Apple's Slide to Unlock Patent. This is just getting redicilous. Apple's Slide to Unlock Patent: Yes, the Patent System Needs Reform - Forbes Yes, I agree with patents, but patenting concepts such as using your finger to swipe the screen is redicilous. Patent HOW the technologly works, but not an extremly genearl idea. Patents like this actually hinders innovation. Also, in the US law patents were origionally granted for 14 years. Now they are granted forever. Next up, iPaper. A disposable flushable product for sanitary purposes after relieving yourself. If anone else manufactures it, Apple will sue thier pants off. Oh, and ironically, I have an iPhone.
I agree with your basic premise that some patents are issued that should not be. However, your statement about length of patents in the US is incorrect. In general they are good for 20 years. General Information Concerning Patents See the section under "What is a patent?"
Sorry. I got copyrights (life plus 20 years) and patents mixed up. Thanks for clearing up the confusion
Yes, some patents grants are out of control. The US patent office grants, makes mistakes, and lets the courts ultimately decide. And some patents seem silly, I agree. But the Apple ‘slide to unlock’ may not be one of them. It is not that general, but specific, and therefore pretty weak, easy to get around by innovation. It attempts to specifically protect a brand, and prevent others from copying the look of the iPhone. If Apple didn’t do it, one can be assured that Google, Microsoft would have, and the tables turned. But it doesn’t protect the general idea of swipe to unlock. In fact the patent’s name is Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image As with all patents, the details in the claims are important, not what is written in the abstract, as most news wires focus on. The article in Forbes states that a prior phone, the Swiss Neonode N1m, did slide to lock beforehand. However, in Apple’s patent, the reference to this Swiss phone is clearly stated, along with 20 something other references. So the US patent office knew about this, and felt it was not a prior art. A dutch court felt differently, or likely different…such is life. Apple granted patent on slide to unlock, even though it existed 2 years before they invented it | Android Central Here’s the difference. Claim 1 of the Apple patent is the most important. All and everyone of the functions have to be used to be considered a violation. The Neonode uses a swipe motion, but doesn’t have a graphical or unlocked image or text for example. Detail you say? Well that is the basis of every patent. Furthermore, the subclaims further define the iphone look with text, arrows, visual cues: 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. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along any desired path. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along a predefined channel from the first predefined location to the predefined unlock region. 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device. 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the visual cues comprise text. 6. The method of claim 4, wherein said visual cues comprise an arrow indicating a general direction of movement. What all this means to innovators is they can use an unlocking motion or non image, or something else that doesn’t look like a direct copy of an iPhone, no text, no arrows. Hence, face recognition or fingerprint. Or maybe just a circle? Apple is only trying to protect their brand…nothing wrong with that. And apparently a wise move when one sees Samsung and others making a direct copy. Couldn;t those guys come up with even a slight variation? Some support for this argument here in an article: Apple's Slide-To-Unlock Patent Has Some Big Loopholes - CBS News In fact, patents can force people to innovate to get around patents. And they protect the hard work that a company puts into making and branding their product. Without that protection, there would be no reason to innovate at all. If you think this is bad…look up the patent for that piece of cardboard you place in your window while you are at the beach. Yes, there is one. Made millions of dollars too. Now I think that is silly! http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-13/business/fi-6151_1_patent-infringement-suit
