“I previously reported on a preliminary injunction granted by a Dutch court today against the Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Ace smartphones,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents.
“In its official reaction, Samsung underscored that most of Apple’s infringement allegations failed at this stage,” Mueller reports. “Let me add — just to be precise here — that after the preliminary injunction there will still be a full-blown main proceeding in that case, and even if the judge wasn’t convinced of certain patents being valid and infringed ahead of today’s decision, it’s still possible that Apple successfully enforces those patents in the main proceeding, just like it’s also possible for Samsung to defeat the photo gallery patent in the main proceeding.”
Mueller reports, “I have meanwhile taken a closer look at the judge’s reasoning, and while I may have a patent-critical perspective and, as a result, may be particularly likely to consider patents obvious, I believe that Samsung’s defense against the slide-to-unlock patent could very well also convince U.S. juries.”
Much more in the full article here.
And this highlights the problems of the current patent system. Inventions which are not significantly different from other already patented inventions cause confusion and conflict. Real patent reform needs to happen at the review and issuance phase, not in the court system via endless lawsuits.
I agree. The patent system needs reform badly. In the end, the only ones who benefit are the dang Layers.
I had some layers for a 4H project. After they stopped laying, they became broilers.
So in your opinion faulty government procedures need to be corrected with more government procedures? The problem is that government has no incentive to be efficient, lacks the ability to attract people from the cutting edge of technology, and has no historical precedent for anything other than swelling their own bloat + bureaucracy. In short, you’re either having a hysterical fantasy or some menopause related hormone imbalance is causing your hallucinations.
The only idea out there that seems to make any sense or have any chance of causing any practical change is tort reform. It at least limits the attractiveness of lawsuits and awarded damages.
However the real fix are things like Legal-Zoom (I can’t wait for Turbo-Law!), which replaces lawyers with an iPad. If there’s one weak link in the patent/court chain, it’s the legal profession and its inherent corruption. Computers and robots can do an infinitely better job at legal representation, they are faster, more knowledgable, maintain their ethical responsibilities without fail, don’t bill for lunch and can check my email at the same time.
Let me see if I understand. One can touch an active
screen,move his finger,and something happens and
one can patent this?
Let’s hope that Apple’s other patent claims are more substantive than slide-to-unlock.
Here in lies the problem. Patent clerks allowing all kinds of pre-art crap into the system. Then East Texas courts approving it with out really thinking about it.
I suggest that if Apple’s patent slide to lock or other patent is found to be invalid, Apple takes about 500 million dollars and goes after EVERY similar patent in the US system using their lost case as prior judgement. Seeking to invalidate every patent they can find that might ever apply to them and locking up the courts for decades too. Just a thought, but if a patent is not valid by a judge why not go to the judges directly instead of a Patent clerk??
OK, done rambling, Guess I am just floored by Steve Jobs announcement. Did not see it coming so soon.
en
If it’s frivolous, then they can very well do without it. If it’s frivolous, therefore Samsung can make their own damn unlock gesture.
If they feel they need it, it’s not frivolous.
Excuse me trivial, not frivolous, but reads the same.
It’s only “obvious” AFTER someone does it for the first time. Therefore, it is NOT “trivial.”
Right. And then you and the rest of the fanboys will scream bloody murder anytime someone else tries to sue someone over what really is a frivolous patent. As long as Apple is doing the suing, there is nothing wrong with the patent system, or the patents, right?
But then you’ll get on anybody else’s case if they sue Apple because of your blind fanboy syndrome. I like Apple.
I don’t like the patent system. None of you get it. There are many tech companies, big and small. There are hundreds of thousands… millions of patents between all these companies. Apple is infringing on other companies’ patents as well, and sometimes Apple gets sued, and they lose, and then they have to pay X company/person money. Sometimes it’s millions.
The problem is the patent system. People shouldn’t be able to patent stupid, obvious shit. Sorry, the slide to unlock is absurd. This stuff has actually been around with Nokia years prior. And even so, it’s too obvious on a multi-touch device this kind of stuff.
The big beef I have with Apple is how there’re going after Samsung for the look of the device… the Samsung Galaxy phone and the Tab 10.1″ This is absurd. You can’t patent the form factor of a tablet, which is what they’re really trying to do.
Apple will not get anywhere with this. There have been zillions of tablets on the market prior to the iPad. Both imagined in Hollywood and real ones on store shelves. There are many examples of thin-slate tablet computers with a touch screen way before the iPad.
Why doesn’t Archos sue Apple for example? Or Fijitsu who was making picture frame tablets 10 years ago…
Please, prior art up the ass here. From hollywood, to Alan Kay’s DynaBook in the 60s, the the PalmTop and others.
That’s the “game.” Apple plays it because everyone else plays it and sues Apple for “frivolous” patents. And people who like Apple cheer when Apple is the challenger and complain when Apple is the victim. So what? That’s a big surprise?
Apple wins some and loses some, but what matters is the overall result, not specific results. If Apple did not aggressively play the “patents game,” Apple loses. And that would not be looking out for the best interests of Apple’s “owners,” the shareholders.
Which I guess is what all the pictures of prior art in the article are about.
imho that should not be patentable, there is no “mechanism” there, at least nothing new.
Its an object being moved on the screen under your finger as you slide your finger across the screen.
I’m surprised they even wasted to money to patent it really.
So…I wonder what that makes the “1 Click” purchase button?
Well, apparently, someone had already done it before Apple, and in a similar way. Nokia had a Windows phone in 2004 that had a slide to unlock feature. The only difference was that, when you slide your finger along the required path, the screen feedback didn’t include an icon that had followed your finger. Samsung also provided some other examples, where a music production application that used a touch-screen had an interface where you would slide your finger along a path, and an icon of a slider would follow your finger. Samsung successfully convinced the judge that the combination of the two prior inventions invalidates Apple’s right to patent specific slide-to-unlock method.
As much as we all are fans of Apple, this one they’re likely to lose.
There is plenty of other patents out there that are more substantial for them to win, though.
Unfortunately I don’t think Samsung’s defense will hold. The music production company’s product is a touch-screen version of a volume slider from physical music production gear. It’s not the same mechanism, not the same control type, it doesn’t even lock anything. A better analogy for this control is the volume slider on the phone, because that’s the same control type as the music production application’s design. It’s a grasp at straws at best, and very likely Apple will remind the court of these obvious things as this progresses.
And Predrag, you perpetual dolt, Samsung hasn’t convinced the judge of anything. This is nothing but Samsung’s press release, after getting hit with a preliminary injunction. Just because they didn’t hit with preliminary injunctions for everything, doesn’t mean for a second that Samsung has won anything.
Also you might want to consult a dictionary and look up the words likely and definitely.
It is exactly the same thing technically speaking in software.
The “slide to unlock” button does not actually “unlock” anything either, its simply there for visual feedback as you slide your finger.
Essentially if you can get away with a patent for this kind of functionality then its going to open all sorts of new issues.
Instead of looking at this as simply a UI convention over a function of the phone (which it is) you’ll have morons patenting all sorts of “slide to ” type patents.
Quote from Müller’s article (part relevant to the slide-to-lock patent):
“The Dutch judge who wrote today’s decision declared the European counterpart of that patent (EP20080903) obvious (as compared to prior art presented by Samsung) and, therefore, invalid. An invalid patent cannot be infringed, which is why the Dutch decision doesn’t even address the infringement question.”
Samsung presented prior art. Based on that, judge declared the patent invalid. What part of this did you not understand, heathen?
“slide to unlock” is hardly trivial. Others couldn’t do it because the button would lag badly behind the finger slide.