
HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple - saket123
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232
======
azakai
> The judge said that HTC's "arc unlock" feature - which also involves a
> predefined gesture along a path shown on-screen - would have infringed
> Apple's technology had it not been for a device released in 2004.

No, no, no. It is __clearly obvious __, the fact that there happens to also be
prior art just adds insult to injury. If there had not been prior art, it
would __still __be a frivolous, trivial patent.

This is exactly what's wrong with the patent system - you don't need prior art
to tell you something is obvious and should be unpatentable.

~~~
idspispopd
I agree a patent on simple gestures is simply not logical, but working within
the constrains of the existing (and in my view, broken) system, I'd like to
explore the idea of swipe to unlock, really how obvious is it?

This is a legitimate question, and I'm looking for real answers because these
can be useful later on.

What is natural about swiping to unlock? The closest historical analogy I can
think of is moving a bolt sideways on a door, but this is tenuous and
certainly wouldn't extrapolate as the most natural/expected method of
signalling to an electronic device that I'd like it to no longer ignore my
touch gestures.

Would the closer analogy be the 'hold' slider as present on music players,
including apple's own ipods? (And earlier devices.) Again, why is this the
natural choice in lieu of a hundred other ways of telling the device that I'm
ready to work with it.

Apple's love of skeuomorphs present many seemingly 'obvious' analogies, but
they were usually rare or non existent before, so I'm curious to understand
what is the line of innovation.

~~~
Zak
_really how obvious is it?_

I think you're approaching the question from the wrong angle. Whether the
_idea_ of swipe to unlock is obvious is irrelevant; ideas can't be patented.
Only implementations can be patented. Do you think a programmer familiar with
touchscreens and mobile development would have difficulty figuring out how to
implement swipe to unlock when presented with the idea?

~~~
idspispopd
I've already stated that I view the patent system as broken. We agree here.

The question I'm asking is within this broken system. How natural is this
gesture? It means without the apple iphone, would we still be using this
gesture, would it still be considered obvious?

~~~
ebf
The slide to unlock feature is a skeuomorphic design. The sliding lock is a
very common lock on doors. I would consider it obvious for that reason alone.

~~~
idspispopd
I noted this above, but what is analogous between doors of a bygone era and
accessing a touch-based device. Swiping a portion of the screen is the obvious
component, but the skeuomorph isn't, I'm yet to see a good rationale for why
this is more obvious than the many other opening simple-gesture skeuomorphs
that could have been chosen.

I can think over many other more logical/closer skeuomorphs, which forms the
basis of my question: was apple's choice a naturally occurring one, or their
design choice. This isn't about patents, it's just a mind experiment as to
understand if this is as straight forward as it seems in retrospect. (Because
good design always appears obvious in retrospect.)

I'm yet to be presented with an answer to this, this is the crux of
originality.

------
oraj
"We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the
courtroom over competition in the marketplace."

This. I do think that Apple is an innovative company which creates great
products. But this does not in anyways justifies its actions in courtrooms all
over the world trying to exploit a system that is clearly outdated.

~~~
azylman
I struggle to think of Apple as innovative - I consider them iterative. They
DO make amazing, fantastic products. With few exceptions, however, their
products tend to be things that are iterative improvements over already
existing technology.

For example, iPhone and iPad - both of these concepts (smartphone and tablet)
already existed. Only, a lot of them were shitty before Apple came along. They
basically swept through and fixed everything that was wrong with these
devices, but it's not like they came up with the idea for a tablet or a
smartphone.

~~~
koide
Apple doesn't create new product areas, it grabs an area and disrupts the
status quo by offering significantly improved user experiences. In that
pursuit they have really innovated in various areas, from UI design to
manufacturing to logistics.

The fact they haven't created a new product area by themselves doesn't mean
they don't innovate at all.

~~~
taligent
I would argue the iPad is a new product area.

Yes tablets had existed in the past but did any of them have scaled down,
touch optimised UIs ? All I recall is full blown Windows which was probably
the biggest reason they didn't succeed.

~~~
Zak
_Yes tablets had existed in the past but did any of them have scaled down,
touch optimised UIs?_

Yes. None of them were widely commercially successful though. Products that
come to mind include the Crunchpad (which I'm not sure actually made it to
market), the Always Innovating Touchbook and the Pepper Pad. Of these, the
Crunchpad was most similar to the iPad.

So no, Apple didn't invent a new product area with the iPad. They were just
the first to find commercial success in that product area.

------
mrkmcknz
It infuriates me when I hear of these 'swipe to unlock' and 'pull to refresh'
patents that actually get issued.

Defensive use only when patents as pathetic as these are used is all well and
good. Wasn't the patent system created to protect real innovation?

A fucking slide to unlock gesture is not innovation.

Now let me go and patent that 'dance to pay' gesture.

~~~
rorrr
> _'dance to pay' gesture_

Strippers already have prior art on that one.

~~~
flyinRyan
No, that's dance to receive. Having to do the work _and_ pay is pretty unique,
though it has probably been thought of before...

------
dataminer
Following video of Neonode N1 (cited in the article) shows slide to unlock
feature predating the iphone

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-
KS2kfIr0&t=4m3s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&t=4m3s)

~~~
robomartin
I like the "yes" and "no" gestures.

------
scott_w
Interesting how "prior art" can require a product to be released in a country
to apply.

So, an international company can just see what is developed in another market,
copy it and patent it in their own country?

I can understand this being the case in 1912, but we have the world wide web.
Surely this concept is out of date?

~~~
molmalo
As something I read the other day stated (I think it was that Stratfor
monograph that was posted here, but I'm not very sure), it looks like the US
is using its patent system as a means to protect their global interests
against foreign companies/countries.

So, "if it's not here, you can still patent it" is a way to protect their
interests, and then use that new patents all over the world.

But as this case proves, maybe that strategy works against smaller
adversaries, but the ones with big pockets can still prove it wrong.

> _So, an international company can just see what is developed in another
> market, copy it and patent it in their own country?_

Multinational companies are global when things go nice, (moving money around
the world, minimizing taxes, and so on), but then they remember their homeland
when they can take advantage from that.

~~~
tedunangst
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying a company can
obtain a patent in the US and then use that patent in other jurisdictions?

~~~
molmalo
Depends on the treaties signed by those countries.

------
MichaelApproved
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".

~~~
ajross
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
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
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.

~~~
tedunangst
_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]

~~~
ajross
Certainly it can be done for some inventions. The RSA cryptosystem patent
comes to mind as something that even experts wouldn't have seen. Likewise much
of the original work on image compression, etc... You don't have to look that
far to find brilliance -- we're swimming in it. So again, that just sounds
like a platitude to me. Rather than try to defend the nonsense, you're hiding
behind the fact that you can't be proven wrong.

Or conversely: the world you apparently want to live in is one where
"protectable innovation" is cheap and worthless. _Every_ simple improvement on
an existing system becomes someone's property. Do you really want that? I
don't think you do -- I think, frankly, that you want every simple improvement
made by _Apple Computer_ to be protectable. Prove me wrong. I don't think you
can. :)

~~~
tedunangst
RSA is an interesting example, because that definitely seems to fall into the
territory of "you can't patent math". "Oh, it's just some multiplication, how
hard can it be? You can fit the whole thing on a single whiteboard."

~~~
ajross
You're on a tangent. The point wasn't whether or not RSA is patentable (it was
patented, obviously, though it was released to the public and would have
expired by now anyway). It's that even among people ("experts in the field",
legally) who understand modular exponentiation and can implement RSA
correctly, the discovery of public key encryption represents a sublime moment
of brilliance. I certainly never would have seen it, nor do I know anyone who
claims they would have. Your point was that this kind of certainty didn't
exist, and thus you're wrong (or else you're actually claiming that you think
RSA was an obvious innovation, in which case let me compose myself before
continuing...)

Even to someone (Hi!) who thinks all software patents are bad, RSA is
patentable if _anything_ is patentable. Slide to unlock, not even remotely so.

------
novalis
"Apple declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Instead it re-issued an earlier statement, saying: "We think competition is
healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not
steal ours.""

This reaks of disastrous lazy damage control PR.

~~~
prawn
Was that a statement from Apple or Neonode? ;)

~~~
nickzoic
Xerox PARC :-)

------
rodion_89
I'm curious, can Neonode now sue Apple over the use of "swipe to unlock"?

~~~
felipeko
They probably didn't believe this "technology" was worth a patent.

~~~
zmmmmm
Just like Google probably would not have even contemplated patenting a search
that draws on multiple data sources back in 2004 (it's actually kind of hard
to conceive of search in the modern world that doesn't!) - but Apple came
along and patented that.

I'm coming to a belief that the patent system's brokenness is hugely amplified
by the presumption of validity given by the courts. You can either have a very
rigorous up front patent examination system and a presumption thereafter of
validity, or you can have a loose / quick review process and a balanced
treatment in the courts (no presumption either way).

But you can't have a patent system where > 50% of patents fail to be proved
valid when challenged in the courts (which is how the current system is) AND a
presumption of validity.

If I could change one thing about the patent system, I would probably
introduce a "vexatious litigant" style restriction that said if your patents
fail to survive court challenges > 50% of the time then you lose the
presumption of validity on ALL your patents. That would put an immediate stop
to all these BS cases that are basically just trying to trip up / delay
competitors with patents that they know will fail eventually under scrutiny.

~~~
fpgeek
> Just like Google probably would not have even contemplated patenting a
> search that draws on multiple data sources back in 2004 (it's actually kind
> of hard to conceive of search in the modern world that doesn't!) - but Apple
> came along and patented that.

Now just think about Google's (and Samsung's and HTC's and ...) probable
reaction to discovering they can be blindsided by not patenting something they
thought was obvious. If you think things are bad now, just wait a few years.

------
petitmiam
In tennis and cricket, you get a set amount of challenges. Once you've used
them up, you can't make any more.

Could the courts implement something similar for patent disputes?

------
T_S_
We need an independent invention defense. If I can show I had no knowledge of
your patent and came up with the idea on my own then it must have been
obvious. If 2 other parties did also, then it must of been painfully obvious.

~~~
5hoom
That's a cool idea, but how would you prove you came up with an invention
independently if the patented device/software is already out there?

~~~
T_S_
One idea: White room. Similar to copyright avoidance.

------
studio625
What would the world look like if these patent trolls got their wishes?

~~~
drcube
Like the 20th century, with IBM and Ma Bell. Or else every industry will be
just like the current monopoly and duopoly dominated electric utility, POTS
phone service, and ISP industries. Once a company has staked a place in a new
industry, every one else will barred from competing.

------
chris_wot
Well, this is interesting! This is a valid patent in the U.S., but not in the
U.K. - I guess that the UK had a more sensible patent system. A real pity for
consumers in the U.S. I guess.

------
kogir
I slid to unlock the bathroom door in elementary school in the early nineties.
I fail to see how doing it on a phone is new or innovative.

------
gerhardi
I just hope that someone in a high enough position would roar "STOP THE
MADNESS!". These kind of patent trials are only harming the end consumer. What
kind of legislation even makes it possible to patent things like "Method of
swinging on a swing" ( <http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227> )?

------
edwinyzh
Sorry, but I just simply can't understand why "swipe to unlock" can be a
patent...

------
jiggy2011
whooopeee, does this mean my HTC phone will now get rid of that stupid "pull
ring to unlock"/"pull ring to answer call" crap?

