Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Input Devices Patents Apple

Apple Awarded Gesture-Control Patent 105

Posted by Soulskill from the nothing-is-obvious-to-the-uspto dept.
mpicpp points out a report that Apple has been awarded a broad patent for gesture control of a computer interface (8,933,876). The company inherited the patent after their acquisition of motion-sensor company PrimeSense in 2013. (PrimeSense's technology is used in Microsoft's Kinect gesture control system.) Here's the patent's abstract: A method, including receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture including a first motion in a first direction along a selected axis in space, followed by a second motion in a second direction, opposite to the first direction, along the selected axis. Upon detecting completion of the gesture, the non-tactile 3D user interface is transitioned from a first state to a second state.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Awarded Gesture-Control Patent More

Apple Awarded Gesture-Control Patent

Comments Filter:

  • So.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lab Rat Jason ( 2495638 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @05:53PM (#48807103)

    ... they have a patent for waving?

    • Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Em Adespoton ( 792954 ) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @05:56PM (#48807123) Homepage Journal

      ... for hand waving. Although it might encompass the "These are not the droids you are looking for" gesture as well.

      • I'm glad at least one person with mod points enjoyed my attempt at subtle humour :)

        For those that missed it: think "You're holding it wrong!" and a certain competitor, with a dash of reality distortion field.

      • Claim 1: "A method, including receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture including a first motion with a closed fist in a first direction along a selected axis in space, followed by a second motion of raising the middle finger in the same direction".

        Claim 2 "As per claim one, where the raising of the middle finger is replaced by raising the the pinky and index fingers in the same direction".

        Claim 3: "As per claim 1, except that the first motion of the hand is raised in a closed fist, with the thumb pointing up, then a second motion in a different axis where the thumb ends up pointing down."

      • I was gonna show them my middle finger, then I got scared that they may have patented that as well!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or jacking off... it does say along the 'selected' axis... y-axis here we cum!

      • This year, Apple will introduce an app for Apple Watch to track and produce graphs of masturbation efficiency. The app will have social network features allowing the sharing and aggregation of these vital statistics. Android users will have no need for such an app. Then in 2016, Apple will ban its own app for violating unwritten parts of Apple's TOS. In 2017, Microsoft will copy Apple's now banned app hoping to attract users fleeing Apple because of the removal of such an important application from the

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I used to watch that often in episodes of "Lost in Space".

      Aliens always waved and hovered hands over some industrial equipment lights which would pose as "controls". Was in the episode with Mr. Golden or was it in the one of The Keeper?

      Boy, that was a lil' while ago... come to think, I loved to watch Dr. Smith and now I'm an Anonymous Coward. Wow! The circle is complete!

    • Their patent covers unlocking the device by moving the and up at least 20cm (7.5 inches), then back down again. Moving your hand up and down a few inches while sitting in front of your computer - something many Slashdot readers have a lot of practice doing.

    • Only when seen and acted upon, apparently.

      So those guys with the orange flashlights at airports telling the plane where to park? Those suckers are gonna have to pay some royalties.

      Hey, Apple, I'm making a gesture now, can you see what it is?

  • Ridiculous++ (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's blatantly obvious that the way the world deals with patents, copyright, and trademarks is in desperate need of an overhaul. We are nearly all sufferers of these now somewhat ridiculous legal systems, even though the basic premise of them was fairly well-intentioned. Now they simply belong to the corporations with the biggest bank balances, which in turn are some of the most powerful lobby groups, swaying various authorities, policy makers, lawmakers, and governments in the directions they desire, effec

  • This is the novel bit they have: "...the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed; and transitioning the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture" Every other gesture is still fair game.

    • The whole point of patents is to drive innovation. Being able to patent things like this is clearly not in the spirit of that goal. The question we should be asking is:

      If a patent was not granted for this "invention" (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention not granted), would it still have been invented (i.e. would a company still be willing to perform the R&D necessary to invent this invention without the reward of a monopoly).

      It's pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is yes.

      If this is the case, then granting a patent (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention) actually stifles innovation.

      • The whole point of patents is to drive innovation. Being able to patent things like this is clearly not in the spirit of that goal.

        Why not? Clearly, it's not so clear to Congress, so what's your reasoning as to why this is not in the spirit of driving innovation?

        The question we should be asking is:

        If a patent was not granted for this "invention" (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention not granted), would it still have been invented (i.e. would a company still be willing to perform the R&D necessary to invent this invention without the reward of a monopoly).

        It's pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is yes.

        If this is the case, then granting a patent (i.e. a monopoly for selling this invention) actually stifles innovation.

        Respectfully, that question is a bit naive. Patents aren't really about encouraging innovation, they're about encouraging public disclosure of innovations, as opposed to keeping them under trade secret or restrictive contracts. Without patents, would a company still invent this? Sure, it seems to be a commercially valuable advantage over a device lacking it. What would they do

        • You'll notice that I was not arguing against patents in general. I was arguing that patents like *this* one do not drive innovation, specifically because "inventions" like this one are so obvious that they would have been invented without the incentive of a monopoly.

          The question "is it more valuable to make this than not" drives innovation. Patents drive adding those innovations into the public domain, which eliminates the need for every competitor to waste time reinventing the same thing.

          This particular "invention" would already be in the public domain by default had it not been patented because it is obvious.

          This "invention" was already more valuable to make than not before the patent, and the right to sue other people on top

          • You'll notice that I was not arguing against patents in general. I was arguing that patents like *this* one do not drive innovation, specifically because "inventions" like this one are so obvious that they would have been invented without the incentive of a monopoly.

            Is it? If so, why don't we have it already in products?

            The question "is it more valuable to make this than not" drives innovation. Patents drive adding those innovations into the public domain, which eliminates the need for every competitor to waste time reinventing the same thing.

            This particular "invention" would already be in the public domain by default had it not been patented because it is obvious.

            Prove it - explain why it was so obvious that people already knew about it, but no one bothered making it.

            This "invention" was already more valuable to make than not before the patent,

            Then someone would have made it. Free money on the table, right? They already have the idea, it's valuable to make even without a patent, so you should be able to point to at least one product including it...

            Unless, of course, it wasn't obvious.

            I am for granting patents that actually drive innovation (i.e. the ones that turn inventions from being less profitable to make to more).

            Patents only on things that aren't valuable to produce? Why would people buy them? Or are you suggesting

            • Is it? If so, why don't we have it already in products?

              For the same reason we didn't have smartphones until processors, batteries, screens, etc were at a level to make smartphones possible.

              Once we had sensors like the kinect, the necessity for good ui drives the innovation.

              Prove it - explain why it was so obvious that people already knew about it, but no one bothered making it.

              Something doesn't need to exist for it to be obvious. I can make a smartphone that is some color that no one has ever used to make a smartphone. Should I be able to patent smartphones of a particular RGB value? Or was it obvious that it this was always possible to make a smartphone of any

              • Is it? If so, why don't we have it already in products?

                For the same reason we didn't have smartphones until processors, batteries, screens, etc were at a level to make smartphones possible.

                Once we had sensors like the kinect, the necessity for good ui drives the innovation.

                Kinect came out in Nov. 2010. It seems like you're admitting that it wasn't obvious until at least then, no?

                Prove it - explain why it was so obvious that people already knew about it, but no one bothered making it.

                Something doesn't need to exist for it to be obvious. I can make a smartphone that is some color that no one has ever used to make a smartphone. Should I be able to patent smartphones of a particular RGB value? Or was it obvious that it this was always possible to make a smartphone of any arbitrary color regardless of whether or when anyone actually did it?

                Was it? Here's the thing - you already admitted this was valuable. If making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you knew it, wouldn't you do it? Of course you would, you're a smart guy who likes money.
                Or, conversely, if making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you didn't know it, then that would explain w

                • Kinect came out in Nov. 2010. It seems like you're admitting that it wasn't obvious until at least then, no?

                  In the same way that it wasn't obvious to have blue and gold polka dot smartphones before the first smartphone was created. However, if one was to suggest the possibility of smartphones before they existed, then I would think that the possibility of them being blue and gold polka dot should be obvious.

                  Was it? Here's the thing - you already admitted this was valuable. If making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you knew it, wouldn't you do it? Of course you would, you're a smart guy who likes money. Or, conversely, if making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you didn't know it, then that would explain why you didn't do it. So, when someone subsequently comes out with a gold and blue polkadot phone and their sales shoot up, you can't very well say "pff, that's obvious, I knew about that all along... I just didn't do it because I hate making money" and expect to be believed.

                  You seem to be reasserting the claim that something can not be obvious if no one has done it yet. It is this very claim that I am disputing.

                  While it may not be obvious that people will like a blue and gold p

                  • Was it? Here's the thing - you already admitted this was valuable. If making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you knew it, wouldn't you do it? Of course you would, you're a smart guy who likes money. Or, conversely, if making a smartphone in gold and blue polka dots meant that your profit would increase and you didn't know it, then that would explain why you didn't do it. So, when someone subsequently comes out with a gold and blue polkadot phone and their sales shoot up, you can't very well say "pff, that's obvious, I knew about that all along... I just didn't do it because I hate making money" and expect to be believed.

                    You seem to be reasserting the claim that something can not be obvious if no one has done it yet. It is this very claim that I am disputing.

                    While it may not be obvious that people will like a blue and gold polkadot phone, it should be plainly obvious that such a phone could be made and how it could be made, even if no one ever makes one.

                    Not exactly... I'm asserting the claim that if no one has done something yet and it's commercially valuable to do so, then it's likely not obvious. Evidence of that is the fact that if it was obvious, someone would have taken the free money. Because no one has, that implies no one thought of it.
                    You're disputing this by saying "no, it's plainly obvious." Well, that's a fine conclusion, but where's your evidence?

                    If X is the the price of R&D and Y is the price of copying it, we should allow patents on products with a high X:Y ratio.

                    Sure, let's go with that - the price of copying software is negligible, while the price of design

                    • Not exactly... I'm asserting the claim that if no one has done something yet and it's commercially valuable to do so, then it's likely not obvious. Evidence of that is the fact that if it was obvious, someone would have taken the free money. Because no one has, that implies no one thought of it. You're disputing this by saying "no, it's plainly obvious." Well, that's a fine conclusion, but where's your evidence?

                      I think you are confusing the idea of an invention being obvious and the idea of the popularity of an invention being obvious.

                      I am not saying that it is obvious whether any idea will be popular.

                      What I am saying is that patents should be granted to incentivize inventors to incur the costs of invention when they would not have otherwise.

                      Sure, let's go with that - the price of copying software is negligible, while the price of designing it is comparatively huge. In fact, the copying price is so small - a click and drag, in one scenario - that the ratio approaches or exceeds that of pharmaceuticals, where at least you have to make a physical product. So, software should be patentable, and expensive machines may not be patentable, depending on how closely the cost to build them approaches or exceeds the design cost.

                      The price of copying software verbatim is negligable, which is partly is why selling pirated software is illegal (i.e. copyright infringement). Why would someone go to the tr

                    • I think you are confusing the idea of an invention being obvious and the idea of the popularity of an invention being obvious.

                      I am not saying that it is obvious whether any idea will be popular.

                      I'm pointing to the idea of popularity of an invention being nonobvious as an indicator that the idea was also nonobvious. And as of yet, you have pointed to no indicators as to whether something is obvious.

                      We are talking about copying the design of a piece of software, and incorporating it into your own software in order to sell. The cost of this is not negligible at all. In fact it is probably pretty close to the actual cost of designing it in the first place in many cases.

                      Tell that to Zynga, or any of the indie designers they've ripped off.

                      Go ask someone to recreate IOS or android or windows UI for use in your own product to sell. This cost will not be negligable. Nor can you just drag and drop some files to have that UI magically appear in your own application.

                      On the contrary, it's pretty easy. [youtube.com]

                      All of these UIs have copied the best aspects (from their point of view) of the others, which is why there is a lot of co-evolution happening among UI design.

                      But they also come up with new aspects, which is why the UIs are evolving. Those new aspects that others copy, because they believe they're the best aspects, must not have been obvious, or they would

                    • I'm pointing to the idea of popularity of an invention being nonobvious as an indicator that the idea was also nonobvious.

                      I don't see why the burden of proof is not on you for this claim.

                      And as of yet, you have pointed to no indicators as to whether something is obvious.

                      The indicator I am using is the metric that the invention in question could have been invented even if the patent had not been granted. We can never know this in the absolute sense that we can't change the past and see how it affects the future, but I think reasonable people can agree that a blue and gold polka dot smartphone could be invented even without a patent (i.e. the R&D costs of figuring out how to do it are negligible compared t

                    • I'm pointing to the idea of popularity of an invention being nonobvious as an indicator that the idea was also nonobvious.

                      I don't see why the burden of proof is not on you for this claim.

                      First, because of the way the patent act is written - it says that if a patent application can't be shown to be obvious, then it will be issued. That makes sense logically, because proving that something is nonobvious after having disclosed it is going to be nigh-difficult if not impossible. What are you going to do, wipe everyone's memory and then quiz them?

                      Second, even disregarding that, I've already met the burden of proof - I provided evidence in the form of "you admitted this is valuable" and "this di

                    • First, because of the way the patent act is written - it says that if a patent application can't be shown to be obvious, then it will be issued. That makes sense logically, because proving that something is nonobvious after having disclosed it is going to be nigh-difficult if not impossible. What are you going to do, wipe everyone's memory and then quiz them?

                      I am making a normative claim (i.e. "this is how we should do it") rather than a descriptive claim (i.e. "this is how we do it now").

                      I am saying that a world where things are assumed to be obvious until proven non-obvious is a better world than one where things are assumed to be obvious until proven non-obvious. You so proving non-obviousness is next to impossible (I disagree), but just out of curiosity, how might one prove obviousness in your view? It seems to me to be at least equally difficult.

                      Second, even disregarding that, I've already met the burden of proof - I provided evidence in the form of "you admitted this is valuable" and "this didn't exist". Together, that indicates it was probably not obvious, or someone would have done it. It's your turn to rebut it, with evidence, not just saying "it's clearly obvious".

                      I am say

      • How does this stifle innovation? To me it seems it will force inventors to find different ways to use gestures to unlock computers. That is encouraging innovation. Not Nobel Prize winning stuff to be sure, but innovation nonetheless.

        • 1. I think inventors will try different ways to use gestures regardless, but it will be based on their merits rather than whether they are simply different than the current patented ways.
          2. Some money that could have been spend on innovation must now be spent on lawyers to analyze whether their new and different way of using gestures is different enough from the ways that are patented. Innovation would better thrive under an environment that isn't a legal minefield (i.e. one with a higher engineer:lawyer

  • Not very broad (Score:5, Informative)

    by cliffjumper222 ( 229876 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @06:11PM (#48807249)

    This patent covers how to unlock a computer by raising your hand vertically about 20 cm. It's limited to that, so it's hardly "broad".

    Quick Analysis of the independent claims (the broadest ones):

    Claim 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed; and transitioning the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture.

    Summary: Covers raising your hand to unlock a computer.

    Claims 2,3,4 & 5 add additional specifics around this.

    Claim 6. An apparatus, comprising: a sensing device; and a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface and configured to receive, from the sensing device, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of the sensing device, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed, and to transition the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture.

    Summary: Same as #1, but it's for an apparatus. It's still to unlock a computer.

    Claims 7,8,9,10 just add detail to Claim 6.

    Claim 11: A computer software product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a computer executing a non-tactile user interface, cause the computer to receive, from a sensing device, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of the sensing device, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space wherein the hand performs the rising motion for at least an unlock gesture distance at a minimum unlock gesture speed, and to transition the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture.

    Summary: This makes the invention a machine rather just an algorithm, because that like makes it patentable.

    Claim 12: A method, comprising: receiving, by a computer executing a non-tactile three dimensional (3D) user interface, a set of multiple 3D coordinates representing a gesture by a hand positioned within a field of view of a sensing device coupled to the computer, the gesture comprising a rising motion along a vertical axis in space; determining whether the gesture of the hand included a rising of the hand by at least 20 centimeters; and transitioning the non-tactile 3D user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state upon detecting completion of the gesture, wherein the transitioning of the user interface from a locked state to an unlocked state is performed only if the upward gesture included a rise of the hand by at least 20 centimeters.

    Summary: The cherry on top claim that just sums up all the others into one that is actually what the invention most likely does in real life.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      All the same, it's hardly an invention. Just an obvious application of existing ideas and technology.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      Bah! I want to unlock my device by doing a sexy dance for it. Stupid Apple...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by delt0r ( 999393 )
      Spot the patent attorney. "Patents are working!". Yea right. Oh it really isn't obvious? Only if your a fucking lawyer.

  • Prior Art by Douglas Adams (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    A loud clatter of gunk music flooded through the Heart of Gold cabin as Zaphod searched the sub-etha radio wave bands for news of himself. The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive--you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope. It saved

  • MIT Put That There (36 years ago) (Score:4, Informative)

    by bennet42 ( 1313459 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @06:17PM (#48807301)
    Chris Schmandt did this a while back at MIT. Gestures plus voice recognition. Guess you can get a patent if leave out the voice recognition part. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] ( original demo )

  • So very wrong...

    • Why? Patents are a tangible asset. Specifically Apple didn't inherit the patent, they acquired a company that was in the process of obtaining a patent.

  • Im showing apple another common gesture (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Not hard to guess what. Imagine if any of us could patent it!

    Also imagine if anyone had a patent of any movement by our hands (fingers), arms or any other body part to interact with devices man made or not.

    Would we be today pressing keys on a board or mouse buttons? With luck probably flipping switches and rotating dials or inserting punctured cards for someone had the common sense such should never be filed for a patent much less granted one.

  • I remember trying the power glove out for Nintendo.. It was terrible. But I figured out in Pinball Quest if I flipped off the TV the right flipper be triggered and if I did the up yours gesture it triggered the left flipper.

  • Apple will control my gestures (Score:3)

    by Blaskowicz ( 634489 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @06:42PM (#48807463)

    supposedly, a predefined set of gestures will be allowed and you will be able to be more by $0.99 a piece. Controversial gestures will be banned from the gesture store unless you jailbreak yourself, but then you may be terminated.

  • http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

    Poor Ubi....... and it was soooo cute.......

  • Are they patenting a specific sensor apparatus here, or is it just raising your hand? I could understand if it's a specific type of sensor, but patenting something like raising your hand is ridiculous. Especially when we had non tactile motion controls on mainstream things like the PS2 as far back as 2003. If this is just a gesture, how in the hell does that warrant a patent?

  • You've invented the wave/nod.

    • You've invented the wave/nod.

      The patent fad of "on a computer" has passed, now it's taking pre-existing things and doing them "at a computer", that's real innovation!

  • Somebody broke joystick support in Yosemite. Of course, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense given how little Apple cares about joysticks in general.

  • "I am now telling the computer exactly what it can do with a lifetime supply of chocolate"

  • I've done this YEARS ago (Score:3)

    by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @05:24AM (#48809833) Journal

    Come on. I have used this exact same method on a Windows Mobile 5 device (HTC Touch HD) waaaay back when, using the accelerometer and gravity to determine how my screen was moving and moving a virtual object in virtual space and showing that on my phone's screen.

    Not only that, but it's a rather OBVIOUS solution to a problem. Whatever happened to the "non-obvious" requirement?

  • Does this cover the general idea of interface control with gestures or a specific way of pulling that off?
    • Just one way and one specific gesture for a specific purpose. See claims discussion posted above.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close