4 ms·

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.
pooriaazimi 14y ago
Maybe it wasn't so "trivial" when they patented it.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  No, no it was. Its right up there with someone trying to patent the ESC key.
- honzzz 14y ago
  May grandmother had "slide to unlock" on her 100-years old toilet room door.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    No, she didn't. She had a bolt. The mechanism and implementation is significantly different, unless she had a 100 year old capacitive screen attached to the door in order to operate the bolt.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      He isn't saying the bolt is prior art. He is saying that the existence of the bold implies that the concept is obvious.

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.

pooriaazimi 14y ago

Maybe it wasn't so "trivial" when they patented it.

jlgreco 14y ago
No, no it was. Its right up there with someone trying to patent the ESC key.
honzzz 14y ago
May grandmother had "slide to unlock" on her 100-years old toilet room door.
- sbuk 14y ago
  No, she didn't. She had a bolt. The mechanism and implementation is significantly different, unless she had a 100 year old capacitive screen attached to the door in order to operate the bolt.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    He isn't saying the bolt is prior art. He is saying that the existence of the bold implies that the concept is obvious.