[pkandathil]

There were the violations by Samsung of the Apple patent:

EP 2,058,868 - method of scrolling / browsing gallery;

EP 2098948 - recording a "flag" in connection with multiple screen taps, of which Samsung would use the system by using Android 2.3 or later version;

EP 1,964,022 - method of "unlocking" of a portable device through the touch screen an "unlock image" in a way to drag.

Patenting phone unlock and how to browse through pictures is a douche move.

[sjs]

Yeah, it is a dick move. At the same time if it moves the whole industry forward then it's good for us as well. Mixed feelings.

Do you remember how we unlocked phones before the iPhone? On Nokia phones it was Menu, * which was great but my mom never remembered to use it and was always pocket-calling me. I promise you that problem has not occurred since she got an iPhone. The first time I saw slide to unlock I was amazed, yes over such a small thing. And it's a great example of why I like Apple's products. They take the time to find good solutions to common, everyday problems.

Now everyone uses slide to unlock. I like competition as much as the next guy but it's hard to see how most of Apple's competition is not riding on their coattails with Android. We all know what Android was going to be prior to the iPhone's release, a BlackBerry wannabe.

Microsoft is notably not just copying Apple. HP/Palm also. Mostly just the Android OEMs who seem to wish Android were iOS.

[icebraining]

Nokia did have slide to unlock way before the iPhone: http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/cellphone_design/...

This is a clear case of adding "...on a computer" like that was some great revolutionary advance. It isn't. It's the obvious translation of an existing concept.

[sjs]

Many great ideas are obvious in hindsight. If it was so obvious why had nobody done it?

Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."

My mom owned a Nokia slider back in the late 1900s, but the model preceding that one. If Nokia had kept making top-end phones like those were in their day I would probably still be buying Nokias. I swore by them. You could drop them, throw them, soak them, anything. Dry it out, take it apart, and it was fine. About 7-10 years ago, with a lot of their models, the worst case scenario was you bought a new case. And the UI was actually quite good, definitely superior to other phones of the time (that I tried anyway).

I had a Nokia phone from the late 1900s until 2008. The last Nokia product I bought is the n810 and it was not very good. I loved the idea but the execution was poor (and I got the 3rd version). I rarely used it and then never used it once I got an iPhone. The iPhone 3GS was a better browser than the Internet Tablet, better GPS (it's using other location data but I don't care, it's still better), and happened to also be my mp3 player and phone.

It's sad to see Nokia today, I really hope they can turn around but I have less hope for Nokia than I do for webOS :(

[icebraining]

>Many great ideas are obvious in hindsight. If it was so obvious why had nobody done it?

Because it didn't make any sense considering the technical constraints and the physical design. Smartphones before the iPhone had much smaller screens, usually resistive (requiring a stylus to operate properly) and had keyboards, which were much more practical for unlocking. Just look at the best smartphones of 2007: http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6452_7-6600061.html

>Would you say, "Oh Amazon? Whatever they're not doing anything new. They're just selling shit except their store is on the web. Big deal, that's not innovative just because they're doing it on a computer."

Basically, yes. Other people had the same idea, and there were other ecommerce websites launched before or at the same time. It was a matter of understanding sales - particularly mail order - and the Web, which wasn't exactly common.

Was it innovative? Yeah. Was it innovative enough to get a 20 years monopoly over it? No. Is Apple's slide to unlock innovative enough for that? Hell no.

[sjs]

> Because it didn't make any sense considering the technical constraints and the physical design. Smartphones before the iPhone had much smaller screens, usually resistive (requiring a stylus to operate properly) and had keyboards, which were much more practical for unlocking.

Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.

Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation. I'm not saying it warrants a patent and I never did say that. You say it's not innovative but it clearly is. As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.

This is what innovation looks like, the iPhone changed the status quo: http://www.marco.org/2010/08/19/a-smartphone-retrospective

[icebraining]

You're confusing things. Having a big, capacitive touch screen was in fact an innovation. But having that, Slide to Unlock is obvious.

Except as I pointed out that sort of thing just doesn't work for a lot of people. "Press this strange combination of keys in the right order and it unlocks" is not a usable solution for the masses. This was the status quo for at least 10 years, I remember the Menu * thing from 1998 and my last Nokia phone in 2008 had it.

But they did that because they were limited by the keyboard, and Apple did not innovate on "ways to unlock the screen using a keyboard". They innovated on a different part of the phone, which allowed them to take a different approach on phone unlocking.

Doing something in a different way than the way everyone else had done it for over 10 years prior is innovation.

Unless it's obvious, which taking as the starting point the actual innovation - the big capacitive screen - it was.

As you pointed out the slide to unlock feature is trivial compared to the bigger change of using touch as the main input mechanism.

Well, exactly. But the patent, which is what's being discussed, is only about slide to unlock, nothing else.

[tjogin]

Good design seems obvious in hindsight, but there is no denying that Apple are often the first to either do something, or the first to make something work. And then everyone copies that thing.

Doesn't mean I like software patents, just saying.

[WalterBright]

My ancient Dell laptop has a "slide to unlock" mechanical catch on it, and seen such catches on old storage boxes, etc. I fail to see how making a soft analog of it constitutes non-obvious innovation.

[sjs]

All I know is that locking and unlocking a phone used to be a problem for some people, and they no longer have a problem with Apple's solution. I don't care what you call it, my mom can actually use this version of locking and unlocking her phone without remembering some cryptic combination of keys on the keypad.

[mcantelon]

>I like competition as much as the next guy but it's hard to see how most of Apple's competition is not riding on their coattails with Android.

You don't see movie producers suing eachother for incorporating eachother's plot devices... it's ridiculous. If someone is incorporating design elements with intent to confuse the consumer, or incorporating complex design elements, then I am prepared to entertain the validity of legal action.

[martingordon]

The post says that Samsung was found guilty of violating 2,058,868, not the other two, and that 1,964,022 was rules to be null and void and Apple can no longer make claims in the Netherlands based on that patent.

[metachris]

That's pretty incorrect. The judge did find that Samsung only violated EP 2,058,868 - method of scrolling / browsing gallery, but not the other two. In fact EP 1,964,022 was declared null and void, meaning "Apple can no longer make claims in the Netherlands based on this patent".

[wgx]

>Patenting phone unlock and how to browse through pictures is a douche move.

But they did invent the "Swipe to Unlock" interaction did they not?

Previous to that it was always a clunky button combination (Menu + * on the old Nokia handsets) and this is an elegant alternative.

Why can't other manufacturers come up with a new, novel unlock method like Apple did?

[kayoone]

Yeah Apple invented it, i give them that. But do they need to patent it and sue manufactures of other smartphones that use the same technique ? Sadly, Apple became the new MS years ago..

[wgx]

Downvoted! Harsh.

I know I'm swimming against the tide here, and actually I think there are huge problems with the patent system globally.

BUT - I find it a little strange that company A invents something, protects it, then company B does the exact same thing - knowing there's a patent.. should we be surprised that Apple are using that which the law allows them?

[zmmmmm]

> should we be surprised that Apple are using that which the law allows them

Yes. Your argument seems to be that we should expect companies to behave exactly as badly as the law can possibly let them do so and that they should receive no reproach for doing that. If you use this argument then you are implying that the law should enforce good behavior in every single thing every company does, since there is no other force to make them do good things (remember, you just argued that nobody should complain about what Apple does because it is legal).

Clearly the above is ridiculous and the whole premise of "free" societies is that people and companies are granted wide freedom to do things and the law only regulates the most severe of these and that people will motivate good behavior by each other and companies by shaming them and judging them and refusing to deal with them when they behave poorly.

So yes - when Apple behaves badly they need to feel judgement from the community and this is how it happens. The company does something bad (suing over a frivolous feature to block an entire competitor's product), and we express surprise and shock that it did such a bad thing.

[hessenwolf]

'Invented'. For fuck sake, how else were you going to do it on a touch screen phone?

[thebooktocome]

Hindsight bias.

[hessenwolf]

Maybe there is different version of the galaxy with a slider that more closely resembles the Apple version?

For mine, I just have to rub my thumb along anywhere on the screen to open it, and I can choose a special pattern if I want (I really don't trust that one to work).

How else would you open a screen without buttons? By tapping on it in a pattern? Or by rubbing it in a pattern? Tap-rub-tap just to avoid a patent?

[hnhg]

The point is that it's not worth a patent.

[0x44]

With the proliferation of buttons on most android phones I've seen, they could have easily added a hardware unlock button.

[hessenwolf]

Expensive. Touchscreen phones have few parts, less assembly, less testing... even if the hardware costs more, the design and labour surely costs less?

[jsvaughan]

the "interaction" is a virtual representation of a sliding lock. apple did not invent the sliding lock.