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


Recommended Posts

"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.....

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 2

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

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 1

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.

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****.

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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!