5 ms·

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 f

by 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.
- jkn 14y ago
  Well here is a video of the Neonode prior art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#t=250s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... It's unlocked with a left to right swipe. Contrary to the iPhone there is no image moving with the finger. I don't think that difference is worth a patent. Moving things (i.e. images) around with the finger is a pretty obvious concept for a purely touch-based device. See for example the Microsoft Surface (now renamed to PixelSense) from 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zxk_WywMTzc#t=290 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
  - josephlord 14y ago
    Looked at the first video and for me it wouldn't count as prior art because it doesn't include the image showing the path or an object being dragged along. If I was on a jury I would say that the Neonode wasn't prior art for this patent. To be clear though this is based on an understanding of the patent covering only swipe to unlock with an image and a dragged object. Haven't looked at the MS video but are you sure 2008 is early enough for prior art for this patent in the US where the first to invent rather than first to file priority was in place at that time? There may also be other prior art but this alone doesn't convince me that this should be invalidated.
    - jkn 14y ago
      Thanks for having a look! I guess I was not clear... The point of the first video was to show that the moving image is the only thing missing from the Neonode prior art. The point of the second video was to show that moving an image on a touch screen with a finger was known to the industry before the iPhone was introduced[1]. This means that Apple's slide to unlock is nothing more than the combination of two known concepts: swipe to unlock and moving an image with the finger. Certainly not worthy of a patent in my opinion. [1] Linking to the MS video was a mistake of mine, since the device was actually introduced after the iPhone. But please, do have a look at this wonderful summary of the history of multi-touch technology (especially the list of devices in the second half of the page): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wetIwsRZhKYJ:www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wetIwsR... There's also an impressive TED video from early 2006: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...
- esolyt 14y ago
  Have you seen the Galaxy S3 lockscreen? There is not an image that moves. They had to remove the visual feedback which is an obvious addition to Nenode's slide to unlock. But apparently it is still not enough for Apple.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    No, I haven't seen it and in that case (based on your description and my very quick reading of the claims) I would hope and expect it to be found not to infringe. That is a separate issue from whether it is valid (except that both should be judged under the same understanding of the claims - narrow or broad).

by SeanDav 14y ago

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.

jkn 14y ago
Well here is a video of the Neonode prior art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#t=250s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... It's unlocked with a left to right swipe. Contrary to the iPhone there is no image moving with the finger. I don't think that difference is worth a patent. Moving things (i.e. images) around with the finger is a pretty obvious concept for a purely touch-based device. See for example the Microsoft Surface (now renamed to PixelSense) from 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zxk_WywMTzc#t=290 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
- josephlord 14y ago
  Looked at the first video and for me it wouldn't count as prior art because it doesn't include the image showing the path or an object being dragged along. If I was on a jury I would say that the Neonode wasn't prior art for this patent. To be clear though this is based on an understanding of the patent covering only swipe to unlock with an image and a dragged object. Haven't looked at the MS video but are you sure 2008 is early enough for prior art for this patent in the US where the first to invent rather than first to file priority was in place at that time? There may also be other prior art but this alone doesn't convince me that this should be invalidated.
  - jkn 14y ago
    Thanks for having a look! I guess I was not clear... The point of the first video was to show that the moving image is the only thing missing from the Neonode prior art. The point of the second video was to show that moving an image on a touch screen with a finger was known to the industry before the iPhone was introduced[1]. This means that Apple's slide to unlock is nothing more than the combination of two known concepts: swipe to unlock and moving an image with the finger. Certainly not worthy of a patent in my opinion. [1] Linking to the MS video was a mistake of mine, since the device was actually introduced after the iPhone. But please, do have a look at this wonderful summary of the history of multi-touch technology (especially the list of devices in the second half of the page): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wetIwsRZhKYJ:www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wetIwsR... There's also an impressive TED video from early 2006: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...
esolyt 14y ago
Have you seen the Galaxy S3 lockscreen? There is not an image that moves. They had to remove the visual feedback which is an obvious addition to Nenode's slide to unlock. But apparently it is still not enough for Apple.
- josephlord 14y ago
  No, I haven't seen it and in that case (based on your description and my very quick reading of the claims) I would hope and expect it to be found not to infringe. That is a separate issue from whether it is valid (except that both should be judged under the same understanding of the claims - narrow or broad).