HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple • Hacker News Board

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#71

Post by vidarh » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 9:42 AM UTC

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, I spent most of '99 writing a custom GUI system for a tablet. We were even considering ARM (StrongARM) for the CPU, but ended up with an x86 clone. The system was running Linux, NanoX and used Opera as the browser. The widget set was written from the ground up to make it light weight and touch friendly.

See e.g. http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Article...

It wasn't as sleek as the iPad, of course - battery, LCD and touch technology has come a long way, but it worked quite well.

And we were not first with a custom tablet UI (the article above compares it to the Ericsson Screen Phone for example: http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Article... )

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#72

Post by vidarh » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 9:45 AM UTC

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…

Apple's patent on multi-source search appears to involve search of local and remote sources. There are far older examples of multi-source search that live entirely on the server (e.g. MetaCrawler from '94)

But that just makes matters worse - once you have search over multiple sources, and you have search on the desktop, and you have web based search, the multiple sources bit is a small iteration.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#73

Post by gerhardi » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 10:34 AM UTC

I just hope that someone in a high enough position would roar "STOP THE MADNESS!". These kind of patent trials are only harming the end consumer. What kind of legislation even makes it possible to patent things like "Method of swinging on a swing" ( http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227 )?

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#74

Post by 5hoom » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 10:41 AM UTC

T_S_ wrote: post #64

We need an independent invention defense. If I can show I had no knowledge of your patent and came up with the idea on my own then it must have been obvious. If 2 other parties did also, then it must of been painfully obvious.

That's a cool idea, but how would you prove you came up with an invention independently if the patented device/software is already out there?

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#75

Post by viraptor » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 10:45 AM UTC

idspispopd wrote: post #58

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 bo…

Close to every single toilet door in public areas has a "swipe to unlock" system. It's not even the metallic bolt anymore. It's a block of plastic which you sometimes actually have to "swipe" (put fingers on and drag) rather than grab/pull. And I use it just about every day at work. It's not that dated / uncommon.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#76

Post by da_n » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 11:24 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #55

da_n wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be…

Good point, thank you. I guess my thought is that the slide to unlock implementation and idea is being copied. Calling it obvious (legal definition notwithstanding) is something I do not agree with, there are many ways that one could think to unlock such a device.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#77

Post by Peaker » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 11:51 AM UTC

idspispopd wrote: post #58

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 bo…

On a touch screen, you only have two primitive gestures from which all gestures are composed: Taps and swipes. Composition may be chronological or simultaneous (multi-touch).

This space of gestures is so narrow, that any idea within it can be explored in minutes, therefore any method that just combines these primitive gestures would be obvious.

Additionally, taps can accidentally happen (also obvious), and multi-touch is cumbersome, therefore swiping is the obvious gesture to use for unlocking.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#78

Post by flyinRyan » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 1:39 PM UTC

rorrr wrote: post #43

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.

No, that's dance to receive. Having to do the work and pay is pretty unique, though it has probably been thought of before...

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#79

Post by flyinRyan » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 1:41 PM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #55

da_n wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be…

>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

No, what actually happened would be more like writing a brilliant paper on Roman Empire exploring it in a way that no one had before, and suddenly this guy who's been stuck for years suddenly "comes up with" a paper that appears to borrow heavily from yours.

Re: HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

#80

Post by flyinRyan » Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 1:52 PM UTC

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.

I don't think Apple do damage control PR. Just like with the antenna scandal with the iPhone 4: Apple just honestly tells you how they feel.

Apple never cared about "swipe to unlock", that's obviously silly. But they do feel (rightly IMO) that they've completely revolutionized how smart phones and tablets are made with everyone else just making cheap versions of what they came up with. They don't have a way to go to court and get people to stop making cheap rip offs of their stuff (so long as they're sufficiently different) so they're trying to find anything that will stick.

A ridiculous system will produce ridiculous interactions.