21–30 of 89 posts
Now, that doesn't mean I think Apple deserves a patent for swipe to unlock but I do think people are mixing up the terms "obvious" and "simple".
I see a lot of comments saying swipe to unlock is obvious but I disagree. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's obvious. Now, that doesn't mean I think Apple deserves a patent for swipe to unlock but I do think people are mixing up the terms "obvious" and "simple".
The Neonode N1 showed a padlock on its screen with the words "right sweep to unlock" when it was in its protected mode. A later version replaced the text with an arrow.
The judge said it would have been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that Apple later used.
He added that the concept of a "slider" was not new since it had already appeared in Microsoft's CE system.
As a result Apple's claim to the innovation was rejected.
The Neonode N1 already had a swipe to unlock, just that it lacked visual feedback. But from that point, providing feedback would have been obvious.
I see a lot of comments saying swipe to unlock is obvious but I disagree. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's obvious. Now, that doesn't mean I think Apple deserves a patent for swipe to unlock but I do think people are mixing up the terms "obvious" and "simple".
More broadly: I think your attitude is, in fact, exactly the problem. The existing patent regime tends to defaults to a judgement that if something "hasn't been invented" (worse: "the patent office wasn't presented with specific evidence that it has previously been invented") that it must be non-obvious.
Some things are obviously obvious, and I know it when I see it. Slide to unlock is obvious, period. Arguing otherwise invokes a universe where every tiny bit of nonsense in every product becomes someone's property.
Basically: if slide to unlock is not obvious, then everything is non-obvious and all hope is lost. Think this through -- I really don't think you want to live in that world.
> The judge said that HTC's "arc unlock" feature - which also involves a predefined gesture along a path shown on-screen - would have infringed Apple's technology had it not been for a device released in 2004. No, no, no. It is clearly obvious , the fact that there happens to also be prior art just adds insult to injury. If there had not been prior art, it would still be a frivolous, trivial patent. This is exactly w…
Prior art is the easiest way to prove it.
It sucks :(
"We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace." This. I do think that Apple is an innovative company which creates great products. But this does not in anyways justifies its actions in courtrooms all over the world trying to exploit a system that is clearly outdated.
I struggle to think of Apple as innovative - I consider them iterative. They DO make amazing, fantastic products. With few exceptions, however, their products tend to be things that are iterative improvements over already existing technology. For example, iPhone and iPad - both of these concepts (smartphone and tablet) already existed. Only, a lot of them were shitty before Apple came along. They basically swept thro…
Could the courts implement something similar for patent disputes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I perfectly agree. But how do you prove in court that it was obvious? Most countries do have that paragraph in their legislation stating patents need to be non-obvious to someone of similar skill. But you almost never see that being tested in court, because how the hell do you prove it? One of the big problems with the patent system is that it tries to implement solutions that are not viable in practice. There's no g…
I don't think this is so difficult. Something has to be nontrivial to practitioners in the relevant field, so just survey a few random software engineers - not some clerks at the patent office. Pay them for their time, obviously, and that cost should come from the patent application fee. If this were done the vast majority of software patents existing today would not have been granted. Which is probably why the syste…
I see a lot of comments saying swipe to unlock is obvious but I disagree. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's obvious. Now, that doesn't mean I think Apple deserves a patent for swipe to unlock but I do think people are mixing up the terms "obvious" and "simple".
First off: the use of "obvious" in the law is technical, and not a synonym for "simple". It means obvious to a learned practitioner in the field. If you handed a touchscreen UI to 100 handset designers in 2007 and asked them to come up with a unlock mechnism, you really think that none of them would have invented a slide gesture? More broadly: I think your attitude is, in fact, exactly the problem . The existing pate…
Note that a lot of brilliance looks obvious ex post facto because one is looking up the branch and seeing only one branch instead of down it and the bifurcations.
"Apple declined to comment on the specifics of the case. Instead it re-issued an earlier statement, saying: "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."" This reaks of disastrous lazy damage control PR.
I can't imagine someone falsely claiming to own real property that's actually public, suing someone over it and getting the case thrown out of court and then saying "We think going to the beach/park/nature reserve is healthy, but tourists should create their own original recreation areas and not steal ours" without being laughed at for sheer cheek but for whatever reason it works with "intellectual" property all the time.