3 ms·
It says that they invalidated the slide-to-unlock patent. I don't understand why Samsung would be dealing with that claim - their unlock is Android's unlock.
by Gratsby 11y ago
It says that they invalidated the slide-to-unlock patent. I don't understand why Samsung would be dealing with that claim - their unlock is Android's unlock.
I really hope they actually invalidated it instead of saying "Samsung didn't infringe". Because that means at some point soon we Android phone users can actually have slide to unlock (instead of swipe in any direction to unlock). Although who knows... at this point that feature might irk me. It was important to me back when I switched away from iPhones.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- zanny 11y agoSoftware patents are just the best. So much innovation being promoted!
- notatoad 11y agoIf I'm remembering correctly, this lawsuit references an older samsung phone that implemented slide to unlock in a slightly more apple-y way.
- biot 11y agoIf Samsung distributes Android in their devices, they can be held responsible. Were companies not responsible for third-party products they distribute, Ford could include infringing patented Tesla technology in its products by buying from some disposable company like "12345678 Ltd." in China and claiming "well, they sold it to us; go after them".
- askafriend 11y agoWhy do you want slide-to-unlock so badly? Doesn't swipe work just as well?
- ajross 11y agoNo one wants it. In fact as other posts mentioned both Google and Samsung (who ship different launchers on their devices -- they aren't the same code) moved to presumptively-non-infringing unlock mechanisms years ago. But the law suit was over the implementation as shipped when the suit was filed, obviously. But if the patent was dumb, it should be held invalid regardless of current infringement. And it was. So I for one am cheering.
- julianz 11y agoI think we've moved on. LG's "tap out a pattern to switch on and unlock" is fantastic.