5 ms·
>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
by 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)