5 ms·

The patent is at least more innovative than Slide to Unlock. If you encourage crappy patents, they are gonna bite you some day.

by kumarm 11y ago

tambourine_man 11y ago
I actually think slide to unlock is brilliant, specially the old skeuomorphic ”track on rail” one. The new, cleaner one is made possible by old one being burned into our collective unconscious. I also think “one click to buy” is brilliant. Since it's impossible to unambiguously distinguish between crappy and worthy patents, we should either abolish them, or have them last for a really short time, like a year or two. Plenty for the inventor to secure its return on the research's investment, not enough to stifle innovation.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Something can be brilliant without being innovative. Most people have no problems operating a "slide your finger on the screen to do more" widget, even without being trained by Apple's original visuals. Think about it. A touch screen can only detect a limited number of basic interactions. All interactions with the software must occur through those basic primitives. Touching the screen and moving your finger are really the only two things the interface can recognize.
  - RIMR 11y ago
    I think you're conflating "brilliant" with "obvious". It's like if someone was called brilliant for suggesting that we should turn our phone screens off when they aren't in use to save battery. It's just the obvious solution, and patenting it and enforcing that patent is just meant to create obstacles for competitors. Apple thinks it own the very idea of the smartphone. They even claimed they owned curved corners... It is nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine. It would be great if they won, just so we could use the precedent to make them lose all of the asinine lawsuits they start.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      I think they might be synonyms. Finding the obvious could be considered the pinnacle of insight. Of course, once it is found, it is obvious, but until someone says it, it may not be. I agree that finding the obvious should not entitle you to "own" it or allow you to prevent others from using the insight. Anyone who does claim that (e.g. Apple) should be ridiculed mercilessly for it.
- RIMR 11y ago
  >slide to unlock is brilliant How? It's a digital slide bolt. They just digitized a simple mechanism that's been in use for hundreds of years.
  - Cookingboy 11y ago
    Right, but using that in a human/computer interface was not possible/intuitive until capacitive touch screen was available, and even then it was a stroke of genius to "port" real life object interaction into the software realm. They didn't patent the gesture, the patented its usage in the human/software interface context.
    - Retra 11y ago
      That is the only context in which that gesture makes sense. You couldn't patent the steering wheel just because you stick it in something that's not a car. You'd have to use it for something that's not steering or wheeling. Slide-to-unlock is obvious because it's based on a bolt that you ... slide to unlock. There's no novelty in unlocking something, software or not, by solving such a simple 'puzzle' as moving your finger sideways. It's certainly not a stroke of genius.
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      > even then it was a stroke of genius to "port" real life object interaction into the software realm This is my first encounter with someone who thinks that "doing X on a computer" is a stroke of genius. If X is not patentable, "porting" it into the software realm shouldn't either.
      - WildUtah 11y ago
        You've apparently never met anyone from the patent bar. Their entire purpose nowadays is often to justify monopolies based on nothing more than doing it on a computer. [0] The judges of the CAFC -- the patent court -- make a deliberate effort to pose as innocent fools being astonished by the most basic applications of computers. [1] That's the root of the new power of the patent system. Of course, the current subject proves that even legitimate worthwhile research can produce absurd and abusive patents. [0] http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1505.Opinion.12-3-2014.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... [1]http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/concentrated-patent-jurisdictions.html#comment-316474 http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/concentrated-patent-juri...
- netcan 11y ago
  I think brilliant or even innovative should not be the same thing as patentable. The (possible impossible) standard should be "would someone else have come up with this." In both of those example, I think the answer is almost certainly yes. Give 100 UI designers a touch screen and ask them to design a few unlock mechanisms each, I think you will get a slide to unlock pretty quickly. On click purchase (is this a troll) is basically saving billing and shipping details.
  - brlewis 11y ago
    Here's the theory about what's supposed to be patentable: Statutory material: No matter how brilliant, a poem, law of nature, mathematical algorithm or computer program is supposedly not patentable. Lots of details at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html Novelty: It has to be new. This is where prior art comes in. Non-obviousness: This is the test for patenability you're talking about. It can be hard to judge obviousness in hindsight. There are so many specialty areas today that it's unreasonable to expect the patent office to be able to determine what would be obvious to an ordinary practitioner in every area of invention.
- georgemcbay 11y ago
  I think it is pretty irrefutable that Jefferson would be against "but on a computer..." patents like slide to unlock based on the copious amount of writing he did on the subject of patents in his time. see, for example: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... Is slide to unlock a clever UI mechanism to put on a phone? Sure. Should that entitle it to a 20-ish year monopoly as an idea irrespective of implementation? I don't see how a reasonable person comes up with an answer other than "of course not". The entire patent system is so far twisted from what it was intended for, it is really quite a shame.

The patent is at least more innovative than Slide to Unlock. If you encourage crappy patents, they are gonna bite you some day.

by kumarm 11y ago

The patent is at least more innovative than Slide to Unlock. If you encourage crappy patents, they are gonna bite you some day.

tambourine_man 11y ago

I actually think slide to unlock is brilliant, specially the old skeuomorphic ”track on rail” one. The new, cleaner one is made possible by old one being burned into our collective unconscious. I also think “one click to buy” is brilliant. Since it's impossible to unambiguously distinguish between crappy and worthy patents, we should either abolish them, or have them last for a really short time, like a year or two. Plenty for the inventor to secure its return on the research's investment, not enough to stifle innovation.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Something can be brilliant without being innovative. Most people have no problems operating a "slide your finger on the screen to do more" widget, even without being trained by Apple's original visuals. Think about it. A touch screen can only detect a limited number of basic interactions. All interactions with the software must occur through those basic primitives. Touching the screen and moving your finger are really the only two things the interface can recognize.
- RIMR 11y ago
  I think you're conflating "brilliant" with "obvious". It's like if someone was called brilliant for suggesting that we should turn our phone screens off when they aren't in use to save battery. It's just the obvious solution, and patenting it and enforcing that patent is just meant to create obstacles for competitors. Apple thinks it own the very idea of the smartphone. They even claimed they owned curved corners... It is nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine. It would be great if they won, just so we could use the precedent to make them lose all of the asinine lawsuits they start.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I think they might be synonyms. Finding the obvious could be considered the pinnacle of insight. Of course, once it is found, it is obvious, but until someone says it, it may not be. I agree that finding the obvious should not entitle you to "own" it or allow you to prevent others from using the insight. Anyone who does claim that (e.g. Apple) should be ridiculed mercilessly for it.
RIMR 11y ago
>slide to unlock is brilliant How? It's a digital slide bolt. They just digitized a simple mechanism that's been in use for hundreds of years.
- Cookingboy 11y ago
  Right, but using that in a human/computer interface was not possible/intuitive until capacitive touch screen was available, and even then it was a stroke of genius to "port" real life object interaction into the software realm. They didn't patent the gesture, the patented its usage in the human/software interface context.
  - Retra 11y ago
    That is the only context in which that gesture makes sense. You couldn't patent the steering wheel just because you stick it in something that's not a car. You'd have to use it for something that's not steering or wheeling. Slide-to-unlock is obvious because it's based on a bolt that you ... slide to unlock. There's no novelty in unlocking something, software or not, by solving such a simple 'puzzle' as moving your finger sideways. It's certainly not a stroke of genius.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > even then it was a stroke of genius to "port" real life object interaction into the software realm This is my first encounter with someone who thinks that "doing X on a computer" is a stroke of genius. If X is not patentable, "porting" it into the software realm shouldn't either.
    - WildUtah 11y ago
      You've apparently never met anyone from the patent bar. Their entire purpose nowadays is often to justify monopolies based on nothing more than doing it on a computer. [0] The judges of the CAFC -- the patent court -- make a deliberate effort to pose as innocent fools being astonished by the most basic applications of computers. [1] That's the root of the new power of the patent system. Of course, the current subject proves that even legitimate worthwhile research can produce absurd and abusive patents. [0] http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1505.Opinion.12-3-2014.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... [1]http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/concentrated-patent-jurisdictions.html#comment-316474 http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/concentrated-patent-juri...
netcan 11y ago
I think brilliant or even innovative should not be the same thing as patentable. The (possible impossible) standard should be "would someone else have come up with this." In both of those example, I think the answer is almost certainly yes. Give 100 UI designers a touch screen and ask them to design a few unlock mechanisms each, I think you will get a slide to unlock pretty quickly. On click purchase (is this a troll) is basically saving billing and shipping details.
- brlewis 11y ago
  Here's the theory about what's supposed to be patentable: Statutory material: No matter how brilliant, a poem, law of nature, mathematical algorithm or computer program is supposedly not patentable. Lots of details at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html Novelty: It has to be new. This is where prior art comes in. Non-obviousness: This is the test for patenability you're talking about. It can be hard to judge obviousness in hindsight. There are so many specialty areas today that it's unreasonable to expect the patent office to be able to determine what would be obvious to an ordinary practitioner in every area of invention.
georgemcbay 11y ago
I think it is pretty irrefutable that Jefferson would be against "but on a computer..." patents like slide to unlock based on the copious amount of writing he did on the subject of patents in his time. see, for example: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... Is slide to unlock a clever UI mechanism to put on a phone? Sure. Should that entitle it to a 20-ish year monopoly as an idea irrespective of implementation? I don't see how a reasonable person comes up with an answer other than "of course not". The entire patent system is so far twisted from what it was intended for, it is really quite a shame.