Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>very aggressive (and overreaching) patent lawsuits

I'm not going to disagree with you, but every time I hear people complain about Apple and patent lawsuits, I recommend the following: Watch the iPhone introduction video on YouTube. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, skip to 3.40 in Part 1, and see the state of affairs, then watch at 4.00 in Part 2 [2]. Listen to the crowd reaction when Steve "Slides to unlock" for the first time in the world.

It doesn't matter who you are, or what your background is, nobody had ever seen anything like that before.

In my opinion, Apple clearly invented something "brand new" and they are defending the patents that have on that in court. What's wrong with that?

I don't think anyone can deny successful smartphones today have almost nothing in common with the phones at 3.40 in Part 1 [1], though they look and behave a hell of a lot like the one shown at 4.00 in Part 2 [2].

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VTB7Lj_NA

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VLb5XdxRm8

EDIT: I need to clarify: I'm not just talking about "slide to unlock" being brand new and patentable.. I'm talking about the whole phone..

It does not follow.

- nobody in the world had seen anything like the entire package that was the iPhone 1.0. It was a fabulous and revolutionary package, and Apple was rewarded with a massive crowd reaction and huge profits.

However, I bet there were people in that crowd that had seen some of those features before: slide to unlock, multi-touch et cetera. However, they were probably cheering just as loud as the rest. It's often more exciting to see something done well that previously sucked than it is to see something brand new.

I'm not sure that was the first slide to unlock, it certainly wasn't the first touchscreen device. http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-granted-patent-slide-unl...

I tried to like Apple, after receiving an Apple Tv 2, but it doesn't work seamlessly with anything else I own. As one co-worker put it "You need an Apple House for that."

I'm glad all the Apple fans have lovely walls in their garden, but I'm not hanging out there. I don't like them trying to patent me into hanging out there for trivial items like "slide to unlock", either. I don't even like slide to unlock! I much prefer just punching the physical button unlock my phone, but I guess that just means I'm old and you damn kids better get off my lawn.

Can you clarify in your video where it shows the similar slide-to-unlock as in the iPhone? I can't see that at all.

edit: qdog, I can't reply to this thread or your response, so I'm going to edit my comment with a link to an article with referencing the specific patent Apple applied for (and was granted) [1].

If you look at the diagrams, it is completely different than what is shown, as there is immediate visual response where there is none in this device... that is a key part of the patent (and requires a capacitive touchscreen).

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

It's about the 4:00 minute mark. There isn't a slider bar graphic, but he has to slide left-to-right to unlock.

Apple products work well for a lot of people, I'm just not one of them, and I don't think having to 'slide to unlock' make my Android phone an iPhone clone. Nor is it the type of thing that should be patentable, imho. It'd be like he first company to have a link to a web browser on the main phone screen patenting that concept, it's a pretty obvious idea once you have a phone.

Nothing in that video invalidates the patent in question. If you're going to claim that the patent is bogus, you should read the patent first, understand what is actually being claimed, and then if you want to show prior art, specifically show which claims are being undermined.

Near as I can tell, you guys think that anything that vaguely resembles the representation of what the patent covers (which usually isn't correct in the first place-- Amazon didn't patent a "one click" at all) -- counts as prior art. Someone once told me that the movie 2001 is prior art! (If you know anything about patents, you know that a movie can never be prior art, except maybe about a movie technique. A movie is a fictional representation of an idea, not an invention that has been reduced to practice.)

I claimed that this device already had "slide to unlock", I didn't specifically say it invalidated the patent. I don't believe the patent should have been granted in the first place for a few reasons.

A dutch court, however, has said this invalidates Apple's patent.

In my opinion, just adding a 'graphic' to the slide to unlock is bullshit. There's any number of ways to slightly alter slide to unlock, add a ding, whatever, do you think they all deserve government monopoly status? I don't.

The patent from 2001 is a design patent, and I'm not a lawyer, so I won't say whether it will be invalidated. I don't really see anything clearly patentable in the idea of a touchscreen device with rounded corners. I used to have one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Concerto back in 1993.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't try patent cases, I don't intend to. These may be perfectly valid patents in the current system, but I don't agree with the system. I make no claims as to validity or invalidity WITHIN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

re: edit

That article shows the same device, and quotes a dutch ruling that it invalidates Apple's patent. Whether it gets invalidated is kind of a moot point to me, I don't think it should have been patentable.

Wrong. Slide to unlock is everywhere. Nearly all portable CD players had a physical sliding unlock button.

Just because Apple rendered this functionality in a touchscreen doesn't mean they "invented" the concept of slide to unlock. The patent is completely bogus as is all software patents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com