Apple Patents "Slide To Unlock"

[Sabre]

Hot Hardware

The patent wars continue to rage, and during a stretch where Apple is kicking some serious tail, the Cupertino crew just scored a major coup by successfully patenting the slide-to-unlock feature--at least in the U.S.

Yes, that’s the same slide-to-unlock feature used on pretty much every touchscreen smartphone and tablet in existence. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has made that small but important item Apple’s exclusive property. It remains to be seen what the company will do with this legal win, but we wager that Google personnel and Android device makers (and for that matter, the Windows Phone 7 folks) popped an antacid after their breakfasts today.

It’s also unclear how and if Apple’s competitors can get around this new patent. We’re not exactly patent law experts around here, but here’s the abstract from United States Patent 7657849--which, incidentally, was originally filed back in December of 2005.
Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image

A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. 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. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.
Does that mean that if that feature is called “swip to unlock” on Android devices, there’s no violation? Does it mean that any contact with the screen resulting in an unlocking of the device constitutes patent infringement? Does it mean that there’s no violation as long as there’s no “unlock image”?

We don’t know, but we’ll most likely hear about it from the courts in the coming months and years.

Just chipping away at the tech in Android...

[complacent]

right or wrong, they did patent the crap out of the first iphone. looks like they filed this one way the hell back in 2005. google had best get wise to the patent game in a hurry. iirc, apple filed over two hundred patents with the original iphone. i can't imagine they've just been slacking with the last four devices and their related software.

it looks like the patent was filed just two months after google bought android. wow.

[Sabre]

it looks like the patent was filed just two months after google bought android. wow.

lol, ya, talk about timing!

Interesting read: The Real Issue With Apple's 'Slide-To-Unlock' Patent: Double Patenting & Bogus Continuations

Lots of folks sent in variations on the story last week that Apple was able to get a patent on the "slide to unlock" feature. Most of the submissions were outraged that this patent was granted, with many pointing to prior art from before the patent was filed. What most people missed was that this patent, 8,046,721 is actually a continuation patent from an earlier patent, 7,657,849.

The real issue here isn't just that Apple was able to patent something as simple as "slide to unlock," but how it shows the evils of double patenting and the use of continuation patents. We've pointed to problems with continuation patents in the past, in that they have been used to "submarine" legitimate inventions. You could just watch what others were doing in the space, and file a later "continuation" patent on your earlier patent, and have an earlier priority date, despite actually copying the work from others.

The M-CAM document linked above looks deeply at the patents in question, noting how the claims in Apple's original patent were completely rejected three separate times. For whatever reason, the USPTO refuses to really issue final rejections. So those desiring patents, can just keep adjusting and adjusting.
...

[complacent]

oof. that sounds a bit dubious.... i'll have to read more about it.