put it on the market without a patent. It starts selling, and Big Company X takes notice. They completely rip off my product, sell it for 50% cheaper, and launch a world-wide marketing campaign to promote it. What legal recourse do I have without patents?
Or let's even back up a bit. Let's say I have my great idea and I want to get capital just to start producing it. I go to a VC and I pitch my idea. The first thing he asks me when I'm done my p
Re: (Score:2)
Same patent used in Galaxy Nexus ban (Score:5, Insightful)
This judgement covers one of the patents that has also been used by Apple in blocking the Galaxy Nexus from sale in the US - http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18705285 [bbc.com]
As this mentions the 'slide-to-unlock' function as obvious based on existing functions in earlier handests - could this be used in evidence as part of the arguments around the Nexus ban?
Re: (Score:2)
No, its not evidence. It might be precedent (persuasive only, because it is from a foreign jurisdiction, and of limited persuasive value because, in addition to the fact its a foreign jurisdiction, its applying a different patent law than applies in the US.)
More importantly, while the invalidity argument here is one that is,
Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. (Score:5, Funny)
You must feel like you're caught in a landslide, with no escape from reality.
Re:Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
These judges are just easy come, easy go.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
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.
Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. They'll just claim the innovation was the gestalt of putting it all together, not the individual parts.
Re:Is someone keeping track of all this? (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll just claim the innovation was the gestalt of putting it all together, not the individual parts.
This have already happened in many discussions I've been in. After methodically refuting every "innovation" they then get to that part. At which point I try to tell them that the market was already moving in that direction (LG Prada, Samsung F700 for example), and that the concept of touch phones is ages old (IBM Simon).
Being the first out in a race does not mean you invented running :p
But at that point, it's really a lost cause, since they then just vaguely argue that the iPhone is somehow magically different than all those, but seemingly unable to tell why. If I feel particularly bored or spiteful, I start arguing that technically, the iPhone shouldn't even be counted as a smartphone until the App Store was opened mid-2008. For some reason, this really push some of those people over the edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, Apple fanboys are the ones claiming that their company produces unique items that no other company in the world could possibly do, and thus should get patents on them. Android fanboys have other hobby horses, like "openness uber alles". I can't recall ever having seen Android fanboys defending Google's patents (not to mention that, prior to Motorola, Google pretty much had none, at least in the mobile area).
Re: (Score:1)
patent? how? (Score:1)
Re:patent? how? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not a programmer or software designer. Can someone explain to me why something as mundane as this can be patented?
Say "Troll" then say "Apple".
Re: (Score:1)
Here is how it happens. Governments participate in your regular everyday scams just like any other business. It is more profitable for a Patent Office to issue Patents easily encouraging companies to file for multiple patents hopping they stick like spaghetti on the wall so that they troll cash out when a competitor employ's "their idea" in a way that takes their customers away from them or to just to collect a nice paycheck. Meanwhile the Patent Office rakes it in on the fees.
The Patent office does not
Re: (Score:1)
It just seems like th
Re: (Score:1)
Not every company is as irresponsible as Apple or Samsung when it comes to suing others for "patent infringement". Some just hold the patent so that companies like Apple can't sue them as easily.
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: (Score:1)
Here is your chance to file a "Circle to Unlock" patent before 1 of a billion people with a brain beat you or a corporation to it!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So change it?
That's the beauty of Android. If there's something you don't like, something some other phone does, or something you want to do more efficiently, there's usually a replacement application for it.
i.e. You want Face Unlock on a 2.1/2.2 device? Look up Visidon App Lock (which incidentally functions as a lock screen replacement, if I recall)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only can you add custom sliders to the lock screen, you can also add widgets. Calendar and battery widgets on the lock screen are nice.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the real reason Apple patented it - to save customers of other implementations from bad implementations. Too bad the stupid judge didn't realize it.
Re: (Score:1)
Huh? The Judge was stupid for other reasons, but patenting something to save people from something else seems to be a little illogical. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Frankie is being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:3)
The unlock screen was probably designed that way to try and avoid the slide to unlock patent...
Re:Rant (Score:4, Informative)
Most probably they were trying to cover themselves in case Apple's stupid patent was held valid. Now they can do it in the way that is best for the customer and Apple can fuck themselves. At least when this decision is mirrored in the US court system, which seems rather likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a lot of those "stupid decisions" are an attempt to avoid lawsuits by Apple over Apple's phony copyright, design patents, software patents, or just general look-and-feel. So, go thank Apple.
Fortunately, smaller app developers don't give a sh*t about Apple, so whatever aspect of the iPhone you like, you can actually get for Android w
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the slide-unlock design you are complaining about was replaced over two years ago with a totally different lock screen?
If you want a LEGIT complaint about the non-historic HTC lock screen, it would be that it has absolutely no security. And if you try to ADD security to it (like the pattern unlock), you have to FIRST unlock the screen with the "pretty" HTC interface, and THEN UNLOCK IT YET AGAIN with the security screen.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The phones that had that version don't have enough RAM or storage to run the newer version of Sense.
2) He has the option to run a different ROM without Sense.
3) Utility apps addressing many problems are available free without ads or commercially for a few dollars.
But I guess you would rather just stereotype.
Re: (Score:1)
And yet, at 8am in the morning, I am still incapable of either
a) sliding it in the right direction
b) hitting it at all!
Can someone please invent a slide-to-unlock that is both bigger (dinner-plate size should do) and requires zero hand eye coordination.
Re: (Score:2)
See?! Apple was right in trying to stop this travesty from getting into the public's hands!
I knew Apple were the good guys... *dreamily looking at my picture of Steve Jobs*
(The above is intended as humor...)
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: (Score:1)
Proof that Apple stole ideas from Android (Score:2)
http://team-nocturnal.tumblr.com/post/26388747742/proof-apple-stole-from-google-boycottapple
#BoycottApple is still trending strong on Google+, and elsewhere.
Maybe #BoycottApple has momentum (Score:2)
Worth a quick look, just for the graphics.
Re: (Score:1)
Those of us in the real world will continue buying Apple products.
Which is the only reason companies, entities, people can pull this crap with anyone. The only rational solution is to choose not to play. Take your business elsewhere. If everyone did this, the BS would stop tomorrow.
I have suggested it before, will again, when any company does BS like this, start a 3 year "no purchase anything" from them clock. If they do any additional 'badness' (of which you are the sole determiner of what is bad for your) increase that clock to a 7 year clock, "no purchase anythin
Physical vs Virtual (Score:2)
Pretty much any on-screen display of an interface meant to mimic a physical device should go straight into the "not patentable, prior art" pile at every patent office. There is nothing original, novel, or non-obvious regarding user interfaces which are similar in operation to physical devices.
Patent offices are funded by the application fees and tax moneys in most jurisdictions. I suggest they add an additional revenue stream for patent spamming. Start really examining the patent applications and if a co
physical slide to unlock (Score:1)
Re:The real Travesty here is... (Score:5, Insightful)
that the Judge did not rule in the first 5 minutes of the case that a "slide to unlock" patent was complete and utter void....Would have given him bonus points for finding the USPTO in contempt for even issuing the patent.
I think I'd prefer Judges to not be hasty and make snap decisions... you obviously should do the same: take a step back and not be so hasty with your postings, maybe even read the sumary, seeing as this is a UK case and the USPTO has nothing to do with this patent.
HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I know that judge's should not make snap decisions, it was mainly said TIC but you are right about the High Court in London having nothing to do with USPTO. I got carried away, however the UK IPO has very similar rules. My complaint is not readily dismissed because I failed to identify the proper authority in my post.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-requirements.htm [ipo.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Did you not read my response? I said it was tongue in cheek, which means that I did not seriously expect that the Judge should make a snap decision. However, an easy decision we very reachable for any judge who actually read about what they were presiding over. Additionally, you guys are taking this a little too seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Did not a court just find that slide to unlock was already in use before Apple had anything to do with it? Oh sorry, I forgot, facts are not important to a cultist.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, well that is why we have the <sarcasm> tag.
Re:Unfair to Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, welcome our new HTC overlords.
I thought Apple was the Sith.
Now I know Apple is the Sith.