Patent Approved: Apple Now Owns "Slide to Unlock"

[lpedraja2002]

"The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path."

Wtf! This is so ambiguous. Someone please do something!!!!

 

[darkavenger123]

I shall patent the position you take to piss in the toilet. Damn...i'll be a rich my wise and beautiful friend!

 

[ericburnby]

[citation][nom]madcow06[/nom]They didn't even come up with slide to unlock, check the article out on droid-life.com about apple getting this patent. It got denied in Dutch court because there was a phone that predated the iphone with slide to unlock. Somehow that's fine with the US patent office though, apparently you don't even have to be the first to do it to get a patent. Ridiculous.[/citation]
The Dutch decision is only preliminary, not final. They used the example of the Neonode N1M phone, which is quite different. They had two gestures on the bottom of the screen. Left>Right is "Yes" or "OK" while Right>Left is "No", "Cancel" or "Back".Sliding L>R after the lock icon comes up is the same as saying "Yes". Neonode never called it "Swipe To Unlock".

The other difference is Neonode had no graphical image whatsoever that showed the path of the gesture or any graphic showing the "progress". So if other companies want to use swipe-to-unlock that looks like Neonode, then by all means go right ahead.

 

[canadian87]

It's a patent on having a predefined motion to unlock the device. As someone stated before, if Apple didn't do it, then someone else would've and then charged Apple for royalties. It's called shoot first, ask questions later.

Second, most other phones do not have a predefined track that you must slide the object on to unlock. Such as, Swipe the glass off the screen, is not predefined. or Drag the puzzle piece onto the empty slot, is not predefined.

So there are plenty of options for competitors. They just cannot set a predefined track that the user must slide on. And for all the android people, I thought you wanted it to be free and open anyways, stop whining, this makes sure that androids can't tell you how to swipe.

 

[shinkueagle]

"SLIDE LEFT, SLIDE RIGHT, THEN SLIDE UP AND DOWN AND SHAKE YOUR PHONE AND MOVE ALL AROUND TO UNLOCK" ---> BEAT THAT APPLE.......

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

It's a patent on having a predefined motion to unlock the device. As someone stated before, if Apple didn't do it, then someone else would've and then charged Apple for royalties. It's called shoot first, ask questions later.

That would be nice. Apple needs a taste of their own medicine.

So there are plenty of options for competitors. They just cannot set a predefined track that the user must slide on.

Problem is, Apple took off the most obvious and easy method. Samsung, HTC and others will NOT let that slide easily.

All of you suckers who're saying that "other companies are doing the same" - can you recall ANY company patenting an obvious idea that does NOT take ANY resources to develop (NO, it REALLY DOESN'T... it's an instinctive gesture and I did it automatically the first time I picked up a touch smartphone) and then sue everyone? Samsung and HTC do NOT do that. And of course, NO ONE has ever tried & succeeded to fully ban a competitor's product in a certain country.

Patent system IS to blame, but Apple is worse for exploiting it. Other companies don't, no matter how much you try to convince people otherwise. Wait, MS does... but I despise them for that, too. Also, they just collect royalties; Apple refuses to do that, and Jobs clearly stated he doesn't want money, he wants to destroy Android.

Millions of people will keep buying Apple and us enthusiasts are not making a difference, say you? Fine. Just one thing: if every enthusiast will keep making sure his family and friends stay away from Apple, the situation will change. Remember: if you don't keep your family from buying iCrap, it's equivalent to ignoring someone trying to rob or rape them. Would you do that?

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I have a suggestion for Android phone developers, however... in case you don't manage to counteract that ridiculous patent, follow the Ubuntu route. Don't include the slide-unlock by default but make it available for an aftermarket download and make the customer responsible for it - and offer that download on the first instance of the phone connecting to the Internet. That way, the customer is responsible, and Apple can't do $h!t to the individual users.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Also, I hope that Samsung/HTC/etc. have some brains and only change the GUI for US, since Asian market couldn't care less for US bull$h!t "patents" - here, the only way to earn money is to make the product and sell it. Somebody "copied" your product? (Which isn't even the case here, lol) Go complain to mommy or release a better product! That's how it works. And Apple will NEVER have any power over Asia, because here people's mentality is different - nobody will even understand such a stupid claim as "patenting" a gesture.

 

[archange]

[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]I have use the sweep manouver on my gf to get her going is that now a patent violation! What a joke![/citation]

Wahhahahahahaahh xD

And that's my nomination for "Best reply". Perfectly fitting example!

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Nokia certainly is one of the responsibles, or have you forgotten the tons of smartphones they introduced before the iPhone using Symbian? And they were successful, because at one time they had the largest marketshare on smartphones, and even today Apple never achieved a market share that big. Have you also forgotten the application stores that had quite a large portfolio of software available for symbian?[/citation]

Have you forgotten how different the old label of 'smartphones' was and how not even remotely comparable any of them were to our current interpretation of a smart phone? They were smartphones by name, not by features. Look at the Nokia N95 - it wasn't even touch screen, it resembles more of a Nokia 3210 than what we now understand as a smart phone. The fact you don't recognise the huge shift in meaning of smartphone is where you go wrong. And that shift in meaning is ever since the release of the iPhone.

Nokia were successful because they were the best normal phone manufacturer, with classic bricks like the 3210 and later 8210 etc. THAT'S what made them successful, and that's what the N95 was more similar to when it came out. An 8210 with slightly more features.

The Nokia app-store wasn't even opened until May 26, 2009, way after the Apple App Store, and when it did it wasn't even remotely comparable in terms of apps or uptake.

Finally, the original poster also focused on tablets, as well as smart phones. Are you now going to continue with your original claim implying that tablets are successful due to Nokia and Sony-Ericsson?

 

[anony2004]

Doesn't this spell incompetency on patent office's part?

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Have you forgotten how different the old label of 'smartphones' was and how not even remotely comparable any of them were to our current interpretation of a smart phone? They were smartphones by name, not by features. Look at the Nokia N95 - it wasn't even touch screen, it resembles more of a Nokia 3210 than what we now understand as a smart phone. The fact you don't recognise the huge shift in meaning of smartphone is where you go wrong. And that shift in meaning is ever since the release of the iPhone.Nokia were successful because they were the best normal phone manufacturer, with classic bricks like the 3210 and later 8210 etc. THAT'S what made them successful, and that's what the N95 was more similar to when it came out. An 8210 with slightly more features.The Nokia app-store wasn't even opened until May 26, 2009, way after the Apple App Store, and when it did it wasn't even remotely comparable in terms of apps or uptake. Finally, the original poster also focused on tablets, as well as smart phones. Are you now going to continue with your original claim implying that tablets are successful due to Nokia and Sony-Ericsson?[/citation]

You're soooooo FOS... N95 was superior to iPhone 1 in every aspect when the latter came out. More features, more apps, better price. I don't mind it resembling a brick, as long as it's a nicely functional brick.

I don't pay for "app store". I pay for hardware. Nokia phones had EVERYTHING pre-installed and it was great, you did NOT need an app store - Apple forced that trend upon us.

TL;DR - just because Apple introduced a new form factor to the market does not mean you can ignore older smartphones and claim that Apple invented one.

Looking back now, it's so sad how Nokia was phased out of the game so quick - one wrong step (be stubborn and resist Android), and they're out. And WP7... well, I can't say anything about it, but it sounds like an iOS clone in terms of the idea behind it (closed environment with less flexibility as compared to Android). Hopefully WP7 will at least allow Nokia to get back on its feet, they were always #1 before the screw-up with N8/Microsoft.

You pretend to be non-biased, but in fact your comments are full of Apple worship. Troll much?

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]You're soooooo FOS... N95 was superior to iPhone 1 in every aspect when the latter came out. More features, more apps, better price. I don't mind it resembling a brick, as long as it's a nicely functional brick.I don't pay for "app store". I pay for hardware. Nokia phones had EVERYTHING pre-installed and it was great, you did NOT need an app store - Apple forced that trend upon us.TL;DR - just because Apple introduced a new form factor to the market does not mean you can ignore older smartphones and claim that Apple invented one.Looking back now, it's so sad how Nokia was phased out of the game so quick - one wrong step (be stubborn and resist Android), and they're out. And WP7... well, I can't say anything about it, but it sounds like an iOS clone in terms of the idea behind it (closed environment with less flexibility as compared to Android). Hopefully WP7 will at least allow Nokia to get back on its feet, they were always #1 before the screw-up with N8/Microsoft.You pretend to be non-biased, but in fact your comments are full of Apple worship. Troll much?[/citation]

'N95 was superior to iPhone 1'....

Please.

It had no touch screen.
It has FEWER apps.
It had NO app store.

You calling that better, is what is biased (and completely ridiculous, by the way).

Go and read all the impartial reviews of the original iPhone, it may open your eyes to the fact that you are anti-apple, not me the reverse.

The new form factor, the touch screen, and expandability through apps IS what became the norm for smartphones and revolutionised the industry. Everything that the Nokia DIDN'T have is what made the iPhone so successful. And you're so blind you can't admit that what almost any self respecting analyst would describe as a revolutionary device was better than the alternatives at the time. You need to look at yourself.

Windows 7 and comments about who will do what in the future are completely irrelevant do this discussion.

 

[shafe88]

Apple probably paid the patent office to get it approved.

 

[Guest]

@watcha

really your showing your age now, or maybe im showing my age

Ericsson R380 is the undisputed mother of modern smartphones (though i'll nod and say Nokia communicator was the father), it sported a touch screen and Symbian OS, it's spiritual successor the P800 sported a color touch screen and the ability to download apps as well as expandable memory via use of a MS slot, snort all you like but i like to point out the R380 surfaced 7 years before the iPhone, 5 years for the P800, which in tech terms is an incredibly long time, yet the P800 possessed 70% if not 80% of the functional capabilities of the iPhone, and yes i'll admit it does not sport the rounded of rectangle form factor, or multi-touch, or the eye bleeding retina display, or in fact a fruit logo

yet everyone says Apple invented the modern smartphone, but hey what do i know

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]ModernSmartphone[/nom]@watchareally your showing your age now, or maybe im showing my ageEricsson R380 is the undisputed mother of modern smartphones (though i'll nod and say Nokia communicator was the father), it sported a touch screen and Symbian OS, it's spiritual successor the P800 sported a color touch screen and the ability to download apps as well as expandable memory via use of a MS slot, snort all you like but i like to point out the R380 surfaced 7 years before the iPhone, 5 years for the P800, which in tech terms is an incredibly long time, yet the P800 possessed 70% if not 80% of the functional capabilities of the iPhone, and yes i'll admit it does not sport the rounded of rectangle form factor, or multi-touch, or the eye bleeding retina display, or in fact a fruit logoyet everyone says Apple invented the modern smartphone, but hey what do i know[/citation]

I think your post is fair, but I think there's a big difference between the meaning of smartphone when the Ericsson R380 came out, and smartphone as we understand it today.

It wasn't touch screen, it had a stylus, it had no app store, it wasn't able to properly display websites etc. I agree with you that in the very old interpretation of Smartphone, it was one of the originals, but I believe Apple took the whole smartphone market and changed its meaning with the iPhone, and that meaning has stuck with us right through to today. If you look at all the smartphones out now, they are very similar to the iPhone, in form and function. The iPhone was the first such device, and deserves credit for the way the smartphone market evolved, IMO.

 

[orionite]

As long as the patent law and the entire legal system makes it profitable to employ a staff of lawyers whose sole job it is to create patent infringement situation and then pursue infringing companies, this practice will continue. This is just another revenue stream, that - IMHO - needs to be cut off by the lawmakers, as it does not create anything.

 

[Guest]

@watcha

it was a resistive touch screen, it was touch screen just a different touch screen technology, as for the form factor, i believe LG prada came out about the same time, so you can happily argue that LG invented the form factor, but yes i'll admit Apple popularized smartphones

 

[nezzymighty]

[citation][nom]bmxdave[/nom]Patent this gesture[/citation]


I'm dying inside... this is hilarious...

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]PopularizedIt[/nom]@watchait was a resistive touch screen, it was touch screen just a different touch screen technology, as for the form factor, i believe LG prada came out about the same time, so you can happily argue that LG invented the form factor, but yes i'll admit Apple popularized smartphones[/citation]

Yep, that's what I meant with the stylus.

LG Prada claimed that Apple stole their design. I think that may even be true, but

'Before LG even officially unveiled the new phone, Apple revealed its own phone with striking similarities in luxury features and sleek design, although the iPhone’s hardware is better all around, at a slightly lower price.'

http/www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/72B08E9A-D467-45EA-B214-28D3A340C3E5.html

So maybe Apple took influences from LG, but they made made it into the first compelling complete package in that form