5 ms·
A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone. http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/ http://9to5mac.com/2011
by esolyt 11y ago
A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone.
http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/ http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/
But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.
- rubber_duck 11y ago>But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen. I don't get how people can argue stuff like this should even be covered by patents. What's the rationale ? Did Apple spend billions in R&D to develop this feature it now needs a mechanism to recoup it's investment ? I suppose they wouldn't "invent" swipe to unlock if it wasn't for the patent so they needed extra incentives to make it a viable investment ? The fact that you can get a patent for something trivial and inconsequential like this shows how flawed the system is IMO.
- ams6110 11y agoYeah that's supposed to be covered by the requirement that an invention be "novel" to qualify for a patent.
- rubber_duck 11y agoWho carea if it's novel or not ? Patents are a government granted monopoly defended on the premise that there would be a strong disincentive to invest in R&D if someone could just copy your deaign and a strong incentive for you to not share your invention. In my mind there is no universe in which Apple dosen't implement swipe to unlock just because it's not patentable - it's just abusing a flawed system (can't blame them for it - they didn't make the rules)
- biot 11y agoYes, the Neonode has "slide to unlock", but Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement. With Apple's patent, they claim novelty over having a single graphical element that the user needs to move with predefined start and end points. Another claim expands upon that saying there is a graphical arrow showing direction of movement. Another claim says there is help text explaining to the user what to do. So yeah, on the surface one can easily state "they both have slide to unlock" but in order to discount Apple's patent you need to show that there exists prior art for the specific claims Apple made in its patent. The Neonode is not prior art for those claims.
- jacquesm 11y agoFunny, I have a slide-to-unlock device on my front door that fits that specification exactly, the only difference is that it is not 'on a computer'. It's a ridiculous patent.
- Oletros 11y ago> The Neonode is not prior art for those claims. Well, CAFC thinks that Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious: > We reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity because the asserted claim of the ’721 patent would have been obvious in light of Neonode and Plaisant. From http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Page 28
- 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ygra 11y agoNote that all claims need prior art. And the patent also includes a separate part being dragged in an orthogonal direction to open the camera.