Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephpmay | Hacker News Reader

Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? Also, I (personally) feel that maglock for a power cable is very different from maglock for a refrigerator. (A ticket terminal and a vending machine are very different devices covered by different patents even if they both utilize the same basic mechanisms.)

View on HN

A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone.

http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/

But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.

>But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.

I don't get how people can argue stuff like this should even be covered by patents. What's the rationale ?

Did Apple spend billions in R&D to develop this feature it now needs a mechanism to recoup it's investment ? I suppose they wouldn't "invent" swipe to unlock if it wasn't for the patent so they needed extra incentives to make it a viable investment ?

The fact that you can get a patent for something trivial and inconsequential like this shows how flawed the system is IMO.

Yeah that's supposed to be covered by the requirement that an invention be "novel" to qualify for a patent.

Who carea if it's novel or not ? Patents are a government granted monopoly defended on the premise that there would be a strong disincentive to invest in R&D if someone could just copy your deaign and a strong incentive for you to not share your invention.

In my mind there is no universe in which Apple dosen't implement swipe to unlock just because it's not patentable - it's just abusing a flawed system (can't blame them for it - they didn't make the rules)

Yes, the Neonode has "slide to unlock", but Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement. With Apple's patent, they claim novelty over having a single graphical element that the user needs to move with predefined start and end points. Another claim expands upon that saying there is a graphical arrow showing direction of movement. Another claim says there is help text explaining to the user what to do.

So yeah, on the surface one can easily state "they both have slide to unlock" but in order to discount Apple's patent you need to show that there exists prior art for the specific claims Apple made in its patent. The Neonode is not prior art for those claims.

Funny, I have a slide-to-unlock device on my front door that fits that specification exactly, the only difference is that it is not 'on a computer'. It's a ridiculous patent.

Yeah, but it doesn't come with a help text explaining to the user what to do.

actually it does, right on the box it came in

> The Neonode is not prior art for those claims.

Well, CAFC thinks that Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious:

> We reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity because the asserted claim of the ’721 patent would have been obvious in light of Neonode and Plaisant.

From http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...

Page 28

From the case:

  > Apple asserted claim 8 of the ’721 patent

This is the one claim Apple asserted. This patent claim states:

  > 8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions
  > to display visual cues to communicate a direction of
  > movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.

That the court found this one claim to be obvious doesn't negate the remaining 14 claims of the patent (excepting, perhaps, claims 9 and 10 that build on claim 8). Of course, it doesn't mean that the remaining claims can't be obvious, perhaps even blindingly so. However, what you can't do is point to this case and say "Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious"; the best you can do is point to this case and say "Claim 8 of Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious".

Your original post said that Neonode is not prior art for the claim asserted. The CAFC disagree with you, they used Neonode to rule that the claim 8 is obvious.

I don't know what are you arguing right now

  > Your original post said that Neonode is not prior art for
  > the claim asserted.

That is not true. The phrase "the claim asserted" was not part of my original post; I only used that wording after you replied to my original post with the court case, from which I quoted. My original point (which I'll quote for convenience) was that "Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement". Based on the video in the link elosyt posted, the Neonode does not have an unlock image (claim 1) that must be dragged along a channel (claim 3) with visual cues (claim 4) of text (claim 5) and an arrow showing direction (claim 6), etc. etc. Instead, Neonode appears to have an invisible unlock method with none of the visual elements that Apple claims in its patent.

That I was unaware that Neonode was found to be prior art for a single claim (claim 8) doesn't invalidate my original point that there are many claims in Apple's patent for which Neonode doesn't look to be prior art. Finding one claim to be obvious and have prior art does not invalidate the patent as a whole; the other claims remain. From Wikipedia[0]:

  > If the independent claim is determined to be invalid,
  > however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and
  > may still be broad enough to bar competitors from
  > valuable commercial territory.

This is why my original post says:

  > ... but in order to discount Apple's patent you need to
  > show that there exists prior art for the specific claims
  > Apple made in its patent.

You'll note I used "claims" in the plural, which was intentional. What you wrote:

  > Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious

is untrue as it's only one claim in the court case you linked which was found to be obvious. The court case was silent on the other claims of the patent in question and, as such, the remaining claims stand until someone else comes along and challenges them to demonstrate prior art/obviousness. If my legal understanding is incorrect on this, I welcome any corrections.

  > I don't know what are you arguing right now

I hope that clears it up. I'm not trying to argue for software patents. I think most of them are actually obvious and silly and amount to protecting something that took an entire minute to think up. That said, if software patents exist then I don't see any reason to not speak with precision about patents, and speaking precisely about patents means discussing specific claims not vagaries about the concept as a whole.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_c...

HN should patent the up/down arrows. Not that original but these ones are tiny and don't let you change you mind and I am guessing these is no prior art for that. Also the way it shades the text grey when you get downvoted.

Note that all claims need prior art. And the patent also includes a separate part being dragged in an orthogonal direction to open the camera.

In Asia small appliances had a magnet on the power cable for ages these aren't fridges but smaller appliances like kettles and hotplates and it was added exactly for the same reason that Apple added it to their laptops the only difference is that Asia has been doing so since the 60's.

Not just in Asia. I threw a couple of old (60s~70s) appliances with magnet power cables a few years ago. The cables were very north american.

> Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone?

A mediaeval church door bolt. Or whatever.

Doing the same thing but "on a computer" shouldn't allow a patent.

this. indeed from my understanding the USPTO has wizened up and is no longer issuing software patents as freely as before.

By the "same thing" you mean unlocking a church door? There is nothing "the same" about unlocking a slide bolt, and unlocking your phone by swiping an graphic which responds to your touch by animating an element of the graphic along a predefined path.

To the contrary, I think it's quite a clever implementation. If somehow inventions like this did not qualify for patent protection, then very little would. Which is a fine argument if you just hate all patents, but if you actually read and understand the slide-to-unlock patent, as far as software patents go, it's not a bad one.

Some specific claims have been found to have prior art, but the patent as a whole is not invalid. And certainly not because of door bolts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com