Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

inkswamp

macrumors 68030
Jan 26, 2003
2,953
1,278

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.
 

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
Yes, it's slide-to-unlock but it looks nothing like Apple's implementation of it. Apple's is midway up the screen


What????????? Do you own an iPhone?

2.jpg


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.


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.
 
Last edited:

kdarling

macrumors P6
Apple's is midway up the screen and uses graphical cues that imitate a hardware switch to work.

Yes, and as recently noted in another thread, that is one reason why a Dutch judge threw out Apple's slide-to-unlock case... because it acted like an onscreen slider switch that industrial touch GUIs had used since the 1980s.

In the meantime, German and UK courts invalidated the patent over obviousness and the Neonode.

About the only major country to let the patent stand, is the US, although Apple had to file modifications for that.

Even Apple stopped using a graphical unlock in iOS7, which proves it's not a critical customer feature.
 

Mw0103

macrumors 6502
Feb 22, 2014
325
679
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.

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.
 

initwithnibname

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2014
48
0
Even Apple stopped using a graphical unlock in iOS7, which proves it's not a critical customer feature.


All current UI elements, typefaces etc slide OFF to the right and the notif. centre/control centre drag hints glide off screen whilst the unlock swipe is executed; seems rather graphical to me, sorry if I am being pedantic, but the whole of iOS is graphical - that's kinda the way it works, being on a screen... for people with EYES :D
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
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.

Well it's a little about whether or not the patent is valid, isn't it?
 

Dontazemebro

macrumors 68020
Jul 23, 2010
2,173
0
I dunno, somewhere in West Texas
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.

Sounds like a strawman argument to me. I can't recall what samsung's iteration looked like but I don't believe it was an identical implementation to Apples either. If anyone could throw some screenshot up that would be nice.
 

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,802
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
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?
 

Mw0103

macrumors 6502
Feb 22, 2014
325
679
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?

It's valid when awarded. That's why there is an application process. It can later be challenged, but it's presumed valid and the opposing party has the burden to prove invalidity. That's not what's going on here.

And yes; one has to apply for patents in each separate jurisdiction.
 

danny_w

macrumors 601
Mar 8, 2005
4,462
297
Cumming, GA
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.
 

initwithnibname

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2014
48
0
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...
 

CosmoFox

macrumors regular
Mar 10, 2014
145
0
Samsung should have to pay more than 2 billion for what they've ripped off. Shady company.
 

macfacts

macrumors 601
Oct 7, 2012
4,687
5,520
Cybertron
...

Also, what's your source for Apple not being the first with slide-to-unlock? That's the first I've heard it.

Specifically see the 2:55 point in this video

I think someone skilled in UI design that saw that video, could have easily thought up slide to unlock.
 

tentales

macrumors 6502a
Dec 6, 2010
771
1,184
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.

Precisely! No one's saying Apple never stole an idea, everybody does it.
This is about a specific implementation of an idea, cemented in a patent that should've been licensed. If there's no respect for patent laws and nobody ever sues anyone over infringements, then why have them in the first place ?

Just like Microsoft's initial success and subsequent dominance, was based on stealing CP/M from Digital Research Inc. the dominant operating system of the day. DRI then lost out to Microsoft's marketing prowess and Gary Kildall's company settled out of court for peanuts in comparison to winning the antitrust case.

$2billion is just a figure, I don't think Apple needs the extra cash. It's about making the point that you shouldn't steal specific patented features. Ideas are a broader concept. Lengthy and costly R&D needs to be protected in order to bring future ideas to fruition.

European patent laws are not that different, just their interpretations and the court system in each instance. Just look at the patent issues in the late 19th century surrounding the automobile and the various combustion engines inventors.
The guys with the first ideas aren't always the ones ending up with the credit or the patent.

In that regard, nothings changed. Without taking sides here, it'll be interesting to see the outcome of this. I'm hoping for a ruling and not a settlement.
 
Last edited:

initwithnibname

macrumors member
Apr 8, 2014
48
0
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.

"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.

So it continues...

----------

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.

"You're holding it wrong"

:D :D
 

macfacts

macrumors 601
Oct 7, 2012
4,687
5,520
Cybertron
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.

Patents also have to be non obvious to someone skilled in the art of what ever the patent is about. Adding "on the internet", or "on a portable computer" to old patents doesn't and shouldn't give you a new patent.
 

Todd B.

macrumors 6502
May 1, 2013
434
1
Samsung needs to stop whining. If they didn't want to pay Apple, they shouldn't have stolen in the first place.
 

macfacts

macrumors 601
Oct 7, 2012
4,687
5,520
Cybertron
"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.

The video is showing things being turned on and off and the title of the demo is toggling things. Guess what locking and unlocking is?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.