Apple gets a new, broader slide-to-unlock patent

[javagreen]

"Apple's first slide-to-unlock patent was granted in 2010, its second in 2011, and on cue version 3.0 was just dropped on us. US patent number 8,286,103 issued yesterday and, as expected, it's even broader than the first two. The '103 patent moves past the limiting language of the first two patents that required that the unlock image move along a predefined path, or that it at least start and stop at predefined locations on the screen. The '103 patent now broadly covers continuously moving an image to a general unlock region on the screen to unlock the device.

While most of the background language in Apple's newest claims mirrors the first two patents, two key sections were overhauled. For the path, the new claims only require the step of "continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact." So the predefined path limitation is gone. Also, the new claims only indicate that there be "movement of the unlock image from the first location to an unlock region" on the display. Again, no single predefined start or stop location is required.

You can see that the effective scope of the claim isn't concerned with where you start, the path you take, or that you end up anywhere other than a general "unlock region." It's really only important that you continuously move an image to an unlock region. That's significantly expanded patent coverage."

More at the source : The Verge

It even states, prior workarounds may be the next infringements. This is just what the world needed.....

[theclueless]

if apple sued for a device infringing this patent that got released before this new patent got filed, isn't that the definition of prior art?

[WAQT]

Samsung Galaxy S3 already does this, "Move anywhere to unlock."

[Hardcore Til I Die]

if apple sued for a device infringing this patent that got released before this new patent got filed, isn't that the definition of prior art?

Patents are backdated to when they were first put in arent they?

So if you apply for a patent in 2007, and it's granted in 2012, everyone found to be infringing between 2007-2012 could be sued.

That's my understanding but I could be completely wrong.

[anarkhy]

Those patents are so s---, can't understand how they are allowed to patent this kind of thing.

Next apple patent will be about the use of fingers to interact with touch screen devices.

[zhangm Supervisor]

Next apple patent will be about the use of fingers to interact with touch screen devices.

We present here an original claim applicable to the use of touch screens, covering the manner in which a user comes in contact with the screen, performs or does not perform a motion while remaining in contact with the screen, and then stops touching the screen.

[Buttus]

Samsung Galaxy S3 already does this, "Move anywhere to unlock."

no image moves when you unlock the s3. you can just swipe any direction and it unlocks or brings up the lock prompt to enter the PIN, pattern, whatever...

this sounds like the little arrow that moves when you swipe it, like i had on my blackberry storm years ago...

[WAQT]

no image moves when you unlock the s3. you can just swipe any direction and it unlocks or brings up the lock prompt to enter the PIN, pattern, whatever...

this sounds like the little arrow that moves when you swipe it, like i had on my blackberry storm years ago...

What will you call the ripple effect? When you touch and move your finger on a locked S3 screen the ripple moves with you.

[ArialBlue]

And this is why I stay away from Apple products - moral obligation.

[Growled Member]

And this is why I stay away from Apple products - moral obligation.

I agree. I just don't agree with the way that they do business.

[Praetor]

Samsung Galaxy S3 already does this, "Move anywhere to unlock."

Jellybean does that - slide to anywhere to unlock. I find hard to believe that Apple can be granted a patent when there's allot of prior art, unless someone is getting their pockets full.

[Buttus]

What will you call the ripple effect? When you touch and move your finger on a locked S3 screen the ripple moves with you.

it doesn't move, it ripples. a puddle ripples when you walk through it, it doesn't move with your feet as you walk.

[Astra.Xtreme]

I agree. I just don't agree with the way that they do business.

Please do explain how any of this is Apple's fault. They are playing by the rules...

[javagreen]

Please do explain how any of this is Apple's fault. They are playing by the rules...

Playing by the rules? bull****!

Apple already had 2 patents on slide-to-unlock, and this is the third. Why? Precisely because Apple is a pathetic money grab. This patent is not only anti-competitive, it was filed with the motive to create more frivolous lawsuits and slow down/block the competition.

So now other manufacturers have to spend more time & valuable resources on such a trivial thing like unlocking a phone.

[Teebor]

I'm sure that I read somwhere that apple had got a press defined as a zero length swipe in a recent legal battle/patent thing

Therefore this patent would include everything everywhere that already exists and could exist. Therefore should not be allowed, if it is allowed then it should be massively protested against by everyone

[FloatingFatMan]

Really don't see how they can be granted a patent that broadens the scope of an existing patent, and would make already existing devices infringing. This is a blatant misuse of the point behind patents.

[techbeck]

Android has been doing this in the last few version of the OS. So this patent should be invalidated. But looks like Apple thinks slide anywhere is a good idea. And I bet they think they thought of it. And they are probably right because all they to is innovate...

Just goes to prove that everyone takes ideas from others. Slide to unlock is not new... but Google made it different and now Apple patented it.

[javagreen]

Really don't see how they can be granted a patent that broadens the scope of an existing patent, and would make already existing devices infringing. This is a blatant misuse of the point behind patents.

It just goes to prove how greedy, corrupt and anti-competitive Apple is. This is just a move to sue everybody who have already implemented a workaround to slide-to-unlock.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Playing by the rules? bull****!

Apple already had 2 patents on slide-to-unlock, and this is the third. Why? Precisely because Apple is a pathetic money grab. This patent is not only anti-competitive, it was filed with the motive to create more frivolous lawsuits and slow down/block the competition.

So now other manufacturers have to spend more time & valuable resources on such a trivial thing like unlocking a phone.

Again, please explain why this is Apple's fault? Is what they're doing against the law? It may be ethically wrong, and obviously you don't agree with it, but any company can (and many do) play the same tactics. With the patent system how it is, if you don't patent your "method/process", somebody else will. I know we'll both agree that the patent system needs a massive overhaul.

But point being that none of this is Apple' fault. Every other big tech company does the same thing, but you don't hear about it because it seems only Apple is a "big deal" for whatever reason.

[Eric Veteran]

Again, please explain why this is Apple's fault? Is what they're doing against the law? It may be ethically wrong, and obviously you don't agree with it, but any company can (and many do) play the same tactics. With the patent system how it is, if you don't patent your idea, somebody else will. I know we'll both agree that the patent system needs a massive overhaul.

But point being that none of this is Apple' fault. Every other big tech company does the same thing, but you don't hear about it because it seems only Apple is a "big deal" for whatever reason.

I bolded what they're doing wrong. You cannot patent an idea, only a method of implementing it.

[Astra.Xtreme]

I bolded what they're doing wrong. You cannot patent an idea, only a method of implementing it.

That was bad wording on my part. It should be "method" instead of "idea". Thanks for catching that.

[javagreen]

Again, please explain why this is Apple's fault? Is what they're doing against the law? It may be ethically wrong, and obviously you don't agree with it, but any company can (and many do) play the same tactics. With the patent system how it is, if you don't patent your "method/process", somebody else will. I know we'll both agree that the patent system needs a massive overhaul.

But point being that none of this is Apple' fault. Every other big tech company does the same thing, but you don't hear about it because it seems only Apple is a "big deal" for whatever reason.

'Reasoning' and 'Explanations' for why it's wrong is clearly above the domain of your understanding and logic. regardless of the company doing it, attempting to (and in this case, successfully patenting actual prior art) patent a 'workaround' implemented by dozens of manufacturers is a disgusting money grab and is a wholly anti-competitive practice and should be banned.

And no, every big tech company doesn't do this. Every other big tech company simply implements a workaround, or pays the patent license fees to use the technology in question. No other company is as anti-competitive, patent whoring and pathetic as Apple (imagine patenting a workaround.. that's a rather low end tactic) - so that's why it's a big deal. If any other company were to emerge doing this, you'll see their name in blog posts and forum threads.

Again, any explanations and reasoning for why this practice is wrong is far beyond your understanding and logic. If you want to advocate for Apple, that's fine, go right ahead - just don't propogate bull****.

[Richteralan]

Really don't see how they can be granted a patent that broadens the scope of an existing patent, and would make already existing devices infringing. This is a blatant misuse of the point behind patents.

I agree with this.

[Slugsie]

Patents are backdated to when they were first put in arent they?

So if you apply for a patent in 2007, and it's granted in 2012, everyone found to be infringing between 2007-2012 could be sued.

That's my understanding but I could be completely wrong.

Except this patent was filed in August 2011. My HTC Desire from 3 years ago apparently infringes this patent. THAT is a great example of prior art which should invalidate this patent.

[MDboyz]

Wow ... so it means they can even sue WP7, WP8, or Win8 for 'moving image' to unlock the device too?

Whoever approves this patent is high on drug or something.