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

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#51

Post by da_n »

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.

> A fucking slide to unlock gesture is not innovation.

Come on, yes the patent system needs reform but inventions do need to be protected/nurtured. Disregard the details here, and when I hear people having little rants it sounds like they advocate a kind of anarchist cookbook approach to innovation saying 'fuck it, you just make it better than them, who cares if the ting you worked on for 5 years was copied in 5 minutes by xyz, just make it better than them you litigious assholes'. Suppose I said this about your fucking homework? Hey, nice answers you put in there, I just copied them because they were obvious. Fuck you.

So yeah, you say swipe to unlock is obvious, tell me what the fuck you invented that was 'obvious'? Nope? Nothing huh? Nada? Oh well, guess that makes you an expert or something.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#52

Post by femto »

cheez wrote: post #25
azakai wrote: post #3

> 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…

I think the problem is that it's impossible to determine what is obvious post-hoc. The next best thing is "hey, was someone thinking of this at the same time?" Prior art is the easiest way to prove it. It sucks :(

I'd suggest that any independent invention between filing and grant, that is, during the period when the patent is still secret, should automatically render the subject of the application to be obvious and unpatentable.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#53

Post by sses »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28
azakai wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You just described a patent lawsuit - both sides bring experts who vouch for their perspective in light of a judge who moderates and then rules on the debate from a general legal perspective.

It's significantly different from a patent trial. In this scheme the patent is not granted - and can't meaningfully affect the market - until it has passed some level of technical scrutiny by a (hopefully) neutral third party. In a trial the patent has already been granted, it's already affecting the work done by engineers, licensing fees may have been paid, and so on. And the evaluation by experts in the trial seems less likely to be neutral.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#54

Post by nickzoic »

prawn wrote: post #36
novalis wrote: post #20

"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.

Was that a statement from Apple or Neonode? ;)

Xerox PARC :-)

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#55

Post by fpgeek »

da_n wrote: post #51
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.

> A fucking slide to unlock gesture is not innovation. Come on, yes the patent system needs reform but inventions do need to be protected/nurtured. Disregard the details here, and when I hear people having little rants it sounds like they advocate a kind of anarchist cookbook approach to innovation saying 'fuck it, you just make it better than them, who cares if the ting you worked on for 5 years was copied in 5 minu…

Patents aren't like copying someone's homework - that's copyright.

It's important to remember, there's no suggestion in any of these cases that anyone stole Apple's source code. There isn't even an allegation that they did any nontrivial reverse-engineering of an iPhone (it clearly wasn't necessary). Instead, at most, people saw a behavior and independently re-implemented it (and often might not have even seen the behavior first - many of these patents date far back before the iPhone - to the point where "infringing" implementations existed well before the iPhone), without studying the implementation at all.

That's like... getting a good grade because you wrote a paper on the Roman Empire and then accusing someone of cheating because they decided to write their own paper on the same subject (when they might not have even known the subject of your paper and even if they did it wasn't cheating).

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#56

Post by fpgeek »

zmmmmm wrote: post #45
felipeko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Now just think about Google's (and Samsung's and HTC's and ...) probable reaction to discovering they can be blindsided by not patenting something they thought was obvious. If you think things are bad now, just wait a few years.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#57

Post by tikhonj »

taligent wrote: post #40
drcube wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple. Monopolies and duopolies shouldn't be awarded patents, which are just monopolies themselves. Why award monopolies to monopolies?

Nothing wrong with being a monopoly so long as you don't use that monopoly to restrict competition.

There's nothing illegal with being a monopoly. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. I think in most cases (with exceptions like utilities), not having monopolies leads to a healthier market than having them.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#58

Post by idspispopd »

azakai wrote: post #3

> 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…

I agree a patent on simple gestures is simply not logical, but working within the constrains of the existing (and in my view, broken) system, I'd like to explore the idea of swipe to unlock, really how obvious is it?

This is a legitimate question, and I'm looking for real answers because these can be useful later on.

What is natural about swiping to unlock? The closest historical analogy I can think of is moving a bolt sideways on a door, but this is tenuous and certainly wouldn't extrapolate as the most natural/expected method of signalling to an electronic device that I'd like it to no longer ignore my touch gestures.

Would the closer analogy be the 'hold' slider as present on music players, including apple's own ipods? (And earlier devices.) Again, why is this the natural choice in lieu of a hundred other ways of telling the device that I'm ready to work with it.

Apple's love of skeuomorphs present many seemingly 'obvious' analogies, but they were usually rare or non existent before, so I'm curious to understand what is the line of innovation.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#59

Post by megaman821 »

azakai wrote: post #3

> 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…

What is the patent office's mandate? It is not to grant trivial patents so companies can sue each other. Patents are supposed to be preferable to trade secrets because they make knowledge public in exchange for certain protections, and they encourage innovation in fields that require heavy investment.

It would not matter if slide-to-unlock remained a "trade secret" and the investment in making that feature is low enough that they would do it, even if they were never granted patent protection.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#60

Post by Zak »

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 tablets had existed in the past but did any of them have scaled down, touch optimised UIs?

Yes. None of them were widely commercially successful though. Products that come to mind include the Crunchpad (which I'm not sure actually made it to market), the Always Innovating Touchbook and the Pepper Pad. Of these, the Crunchpad was most similar to the iPad.

So no, Apple didn't invent a new product area with the iPad. They were just the first to find commercial success in that product area.

Post reply on HN