They can patent specific ideas, Apple didn't patented slide to unlock, they patented slide to unlock made in an specific wat
I guess the diference here is that for me, what makes it specific is the code itself. So as long as someone doesn't copy paste code directly, they shouldn't infringe any patents. I realize that this might be a bit extreme and black and white and there is a lot of gray in-between, but really I sometimes find it really hard to see where a patent stops being a "general idea" and becomes something specific enough that they should be patentable.
For me even slide to unlock is just borderline patentable.
From what I read from the patent it says
"2. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along any desired path.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along a predefined channel from the first predefined location to the predefined unlock region."
Those two seem too general for me. From my understanding, you could require the user to draw an 8 shape to unlock ("any desired path") and still be infringing.
Now, the rest of the claims make it easy to design around, for example:
"5. The method of claim 4, wherein the visual cues comprise text.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein said visual cues comprise an arrow indicating a general direction of movement. "
Just don't have text, or don't have an arrow. But having to design around something when you want to do something fundamentally different (draw an 8 shape to unlock), seems like a problem.
(Disclaimer: I'm exaggerating a bit, but I'm trying to make a point)
