HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232

by saket123 • 14 years ago

168 87 14 years ago

mrkmcknz• 14 years ago

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.

rorrr• 14 years ago

> 'dance to pay' gesture

Strippers already have prior art on that one.

flyinRyan3• 14 years ago

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

da_n2• 14 years ago

> 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.

fpgeek2• 14 years ago

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).

azakai2• 14 years ago

> 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 what's wrong with the patent system - you don't need prior art to tell you something is obvious and should be unpatentable.

vibrunazo2• 14 years ago

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 good, plain, clear, and unbiased way to prove a patent is indeed trivial. Even if we us hackers look at each other and agree that it's trivial.

I'd love to live in a world where innovators of non trivial solutions were rewarded money from others, without punishing these other innovators. But that's not possible to implement in practice!

azakai2• 14 years ago

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 system wouldn't do it.

mtgx• 14 years ago

Imagine someone patenting the vague "drop down menu" for websites. Even if others would put a new twist on the drop down menu, they could still be infringing on the person who had the original patent for a drop down menu, according to the current patent system.

That's kind of how Apple's slide to unlock patent is now. Even if they twist the heck out of that method, it might still fall within Apple's description for a "slide to unlock" method for which they got a patent.

Stuff like this shouldn't be allowed to be patented. But I think people tend to give Apple the benefit of the doubt much more than they deserve, because they were the ones changing the mobile industry in 2007, and now they somehow believe that anything that even remotely resembles what Apple has needs to belong to Apple and only to Apple. But that's not how things should work. Apple should just compete and try to stay 1 step ahead. That's how it's done in all the other industries. They don't try to squash every single one of their competitors with bogus lawsuits because they "compete" i.e. making something "similar".

cheez• 14 years ago

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 :(

femto• 14 years ago

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.

idspispopd3• 14 years ago

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.

Zak3• 14 years ago

really how obvious is it?

I think you're approaching the question from the wrong angle. Whether the idea of swipe to unlock is obvious is irrelevant; ideas can't be patented. Only implementations can be patented. Do you think a programmer familiar with touchscreens and mobile development would have difficulty figuring out how to implement swipe to unlock when presented with the idea?

viraptor• 14 years ago

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.

Peaker• 14 years ago

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.

megaman821• 14 years ago

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.

studio625• 14 years ago

What would the world look like if these patent trolls got their wishes?

laic• 14 years ago

People's Republic of China?

drcube2• 14 years ago

Like the 20th century, with IBM and Ma Bell. Or else every industry will be just like the current monopoly and duopoly dominated electric utility, POTS phone service, and ISP industries. Once a company has staked a place in a new industry, every one else will barred from competing.

oraj• 14 years ago

"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.

azylman• 14 years ago

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 through and fixed everything that was wrong with these devices, but it's not like they came up with the idea for a tablet or a smartphone.

mkaltenecker• 14 years ago

They basically swept through and fixed everything that was wrong with these devices a.k.a. innovation.

rayiner• 14 years ago

Touch versus stylus wasn't iterative. It was revolutionary. "Swipe to unlock" wouldn't even have been practical in the prior resistive touchscreen/stylus paradigm.

koide2• 14 years ago

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.

moron• 14 years ago

I would also like to see Apple drop these suits and focus on making great products. But regarding that quote, I wouldn't say they favor competition in the courtroom over the marketplace, they're just doing both.

It's not as if the legal professionals working on these suits would otherwise be writing code for iOS features. And it's not as if Apple is just waiting for the outcomes of these suits, letting their products stand still in the meantime.

dataminer• 14 years ago

Following video of Neonode N1 (cited in the article) shows slide to unlock feature predating the iphone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&t=4m3s

robomartin• 14 years ago

I like the "yes" and "no" gestures.

rodion_89• 14 years ago

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

felipeko• 14 years ago

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

zmmmmm• 14 years ago

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.

scott_w• 14 years ago

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?

molmalo3• 14 years ago

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.

tedunangst3• 14 years ago

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?

novalis• 14 years ago

"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.

ZeroGravitas• 14 years ago

It'll probably work though.

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.

prawn• 14 years ago

Was that a statement from Apple or Neonode? ;)

nickzoic• 14 years ago

Xerox PARC :-)

beedogs• 14 years ago

Is Baghdad Bob running their PR department now? Jesus.

flyinRyan3• 14 years ago

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.

MichaelApproved• 14 years ago

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".

molmalo3• 14 years ago

Well, the judge addressed this.

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.

ajross4• 14 years ago

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 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.

JumpCrisscross3• 14 years ago

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.

esolyt3• 14 years ago

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.

jiggy2011• 14 years ago

whooopeee, does this mean my HTC phone will now get rid of that stupid "pull ring to unlock"/"pull ring to answer call" crap?

petitmiam• 14 years ago

In tennis and cricket, you get a set amount of challenges. Once you've used them up, you can't make any more.

Could the courts implement something similar for patent disputes?

T_S_2• 14 years ago

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.

5hoom• 14 years ago

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?

T_S_2• 14 years ago

One idea: White room. Similar to copyright avoidance.

kogir• 14 years ago

I slid to unlock the bathroom door in elementary school in the early nineties. I fail to see how doing it on a phone is new or innovative.

gerhardi• 14 years ago

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 )?

edwinyzh• 14 years ago

Sorry, but I just simply can't understand why "swipe to unlock" can be a patent...

chris_wot• 14 years ago

Well, this is interesting! This is a valid patent in the U.S., but not in the U.K. - I guess that the UK had a more sensible patent system. A real pity for consumers in the U.S. I guess.

HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

Related Stories