Comments on: Chalk One Up for HTC, Wins Slide-to-Unlock Patent Dispute Against Apple in U.K.

By: counsel dew

counsel dew — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:46:00 +0000

Neonode has a US patent for slide-to-unlick. Their device predates Apple’s… http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,095,879&OS=8,095,879&RS=8,095,879

By: NeedName

NeedName — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:43:00 +0000

“ideas” are NOT patentable. That’s the issue with most of cr*pple’s patents. . . they are trying to patent ideas via “software patents” which are another form of patent that should not be allowed — they weren’t when cr*pple got started thus they were able to ripoff Xerox (NO they did not license the tech, ONLY paid for a DEMO).

All 4 of your statements show one thing. You have NO idea what you are talking about on this subject, best leave it to the adults and run along now.

By: Doug Kulp

Doug Kulp — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:06:00 +0000

Or, to bring it closer to this situation, its like the patent owner of an air cushioned running shoe suing the maker of a gel cushioned running shoe, e.g., Nike suing Asics

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:55:00 +0000

Software patents should go away entirely, and the penalties for copying software code should be ramped up. Done and done.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:53:00 +0000

Silly @google-635d96662c52799f3d6a599ecfc70b13:disqus . Apple will do large screens and widgets “right,” like they did with high res screens, 3G, multitasking, video calling, app store, etc. that everyone else had before them. Apple doesn’t follow anyone else; they lead the way!*

*This statement is not meant to imply that Apple actually leads in anything. Any conjecture one makes based on information provided at WWDC is the sole responsibility of the individual; Apple make no claim of invention.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:47:00 +0000

If Apple really were innovating, I would agree with your sentiments. As they are trying to lay ownership to things like “performing a gesture on an image” to unlock, “multilingual keyboard,” “unified search,” etc.; I don’t think they have any real IP to protect. They’re just playing the game, not protecting something they came up with. Unless you think any of the following are actual inventions and not simply intuitive:
-Searching both the internet and the device
-Opening a program/browser from a link in an email
-A rectangle device with a screen on front
-A keyboard that supports multiple languages
-Unlocking a phone by any gesture on an image (even if it’s just a tap)
-Multitouch on a touch screen (not the specific implementation, mind; just the concept)

There are a bunch more, but these are ones off the top of my head that I can recall them using to sue with (and, in some cases, get injunctions granted). It’s not like they invented a new LTE radio that didn’t have a FRAND license and people reverse engineered it and copied it, or HTC copy/pasted Apple code for swiping between homescreens. All of the stuff thus far Apple accuses others of “stealing” Apple ought never have been able to own in the first place. Apple, on the other hand, is constantly using real tech innovation (like radio technology) without paying the proper licensing fees.

The only way to see it from their viewpoint is to see it as exploiting the broken software patent system to stifle competition, because this is exactly what they’re doing. It’s legal and it’s smart, but it also makes them the Scumbag Steve of the tech world.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:38:00 +0000

Except, in your analogy, Apple would have actually been granted a patent on “foot coverings for protection, performance enhancement, and aesthetics or other reasons.” The patent situation really is that broken for software patents, as Apple proves on a daily basis.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:36:00 +0000

And the grid of icons, capacitive screen, radios, etc. Apple hasn’t come up with anything new; they just put it all in a user friendly package.

By: NeedName

NeedName — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:03:00 +0000

because cr*pple is so delusional that they actually believe that any type of unlocking method on a smartphone with a touch screen belongs to them because moron patent offices erroneously awarded them a patent on “slide to unlock” and they are so stupid that they can’t figure that out — having a patent awarded these days means nothing especially that it is indeed valid.

By: NeedName

NeedName — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:56:00 +0000

That’s what their lawyers said in Australia when they were trying to ban the Samsung Galaxy Tab — ‘if customers buy it then they will be happy with it and we won’t be able to lock them into our ecosystem’ (paraphrasing).

I kid you not, the lawyers came right out and said it. And that’s what pisses me off about all these fans that think it’s about protecting IP. No, it’s about market share & locking customers into their ecosystem because they know, once you invest into iTunes you are unlikely to leave because you lose most everything you purchased. And if you try another platform you will be more than happy with it and know that cr*pple’s stuff isn’t so good after all, just marketing hype.

By: NeedName

NeedName — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:52:00 +0000

yeah, it’s very irritating reading regurgitated cr*pple hyperbole PR on the web all the time. . . as if people can’t even think just a tiny bit for themselves.

By: Guest__Comment

Guest__Comment — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:42:00 +0000

There sure are an awful lot of expert, international, software-patent attorneys on this site.
They all seem to know all the exact dates and details about:

1. Which company thought of any idea it first.
2. Which company patented any idea first.
3. Which company actually USED any idea in a product-release first.
4. Which company paid (or didn’t pay) for the right to use any idea in their products.

The small, inexpensive device I hold in my hand today, was impossible to even dream about owning, just a few short years ago.

This is “stifled development”?

By: Guest__Comment

Guest__Comment — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:33:00 +0000

Why is someone suing the hardware manufacturer for a SOFTWARE feature that’s part of the OS? Isn’t it really Google/Android that violated these software patents?

By: Guest__Comment

Guest__Comment — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:29:00 +0000

I was issued a patent once. They called it the “use a light switch to turn on your house lights”. No home-builder in the world can use my idea… unless they pay me big money. I’ll be rich! I’ll be rich, I tell you!

By: Satya Chowdary

Satya Chowdary — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:28:00 +0000

Finally a judgement that makes sense kudos UK….