5 ms·

love it. to quote steve again from his famous commencement speech: for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today

love it. to quote steve again from his famous commencement speech: for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something. I wonder if he's proud of suing HTC over those silly software patents like "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image" I'm not sure what to be more appalled at, the fact that the patent office actually issued that, or that apple is seriously suing over it.

mrduncan 17y ago
That's always been one of my favorite speeches. I highly recommend it to anyone who's never heard (or seen) it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
GHFigs 17y ago
Is there something specific about that patent that you find silly or do you find the whole notion that the specific way that an interface element works to be silly? It seems to me that if such things can't be copyrighted, or trademarked, aren't covered by design patents, and shouldn't covered by utility patents, then choosing to implement something in software rather than hardware would be a losing proposition for anyone trying to differentiate or innovate.
- smackfu 17y ago
  I think it's a bit silly that you can take a $0.05 component, implement it in software, and get a patent on it.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    I don't understand. What component? We're talking about software here. Just because an interface object behaves in a way reminiscent of a physical object does not mean it is that object. It has an entirely different mechanism. What you're saying is that one kind of mechanism should be patentable while another should not, but it's not clear why there is a distinction.
- lucifer 17y ago
  But where is the innovation that would justify a patent lock-in [npi]? Is it still (really?) "non-obvious" that GUI elements may mimic physical devices? What is so innovative about a virtual toggle switch?
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    But where is the innovation that would justify a patent lock-in [npi]? Read the patent. It describes the specific way the iPhone's unlock screen works, which to my knowledge (and evidently that of the USPTO) was novel at the time it was patented. If you want to know what is supposedly innovative about it, that would be the logical place to look, wouldn't it? With that in mind, I'll ask again: is theres something specific about that patent that is amiss, or is the whole idea that software-defined interface behaviors can be patented wrong to you? Is it still (really?) "non-obvious" that GUI elements may mimic physical devices? Irrelevant. There is no patent on "GUI Element That Mimics Physical Device". That's a concept, not a thing that can be patented. The idea of software interfaces that behave somewhat like physical objects may not be novel, but that tells you nothing about the novelty or lack thereof in any specific interface. What is so innovative about a virtual toggle switch? Depends on the switch. But again, this is not a patent on "the idea of virtual toggle switches", it is a patent on the specific way that Apple's unlock screen works. It should be obvious to anyone that there is more than one way to implement an unlock screen, few of which would infringe on Apple's patent, and many of which don't involve ersatz switches at all.

mrduncan 17y ago

That's always been one of my favorite speeches. I highly recommend it to anyone who's never heard (or seen) it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

GHFigs 17y ago

Is there something specific about that patent that you find silly or do you find the whole notion that the specific way that an interface element works to be silly? It seems to me that if such things can't be copyrighted, or trademarked, aren't covered by design patents, and shouldn't covered by utility patents, then choosing to implement something in software rather than hardware would be a losing proposition for anyone trying to differentiate or innovate.

smackfu 17y ago
I think it's a bit silly that you can take a $0.05 component, implement it in software, and get a patent on it.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  I don't understand. What component? We're talking about software here. Just because an interface object behaves in a way reminiscent of a physical object does not mean it is that object. It has an entirely different mechanism. What you're saying is that one kind of mechanism should be patentable while another should not, but it's not clear why there is a distinction.
lucifer 17y ago
But where is the innovation that would justify a patent lock-in [npi]? Is it still (really?) "non-obvious" that GUI elements may mimic physical devices? What is so innovative about a virtual toggle switch?
- GHFigs 17y ago
  But where is the innovation that would justify a patent lock-in [npi]? Read the patent. It describes the specific way the iPhone's unlock screen works, which to my knowledge (and evidently that of the USPTO) was novel at the time it was patented. If you want to know what is supposedly innovative about it, that would be the logical place to look, wouldn't it? With that in mind, I'll ask again: is theres something specific about that patent that is amiss, or is the whole idea that software-defined interface behaviors can be patented wrong to you? Is it still (really?) "non-obvious" that GUI elements may mimic physical devices? Irrelevant. There is no patent on "GUI Element That Mimics Physical Device". That's a concept, not a thing that can be patented. The idea of software interfaces that behave somewhat like physical objects may not be novel, but that tells you nothing about the novelty or lack thereof in any specific interface. What is so innovative about a virtual toggle switch? Depends on the switch. But again, this is not a patent on "the idea of virtual toggle switches", it is a patent on the specific way that Apple's unlock screen works. It should be obvious to anyone that there is more than one way to implement an unlock screen, few of which would infringe on Apple's patent, and many of which don't involve ersatz switches at all.