6 ms·

The four new patents Apple is leveraging against Samsung include the '647 "Data Detectors" patent, the '721 "Slide-to-unlock" property, the '172 "Word completio

by capo 14y ago

The four new patents Apple is leveraging against Samsung include the '647 "Data Detectors" patent, the '721 "Slide-to-unlock" property, the '172 "Word completion" invention and the '604 "Universal search" patent. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/31/apple_adds_samsungs_flagship_galaxy_s_iii_galaxy_note_to_amended_galaxy_nexus_complaint.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/31/apple_adds_sam... Just broad nonsensical software patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place. I hope Samsung fights this as I think they have a much better chance in winning even a jury trial against these, I mean why hasn't anyone invalidated these patents yet?! P.S. I'm not clear as to when Apple is hoping to ban these devices, at the December hearing? earlier? next year? I would appreciate a clarification. Edit: trial date is set for March 2014 according to this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443618604577624410538954138.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044361860457762...

wiedzmin 14y ago
Im certain t9's autocomplete could be counted as prior art.
sciwiz 14y ago
Several European courts threw out the slide to unlock patent, as there was prior art with a Neonode phone. Judge Posner, with whom Apple tried to argue that a tap is a zero length swipe, and Judge Koh were skeptical of the validity of the slide to unlock patent.
josephlord 14y ago
Slide to unlock doesn't seem broad to me. It seems easy to workaround by requiring a swipe but not moving the image until the end of the swipe or requiring a pattern of taps. There may be prior art as another poster claims, I haven't studied it but it doesn't look too broad to me.
- sciwiz 14y ago
  Samsung doesn't implement the slide to unlock action on a predetermined path. On 2012 phones, it's just swipe anywhere along any direction for a certain distance. IIRC, onn the 2011 phones it was slide the lockscreen wallpaper in any direction.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    In that case from my quick glance at the patent it already may not be infringing. If the wallpaper moves with the drag I would need to look at the claims carefully again. I was not trying to give a total judgement on the case but argue against the claim that all the patents were ridiculously broad (admittedly the data detectors one looks very broad to me although if read in the broad way MUST have prior art).
    - rustynails77 14y ago
      The important point is that Apple should be able to patent slide to unlock - it's preposterous. In fact, noone should be able to paint such trivialities.
      - josephlord 14y ago
        I don't see the problem with patenting trivialities (compared to many things) as they are easy to avoid/workaround. They still have to be novel but they don't cause such a massive problem as broad patents, standard essential patents or defacto standard essential patents (e.g. Microsoft's FAT patents). It is clear that at least at the time of grant that it wasn't the only obvious way to unlock a touchscreen - it wasn't used by MS/Palm/Ericsson. Prior art from others may apply but the fact that many weren't doing this indicates that it wasn't completely obvious.
        option_greek 14y ago
        That's like arguing there is no problem with pot holes on road as long as they are easy to step over.
        josephlord 14y ago
        There are many problems with patents but these sort of patents come about 10th on the list of problem areas if they are a problem area at all. I just can't get worked up at all about it. There are many better examples illustrating need for patent reform. The scope is highly limited and no one needs to practice them at all. There are still issues of accidental infringement and the high costs of defending actions particularly in the US. However you could just wait until challenged on issues of this type and then workaround removing the incentive to prosecute an action against SME's. To take your analagy it is more like the rough surface of a newly paved road than potholes.
- fauigerzigerk 14y ago
  It may not be broad but it's trivial and obvious. It's like dismissing a dialog box by pressing the enter key.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    I'm not sure it is obvious. There is quite a bit of detail specified (e.g. continuous movement of the image along the path) and it wasn't the approach taken by Ericsson, Palm or Microsoft in their previous touch devices so it isn't clear to me that it is obvious (at least in the detail). To me it is better to have narrow specific patents even if they aren't completely revolutionary than massively broad ones claiming whole areas of technology. Again - I haven't studied the prior art either listed in the patent or suggested by others so that may rule it out but as a concept and as patents go it seems like quite a reasonable one. That isn't to say I don't think the patent system needs major reform and may generally be doing more harm than good but this specific patent seems to me to be the wrong example to pick as an example of what is wrong with the system.
    - SeanDav 14y ago
      Desktop computers have had the concept of moving your mouse to "wake up" a sleeping computer for years. How much of a leap is it translate that to moving your finger to unlock a phone? Pretty darn obvious I would say.
      - josephlord 14y ago
        Does the mouse have to move over a specific part of the screen? Does it move an image as it moves to wake it up? From a quick glance at the patent these seem to be essential parts and are the non-trivial parts of the patent that make it easier to work around and a more reasonable patent than is suggested by many commentators. Again I'm not saying that slide to unlock is definitely valid as there may be prior art but I really find the arguments based on a straw man of what the patent is to be really unhelpful to the discussion.
        14y ago
- esolyt 14y ago
  "It seems easy to workaround by requiring a swipe but not moving the image until the end of the swipe or requiring a pattern of taps." So nobody should add visual feedback during the unlock operation, because someone did it first and patented it?
fauigerzigerk 14y ago
It's hard to imagine Samsung winning a jury trial in California against Apple. Trying patents before a local jury should be against WTO rules. It's a form of protectionism in my view.
- capo 14y ago
  If their lawyers learned their lesson and in future will screen the jury for those with an agenda and don't give a damn about prior art, I believe they'll do better.
  - fauigerzigerk 14y ago
    How do you screen a Californian jury for people who may have a bias in favor of a Californian company?
    - capo 14y ago
      I don't know, but seeing as they don't have a choice about the venue (maybe they do, I'm not a lawyer) they ought to focus on other factors and biases.
- v0cab 14y ago
  Apple created something new. Samsung had it blocked from South Korea for two years so that they could clone it and try to corner the domestic (South Korean) market. I'm not a huge fan of patents either but what can we do when countries like South Korea break every free trade agreement they make? Our politicians are only looking at the short-term election horizon and don't bother to call South Korea out on their BS.

by capo 14y ago

wiedzmin 14y ago

Im certain t9's autocomplete could be counted as prior art.

sciwiz 14y ago

Several European courts threw out the slide to unlock patent, as there was prior art with a Neonode phone. Judge Posner, with whom Apple tried to argue that a tap is a zero length swipe, and Judge Koh were skeptical of the validity of the slide to unlock patent.

josephlord 14y ago

Slide to unlock doesn't seem broad to me. It seems easy to workaround by requiring a swipe but not moving the image until the end of the swipe or requiring a pattern of taps. There may be prior art as another poster claims, I haven't studied it but it doesn't look too broad to me.

sciwiz 14y ago
Samsung doesn't implement the slide to unlock action on a predetermined path. On 2012 phones, it's just swipe anywhere along any direction for a certain distance. IIRC, onn the 2011 phones it was slide the lockscreen wallpaper in any direction.
- josephlord 14y ago
  In that case from my quick glance at the patent it already may not be infringing. If the wallpaper moves with the drag I would need to look at the claims carefully again. I was not trying to give a total judgement on the case but argue against the claim that all the patents were ridiculously broad (admittedly the data detectors one looks very broad to me although if read in the broad way MUST have prior art).
  - rustynails77 14y ago
    The important point is that Apple should be able to patent slide to unlock - it's preposterous. In fact, noone should be able to paint such trivialities.
    - josephlord 14y ago
      I don't see the problem with patenting trivialities (compared to many things) as they are easy to avoid/workaround. They still have to be novel but they don't cause such a massive problem as broad patents, standard essential patents or defacto standard essential patents (e.g. Microsoft's FAT patents). It is clear that at least at the time of grant that it wasn't the only obvious way to unlock a touchscreen - it wasn't used by MS/Palm/Ericsson. Prior art from others may apply but the fact that many weren't doing this indicates that it wasn't completely obvious.
      - option_greek 14y ago
        That's like arguing there is no problem with pot holes on road as long as they are easy to step over.
        josephlord 14y ago
        There are many problems with patents but these sort of patents come about 10th on the list of problem areas if they are a problem area at all. I just can't get worked up at all about it. There are many better examples illustrating need for patent reform. The scope is highly limited and no one needs to practice them at all. There are still issues of accidental infringement and the high costs of defending actions particularly in the US. However you could just wait until challenged on issues of this type and then workaround removing the incentive to prosecute an action against SME's. To take your analagy it is more like the rough surface of a newly paved road than potholes.
fauigerzigerk 14y ago
It may not be broad but it's trivial and obvious. It's like dismissing a dialog box by pressing the enter key.
- josephlord 14y ago
  I'm not sure it is obvious. There is quite a bit of detail specified (e.g. continuous movement of the image along the path) and it wasn't the approach taken by Ericsson, Palm or Microsoft in their previous touch devices so it isn't clear to me that it is obvious (at least in the detail). To me it is better to have narrow specific patents even if they aren't completely revolutionary than massively broad ones claiming whole areas of technology. Again - I haven't studied the prior art either listed in the patent or suggested by others so that may rule it out but as a concept and as patents go it seems like quite a reasonable one. That isn't to say I don't think the patent system needs major reform and may generally be doing more harm than good but this specific patent seems to me to be the wrong example to pick as an example of what is wrong with the system.
  - SeanDav 14y ago
    Desktop computers have had the concept of moving your mouse to "wake up" a sleeping computer for years. How much of a leap is it translate that to moving your finger to unlock a phone? Pretty darn obvious I would say.
    - josephlord 14y ago
      Does the mouse have to move over a specific part of the screen? Does it move an image as it moves to wake it up? From a quick glance at the patent these seem to be essential parts and are the non-trivial parts of the patent that make it easier to work around and a more reasonable patent than is suggested by many commentators. Again I'm not saying that slide to unlock is definitely valid as there may be prior art but I really find the arguments based on a straw man of what the patent is to be really unhelpful to the discussion.
      - 14y ago
esolyt 14y ago
"It seems easy to workaround by requiring a swipe but not moving the image until the end of the swipe or requiring a pattern of taps." So nobody should add visual feedback during the unlock operation, because someone did it first and patented it?

fauigerzigerk 14y ago

It's hard to imagine Samsung winning a jury trial in California against Apple. Trying patents before a local jury should be against WTO rules. It's a form of protectionism in my view.

capo 14y ago
If their lawyers learned their lesson and in future will screen the jury for those with an agenda and don't give a damn about prior art, I believe they'll do better.
- fauigerzigerk 14y ago
  How do you screen a Californian jury for people who may have a bias in favor of a Californian company?
  - capo 14y ago
    I don't know, but seeing as they don't have a choice about the venue (maybe they do, I'm not a lawyer) they ought to focus on other factors and biases.
v0cab 14y ago
Apple created something new. Samsung had it blocked from South Korea for two years so that they could clone it and try to corner the domestic (South Korean) market. I'm not a huge fan of patents either but what can we do when countries like South Korea break every free trade agreement they make? Our politicians are only looking at the short-term election horizon and don't bother to call South Korea out on their BS.