4 ms·

I see a lot of comments saying swipe to unlock is obvious but I disagree. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's obvious. Now, that doesn't mean I

I see a lot of comments saying swipe to unlock is obvious but I disagree. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's obvious. Now, that doesn't mean I think Apple deserves a patent for swipe to unlock but I do think people are mixing up the terms "obvious" and "simple".

molmalo 14y ago
Well, the judge addressed this. The Neonode N1 showed a padlock on its screen with the words "right sweep to unlock" when it was in its protected mode. A later version replaced the text with an arrow. The judge said it would have been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that Apple later used. He added that the concept of a "slider" was not new since it had already appeared in Microsoft's CE system. As a result Apple's claim to the innovation was rejected. The Neonode N1 already had a swipe to unlock, just that it lacked visual feedback. But from that point, providing feedback would have been obvious.
ajross 14y ago
First off: the use of "obvious" in the law is technical, and not a synonym for "simple". It means obvious to a learned practitioner in the field. If you handed a touchscreen UI to 100 handset designers in 2007 and asked them to come up with a unlock mechnism, you really think that none of them would have invented a slide gesture? More broadly: I think your attitude is, in fact, exactly the problem. The existing patent regime tends to defaults to a judgement that if something "hasn't been invented" (worse: "the patent office wasn't presented with specific evidence that it has previously been invented") that it must be non-obvious. Some things are obviously obvious, and I know it when I see it. Slide to unlock is obvious, period. Arguing otherwise invokes a universe where every tiny bit of nonsense in every product becomes someone's property. Basically: if slide to unlock is not obvious, then everything is non-obvious and all hope is lost. Think this through -- I really don't think you want to live in that world.
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  If "some things are obviously obvious" that implies there is an objective (or universal subjective) criterion for judging obviousness. What would this be? Note that a lot of brilliance looks obvious ex post facto because one is looking up the branch and seeing only one branch instead of down it and the bifurcations.
  - ajross 14y ago
    No. You're arguing precisely the fallacy I tried to refute. The fact that you personally (or any given judge or patent officer) didn't think of something isn't reasonable grounds for making it non-obvious, which is a technical (legally "objective", if not logically) distinction. So if you want to make that case, make it. Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection. Don't hide behind platitudes.
    - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
      Patents aren't granted for brilliance, merely novelty. This is good - novelty is objective, "brilliance" or "obviousness" are not. Thus it makes sense to default novelty to being non-obvious and deal with the exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The forum democratic societies do this in is the court system.
      - esolyt 14y ago
        Actually, novelty implies non-obviousness. So you can't possibly think novelty is objective but obviousness is subjective.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection. It's not clear how one would do this. You could reply to any evidence presented "meh, not impressed." Your position is basically the mirror of the fallacy you're arguing against. The fact that you personally are not impressed doesn't make it non-obvious either. [oops, meant obvious]

molmalo 14y ago

Well, the judge addressed this. The Neonode N1 showed a padlock on its screen with the words "right sweep to unlock" when it was in its protected mode. A later version replaced the text with an arrow. The judge said it would have been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that Apple later used. He added that the concept of a "slider" was not new since it had already appeared in Microsoft's CE system. As a result Apple's claim to the innovation was rejected. The Neonode N1 already had a swipe to unlock, just that it lacked visual feedback. But from that point, providing feedback would have been obvious.

ajross 14y ago

First off: the use of "obvious" in the law is technical, and not a synonym for "simple". It means obvious to a learned practitioner in the field. If you handed a touchscreen UI to 100 handset designers in 2007 and asked them to come up with a unlock mechnism, you really think that none of them would have invented a slide gesture? More broadly: I think your attitude is, in fact, exactly the problem. The existing patent regime tends to defaults to a judgement that if something "hasn't been invented" (worse: "the patent office wasn't presented with specific evidence that it has previously been invented") that it must be non-obvious. Some things are obviously obvious, and I know it when I see it. Slide to unlock is obvious, period. Arguing otherwise invokes a universe where every tiny bit of nonsense in every product becomes someone's property. Basically: if slide to unlock is not obvious, then everything is non-obvious and all hope is lost. Think this through -- I really don't think you want to live in that world.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
If "some things are obviously obvious" that implies there is an objective (or universal subjective) criterion for judging obviousness. What would this be? Note that a lot of brilliance looks obvious ex post facto because one is looking up the branch and seeing only one branch instead of down it and the bifurcations.
- ajross 14y ago
  No. You're arguing precisely the fallacy I tried to refute. The fact that you personally (or any given judge or patent officer) didn't think of something isn't reasonable grounds for making it non-obvious, which is a technical (legally "objective", if not logically) distinction. So if you want to make that case, make it. Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection. Don't hide behind platitudes.
  - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    Patents aren't granted for brilliance, merely novelty. This is good - novelty is objective, "brilliance" or "obviousness" are not. Thus it makes sense to default novelty to being non-obvious and deal with the exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The forum democratic societies do this in is the court system.
    - esolyt 14y ago
      Actually, novelty implies non-obviousness. So you can't possibly think novelty is objective but obviousness is subjective.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection. It's not clear how one would do this. You could reply to any evidence presented "meh, not impressed." Your position is basically the mirror of the fallacy you're arguing against. The fact that you personally are not impressed doesn't make it non-obvious either. [oops, meant obvious]