Looks like slide to unlock to me. What do you think?
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+A...nvalid+or+Should+be+Narrowed/article24035.htm
There's also a ton of pre-existing art as well.
Looks like slide to unlock to me. What do you think?
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+A...nvalid+or+Should+be+Narrowed/article24035.htm
Looks like slide to unlock to me. What do you think?
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+A...nvalid+or+Should+be+Narrowed/article24035.htm
Looks like slide to unlock to me. What do you think?
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysis+A...nvalid+or+Should+be+Narrowed/article24035.htm
Yes, it's slide-to-unlock but it looks nothing like Apple's implementation of it. Apple's is midway up the screen
Again, patents don't protect an idea. They protect specific implementations of an idea in a specific class of products. I don't think that's hard to understand.
Apple's is midway up the screen and uses graphical cues that imitate a hardware switch to work.
And considering Apple has already lost court cases against it's competitors on the whole Slide To Unlock patent in other countries, because it pre-existed in the Neonode, I think it's a pretty valid point the American court should consider.
Even Apple stopped using a graphical unlock in iOS7, which proves it's not a critical customer feature.
No; the court shouldn't consider a ruling by a foreign court. Europe's patent laws are different. So it would be like telling someone to go look at a sugar cookie recipe in order to make chocolate chip cookies.
Second, this isn't a case about whether Apple deserves the patent. They have it. So the case is about whether Samsung infringed that patent and if so how much it's worth. The "Apple just copied someone else" defense is relevant to whether Apple should be granted the patent. It's not relevant to whether Samsung infringed the patent.
Yes, it's slide-to-unlock but it looks nothing like Apple's implementation of it. Apple's is midway up the screen and uses graphical cues that imitate a hardware switch to work.
Again, patents don't protect an idea. They protect specific implementations of an idea in a specific class of products. I don't think that's hard to understand.
No; the court shouldn't consider a ruling by a foreign court. Europe's patent laws are different. So it would be like telling someone to go look at a sugar cookie recipe in order to make chocolate chip cookies.
Second, this isn't a case about whether Apple deserves the patent. They have it. So the case is about whether Samsung infringed that patent and if so how much it's worth. The "Apple just copied someone else" defense is relevant to whether Apple should be granted the patent. It's not relevant to whether Samsung infringed the patent.
But to use the patent in the first place for a case against a competitor, it needs to be a valid patent, which it is not and Samsung should use that argument. And is the patent Apple was awarded not based in the American patent system? Does it have to apply for the same patent in all the different countries?
What????????? Do you own an iPhone?
Image
Then again Apple should not have been awarded the patent and it should be made invalid, because the Neonode had swipe to unlock in 2004/ 2005 on a touchscreen smartphone device.
In my opinion the slide to unlock feature is the one feature of the iPhone that is most likely to fail. I have owned several iPhones since the first generation and I have missed many calls on each phone due to the slid to unlock feature not working (but it only seems to fail in the presence of an incoming call). If a feature that is so prone to failure is Apple's biggest bragging point then that is a very sad comment on Apple.
Could it be the way you interact with the UI? Maybe...
Now that I see them side by side. Apple probably had a better chance going after the camera icon
...
Also, what's your source for Apple not being the first with slide-to-unlock? That's the first I've heard it.
No; the court shouldn't consider a ruling by a foreign court. Europe's patent laws are different. So it would be like telling someone to go look at a sugar cookie recipe in order to make chocolate chip cookies.
Second, this isn't a case about whether Apple deserves the patent. They have it. So the case is about whether Samsung infringed that patent and if so how much it's worth. The "Apple just copied someone else" defense is relevant to whether Apple should be granted the patent. It's not relevant to whether Samsung infringed the patent.
Specifically see the 2:55 point in this video
YouTube: video
I think someone skilled in UI design that saw that video, could have easily thought up slide to unlock.
In my opinion the slide to unlock feature is the one feature of the iPhone that is most likely to fail. I have owned several iPhones since the first generation and I have missed many calls on each phone due to the slid to unlock feature not working (but it only seems to fail in the presence of an incoming call). If a feature that is so prone to failure is Apple's biggest bragging point then that is a very sad comment on Apple.
Yes, it's slide-to-unlock but it looks nothing like Apple's implementation of it. Apple's is midway up the screen and uses graphical cues that imitate a hardware switch to work.
Again, patents don't protect an idea. They protect specific implementations of an idea in a specific class of products. I don't think that's hard to understand.
"Could have" is not equal to "Did" - I "could have" invented the car - I didn't.
That video isn't showing "slide to unlock", it's just showing OTHER things being slid around to achieve a goal.
Samsung needs to stop whining. If they didn't want to pay Apple, they shouldn't have stolen in the first place.