Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#41

Post by molmalo »

scott_w wrote: post #19

Interesting how "prior art" can require a product to be released in a country to apply. So, an international company can just see what is developed in another market, copy it and patent it in their own country? I can understand this being the case in 1912, but we have the world wide web. Surely this concept is out of date?

As something I read the other day stated (I think it was that Stratfor monograph that was posted here, but I'm not very sure), it looks like the US is using its patent system as a means to protect their global interests against foreign companies/countries.

So, "if it's not here, you can still patent it" is a way to protect their interests, and then use that new patents all over the world.

But as this case proves, maybe that strategy works against smaller adversaries, but the ones with big pockets can still prove it wrong.

> So, an international company can just see what is developed in another market, copy it and patent it in their own country?

Multinational companies are global when things go nice, (moving money around the world, minimizing taxes, and so on), but then they remember their homeland when they can take advantage from that.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#42

Post by koide »

taligent wrote: post #39
koide wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't create new product areas, it grabs an area and disrupts the status quo by offering significantly improved user experiences. In that pursuit they have really innovated in various areas, from UI design to manufacturing to logistics. The fact they haven't created a new product area by themselves doesn't mean they don't innovate at all.

I would argue the iPad is a new product area. Yes tablets had existed in the past but did any of them have scaled down, touch optimised UIs ? All I recall is full blown Windows which was probably the biggest reason they didn't succeed.

I guess it feels that way because tablets until the iPad were an insignificant stagnated market, whereas we did have markets for computers, phones, music players, etc.

So, I'd argue it's still a huge improvement over an existing product area, with the added bonus that it created a market. Products existed, but no significant market for them was available.

The iPhone's improvements over Blackberries and the like of the time were as impressive as the iPad's improvements over Windows tablets, for example, but one doesn't feel the iPhone a new product area.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#43

Post by rorrr »

mrkmcknz wrote: post #2

It infuriates me when I hear of these 'swipe to unlock' and 'pull to refresh' patents that actually get issued. Defensive use only when patents as pathetic as these are used is all well and good. Wasn't the patent system created to protect real innovation? A fucking slide to unlock gesture is not innovation. Now let me go and patent that 'dance to pay' gesture.

> 'dance to pay' gesture

Strippers already have prior art on that one.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#44

Post by esolyt »

taligent wrote: post #39
koide wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't create new product areas, it grabs an area and disrupts the status quo by offering significantly improved user experiences. In that pursuit they have really innovated in various areas, from UI design to manufacturing to logistics. The fact they haven't created a new product area by themselves doesn't mean they don't innovate at all.

I would argue the iPad is a new product area. Yes tablets had existed in the past but did any of them have scaled down, touch optimised UIs ? All I recall is full blown Windows which was probably the biggest reason they didn't succeed.

Yes, true, Apple was the first one to put touch optimized, scaled down UIs on these tablets. But wasn't that exactly the original argument? Again, this is Apple taking an existing technology and polishing it to make create a great product.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#45

Post by zmmmmm »

felipeko wrote: post #16
rodion_89 wrote: post #10

I'm curious, can Neonode now sue Apple over the use of "swipe to unlock"?

They probably didn't believe this "technology" was worth a patent.

Just like Google probably would not have even contemplated patenting a search that draws on multiple data sources back in 2004 (it's actually kind of hard to conceive of search in the modern world that doesn't!) - but Apple came along and patented that.

I'm coming to a belief that the patent system's brokenness is hugely amplified by the presumption of validity given by the courts. You can either have a very rigorous up front patent examination system and a presumption thereafter of validity, or you can have a loose / quick review process and a balanced treatment in the courts (no presumption either way).

But you can't have a patent system where > 50% of patents fail to be proved valid when challenged in the courts (which is how the current system is) AND a presumption of validity.

If I could change one thing about the patent system, I would probably introduce a "vexatious litigant" style restriction that said if your patents fail to survive court challenges > 50% of the time then you lose the presumption of validity on ALL your patents. That would put an immediate stop to all these BS cases that are basically just trying to trip up / delay competitors with patents that they know will fail eventually under scrutiny.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#46

Post by esolyt »

ajross wrote: post #24
MichaelApproved wrote: post #21

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…

I think it really is a great idea to unlock a touchscreen device and Apple deserves credit for that. But it doesn't add much to Neonode's implementation. It is basically the same swipe gesture. It just additionally has a UI element which moves as you move your finger, showing you the progress until the gesture is complete.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#47

Post by esolyt »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38
ajross wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You're arguing precisely the fallacy I tried to refute. The fact that you personally (or any given judge or patent officer) didn't think of something isn't reasonable grounds for making it non-obvious, which is a technical (legally "objective", if not logically) distinction. So if you want to make that case, make it . Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection.…

Patents aren't granted for brilliance, merely novelty. This is good - novelty is objective, "brilliance" or "obviousness" are not. Thus it makes sense to default novelty to being non-obvious and deal with the exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The forum democratic societies do this in is the court system.

Actually, novelty implies non-obviousness. So you can't possibly think novelty is objective but obviousness is subjective.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#48

Post by tedunangst »

ajross wrote: post #32
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "some things are obviously obvious" that implies there is an objective (or universal subjective) criterion for judging obviousness. What would this be? 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.

No. You're arguing precisely the fallacy I tried to refute. The fact that you personally (or any given judge or patent officer) didn't think of something isn't reasonable grounds for making it non-obvious, which is a technical (legally "objective", if not logically) distinction. So if you want to make that case, make it . Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection.…

Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection.

It's not clear how one would do this. You could reply to any evidence presented "meh, not impressed." Your position is basically the mirror of the fallacy you're arguing against. The fact that you personally are not impressed doesn't make it non-obvious either. [oops, meant obvious]

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#49

Post by tedunangst »

molmalo wrote: post #41
scott_w wrote: post #19

Interesting how "prior art" can require a product to be released in a country to apply. So, an international company can just see what is developed in another market, copy it and patent it in their own country? I can understand this being the case in 1912, but we have the world wide web. Surely this concept is out of date?

As something I read the other day stated (I think it was that Stratfor monograph that was posted here, but I'm not very sure), it looks like the US is using its patent system as a means to protect their global interests against foreign companies/countries. So, "if it's not here, you can still patent it" is a way to protect their interests, and then use that new patents all over the world. But as this case proves, may…

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying a company can obtain a patent in the US and then use that patent in other jurisdictions?

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#50

Post by molmalo »

tedunangst wrote: post #49
molmalo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As something I read the other day stated (I think it was that Stratfor monograph that was posted here, but I'm not very sure), it looks like the US is using its patent system as a means to protect their global interests against foreign companies/countries. So, "if it's not here, you can still patent it" is a way to protect their interests, and then use that new patents all over the world. But as this case proves, may…

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying a company can obtain a patent in the US and then use that patent in other jurisdictions?

Depends on the treaties signed by those countries.
Post reply on HN