backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by borismkv.. on Feb 28 at 2:52 PM

Sorry Apple, you did not invent swipe to unlock

[This is an editorial/analysis piece.]

When I initially searched the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database and Google Patents, I missed something very interesting in the war [1][2] between Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and Android's "Big Three" -- Google Inc.'s (GOOG)  new acquisition Motorola, HTC Corp. (TPE:2498), and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930) -- regarding swipe-to-unlock intellectual property.  

Neonode Inc. (NEON) appears to be the first to patent this technology, holding a claim I missed.

I. Neonode Beat Apple to the Patent Punch by 3 Years

As I pointed out in an earlier piece, Neonode -- a small Swedish phone manufacturer -- was the first to deploy the technology commercially.  And it also appears to be the first to have patented swipe-to-unlock.

I initially missed this, as it was buried in U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879.

But there it is -- in "User interface for mobile handheld computer unit."  Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 (pg. 5).

Neonode patent
And the interface element is covered by Claim 12:

12. The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the user interface is characterised in, that an active application, function, service or setting is advanced one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from left to right, and that the active application, function, service or setting is closed or backed one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from right to left.

Now Neonode is perhaps not suing everyone because it kindly limited its own patent, writing

In the case that the patent was deemed non-novel at some point and redundant with existing drag-and-drop IP, Neonode attempts to strengthen it with a secondary claim:

12. The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the touch sensitive area is 2-3 inches in diagonal dimension.

What a novel notion -- a company narrowing its own patent to cover only what it actually has designed!  While we'll never know if this narrowing was intentional or inadvertent, either way.

Despite the apparent strength and broad scope of its patent, Neonode declined/missed its opportunity to try to cash in on its user interface innovation at the expense of stalling the mobile market with crippling lawsuits (as Apple is currently doing).

II. Is There a Difference Between These Patents?

Now let us review the matter at hand:
  1. Neonode filed for a patent on swipe to unlock 3 years before Apple did.
  2. Neonode's swipe to unlock gesture is identical to that found on the iPhone -- a fluid left-to-right motion.
  3. Apple is now suing people over the technology it "borrowed" (presumably without permission) from Neonode and applied for two patents -- U.S. Patent No. 7,657,849 and U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 on.
Let me address a point of contention I received in an email.  Yes, Neonode's display is resistive (diodes-based) touch design, where as Apple's screen is capacitive touch.  But ultimately this does not have any major affect the algorithm, as we see it on the original iPhone.  And bear in mind, Apple is not patenting capacitive multi-touch.  Other people have already done that.  

Indeed Apple's patent doesn't even mention capacitive touch in its claims.  It claims the invention of the gesture on "a touch-sensitive display" (See Claim 1 of first patent) -- a term which encompasses both resistive and capacitive touch displays.

So is there any difference between Apple's claim and Neonode's?  

It would be tempting to state that there is some sort of graphical difference looking at the iPhone versus the Neonode n1, which featured the slide-to-unlock.  But the patents are ambiguous enough they don't confine themselves specific look to the unlock mechanism (that would be more appropriate for a design patent, anyhow).

So if the difference is not graphical, what is it?

Apple's algorithm appears to have two unique claims, compared to Neonode's.  But they're actually not unique at all.  Let's discuss why.

First it claims dragging a graphic.  But let's see -- this has been done for over two decades before the filing via the ubiquitous "drag and drop".

Apple's only other seemingly unique claims is that its algorithm mentions that if the finger is removed during the swipe gesture, before the end point is reached, to cancel the result.  But ultimately, the Neonode patent simply did mention this.  If you swipe halfway across the Neonode phone (reaching the middle diode) and stop, you can't just click the endpoint several seconds later.  Neonode's algorithm was less explicit, but it appears to have the same mechanism as Apple's.  (See videos below.)





Whereas Apple relied on the capacitive touch display to implement its "contact" detection (but does not mention in the patent exactly how it determines "contact"), Neonode used timing to determine contact.

Thus Apple and Neonode's patented claims are virtually identical, other than the graphics drag, which is covered via ubiquitous drag-and-drop prior art.  The difference?  Neonode filed three years before Apple.

Apple's patent applies to all screen sizes, so it in theory overlaps with Neonode's.  And even if it was narrowed to apply to large screen sizes, copying Neonode's UI innovation and then applying it to a larger screen does not seem novel or patentable

Again, don't try to debate this on the grounds of graphical look or the difference in touch technology, as the patents are both broad enough to not confine themselves to these finer points.  You're just making yourself look silly if you do this.

III. Apple's Patents are Completely Invalid

I have to admit; even I am taken aback by this development.  I thought Apple's patent to be overly obvious and covered by prior commercial work, but I did not expect Apple to have lifted a predecessor's patent so blatantly.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been.  Late Apple CEO and co-founder Steven P. Jobs famously bragged, "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."


 
In retrospect, I now think the evidence is compelling and overwhelming that Apple's patents on swipe-to-unlock are completely invalid.  If anyone owns this technology it is Neonode.  And Neonode has narrowed its scope of strengthened its potential litigation by declaring a second claim that the technology be applied to 2-3 inch devices.  Apple's iPhone is a 3.5" device, so Apple might be required to pay licensing fees, should Neonode sue, and should the patent be upheld.

Neonode n1
The Neonode n1 [Image Source: Engadget]

Hopefully the court/patent office should soon realize this, when they review the Neonode patent -- assuming a lack of bias and sufficient technical knowledge.  And let's hope they get it right this time around.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nothing new
By Gio6518 on 2/20/2012 12:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
Apple steals everyone's ideas changes them slightly and in some cases improves on them.




RE: Nothing new
By borismkv on 2/20/2012 1:04:19 PM , Rating: 4
Congratulations! You've just described the modus operandi of the world's most successful tech companies (like, all of them).


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/20/2012 1:02:12 PM , Rating: 5
But they don't all claim to have "invented" it or try to sure everyone else out of existence over it....slight difference.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/20/2012 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 3
try to sue*

Gah, and no edit button! Why is there no edit button?


RE: Nothing new
By TSS on 2/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/20/2012 8:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
No shit sherlock...it was one letter...


RE: Nothing new
By AerieC on 2/21/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing new
By fic2 on 2/21/2012 12:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is there no edit button?


Because it was patented by a troll.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 12:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
So Apple has a patent on the edit button. Figures.


RE: Nothing new
By BZDTemp on 2/20/2012 5:40:57 PM , Rating: 5
That is such a load of BS.

Plenty of tech companies does not only amazing amounts of research and some even do ground level research into fields of physics, chemistry and so on.

Compared to their size Apple is a company that does very little with regards to research and recently it seems they employ more lawyers than engineers.


RE: Nothing new
By borismkv on 2/28/2012 2:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
world's most successful tech companies


Reading comprehension fail.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/20/2012 1:08:30 PM , Rating: 4
"Apple steals everyone's ideas changes them slightly and in some cases improves on them."

Yup... and its perfectly OK to do that. All companies do. The problem comes up because Apple sues other companies for doing the same thing.

Did Samsung steal some ideas from Apple? Yes
Did Android steal some ideas from Apple? Yes
Did Apple steal some ideas from Microsoft? Yes
Did Apple steal some ideas from Neonode? Yes
Did Apple steal some ideas from Palm? A loud and resounding hell yes is many many ways.

Why is it OK for Apple to do it, and not others? Why the double standard?


RE: Nothing new
By JediJeb on 2/20/2012 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why is it OK for Apple to do it, and not others?


Because Apple said so.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By nafhan on 2/20/2012 5:29:54 PM , Rating: 4
So, it sounds like you are claiming that the validity of a patent is based on how well something sells... Why are you even bringing that up in regards to a discussion on patent validity? It kind of comes across as a forum version of "lalalalala, I can't hear you!" :)

Anyway, truly innovative products rarely sell well (at least initially). If it's TRULY innovative, people don't know what to do with it. Most people don't even want innovation - they want products that do things they already do, but better. This is what Apple's good at. Not innovation. AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. In fact, judging from a financial perspective, there's a lot right with that...


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/21/2012 6:43:30 AM , Rating: 3
" Apple at least adds their own technology to the table. Is the iPhone like any palm device? Of course not. Is the slide-to-unlock the same as on the Neonode? No. This is to address the accusations of non-innovation which go hand in hand with arguments about 'copying' ideas, such as the 'Palm' device which the previous poster brought up. I didn't mention number of sales either, I mentioned the fact the devices are superior - which I stand by as being the very innovation Apple brings to the table."

So, its OK for Apple to copy Neonode, because they made slide unlock better. And its OK for Apple to copy Palm because they made the smartphone better. I agree with that part. The iPhone was way ahead of the rest on OS and UI and improved the market in a major way. They made everyone else raise their games.

OK, so by that logic Android should be fine then. Google added to the tech and now make a far superior product. Problem solved... Android 4.0 blows IOS away, and there are many many phone hardware designs on Android that blow the iPhone away as well.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 8:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's OK for Apple to copy Neonode because they didn't infringe upon a patent(on the evidence so far).
LOL....the evidence is all AROUND YOU. You choose to ignore it.

quote:
Just because Apple innovated doesn't necessarily mean they didn't copy - but it does mean they innovated so they don't 'just' copy.
Can you contradict yourself anymore here? Either they did or they didn't. Evidence shows they did.

quote:
While I don't agree that Android blows iOS away ( I actually am quite indifferent , both do everything the end user needs)
No, you certainly are not, the evidence on these pages prove this.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 9:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've stated that Apple did NOT infringe on Neonode patents.
Ok Mr. Lawyer. Thank god people like you aren't lawyers. We would be in trouble.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/21/2012 11:03:43 AM , Rating: 1
"Neonode obviously doesn't believe Apple infringed upon their patent. Nor, clearly, do the Motorola lawyers."

I think you have it backwards. There isnt a case, so Neonode isnt suing. In Apple's case, they have plenty of money to buy the best team of corporate lawyers money can buy to send these cases to court in the hopes they can use their high prices lawyers to scrape out a victory. So for this has not happened. It will very likely fail because the patents are vague and not enforceable.

What is Apple doing? Its a PR game. It's not that they think they have a case, its that they want people to think that they have a case. Sheep like you buy into and actually think apple invents and doesnt copy. They win the PR game, and in the end, if their lawyers can trick a few countries courts to decide thier way, it's a win.

Low down, dirty law tricks and PR is all it is. It's a shame really, because Apple products are nice and well built and people want them. Apple is more than capable to compete on their own without the frivolous PR lawsuits.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you have it backwards. There isnt a case, so Neonode isnt suing


How is this in any way contradictory to my claim that:

quote:
Neonode obviously doesn't believe Apple infringed upon their patent. Nor, clearly, do the Motorola lawyers.


quote:
In Apple's case, they have plenty of money to buy the best team of corporate lawyers money can buy to send these cases to court in the hopes they can use their high prices lawyers to scrape out a victory. So for this has not happened. It will very likely fail because the patents are vague and not enforceable.


Because Samsung, Motorola, Google, can't afford lawyers? Please. If they believed it would fail, there would be no point trying to enforce it. The patent is granted, and the court has already confirmed that Motorola is infringing on said patent. Clearly, then, Apple has an arguable case. The only question remaining is whether or not the patent is valid or not and Apple is perfectly entitled to believe that it is, given that it was granted. This is not at all similar to Neonode who clearly don't have even an arguable case.

quote:
What is Apple doing? Its a PR game. It's not that they think they have a case, its that they want people to think that they have a case. Sheep like you buy into and actually think apple invents and doesnt copy


First, how stupid can you be? Apples PR is, if anything, damaged, by these lawsuits. Secondly, don't ever try to tell me, a superior mind, what I think as a result of the legal cases. Finally - I don't think anybody reads into this case anything about Apple inventing or being innovative, or even not copying - since the question of whether Apple copied or not is not even a part of this case. Most see it as an irrelevant lawsuit which doesn't affect them which will be sorted out with money or a workaround. In other words, they don't care. The only people crying about it are Anti-Apple haters like you. Of course, you work on the assumption that their legal case is wrong, something not even close to being evidenced yet - and believe that that represents fact. It's an idiotic, biased opinion of yours. No more, no less.

quote:
Low down, dirty law tricks and PR is all it is. It's a shame really, because Apple products are nice and well built and people want them. Apple is more than capable to compete on their own without the frivolous PR lawsuits.


Yeah Apple is gonna be riding the PR wave now. And thank god that Samsung and Motorola are so awesome and would never try frivolous lawsuits over FRAND patents leading them to be investigated for FRAND abuse.

/sigh


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly, don't ever try to tell me, a superior mind
TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Now this is FUNNY....


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:28:58 AM , Rating: 2
Like tickling a monkey...

Goochy-goo!


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/21/2012 11:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
"don't ever try to tell me, a superior mind, what I think as a result of the legal cases"

ROFL

Thanks, you made my morning. LOL, still giggling over that one.

Yes, you sure are a superior mind... Yet, here we both are, on the same tech site, posting in the same article. I hope you feel vastly superior calling me stupid and Cheese a monkey. Clearly that is the behavior of a securely superior mind.

LOL


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 12:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why wouldn't it be? You are inferior, and cheesy is akin to a monkey?

It doesn't take a genius to see that - and please don't try to equate us because we're doing the 'same' thing. I'm posting logical facts, you... aren't.

And you're failing to grasp what is being said too.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 12:54:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm posting logical facts, you... aren't.
WRONG, opinions aren't "logical facts ". Not sure what world you live in where you think opinions are FACTS , cause it's sure as shit isn't in the real world.

At this point, I am completely of the opinion, that you have no idea what a FACT actually is.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 12:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but as I originally stated, it IS a fact that there is both illegal and legal copying. The difference, as I stated, is that illegal copying infringes on patents.

It is also a fact that Motorola was found to be infringing on Apple's slide-to-unlock patent.

It is also a fact that Samsung Tab was banned in Germany due to infringing upon a patent.

It is also a fact that Samsung tried to ban Apple devices with a FRAND patent and is under investigation for FRAND abuse.

It is also a fact that Motorola tried to do the same.

It is also a fact that Neonode has not attempted any kind of legal action based on this patent, which, if infringed upon, would make them millions and millions.

It is also a case that I have not stated which way I want or believe this legal case would or should go.

It is also a fact that the Apple patent includes visual feedback following the hand, refers to a 'predefined path' rather than left-to-right, and doesn't include 'going back' by swiping the other way.

It is also a fact that the Neonode patent DOESN'T include these.

Basically summarised all the FACTS there, and you're still trying to claim I've voiced an opinion on who will or should win the case without even a shred of evidence.

This, is why I call you a monkey.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/21/2012 1:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
I grasp what you are saying you ignorant ass, i just think you are full of s#$t. Don't think that disagreeing with you = lack of intelligence. You need to grasp the concept that maybe, just maybe you are wrong. Your debate skills FAR outweigh your logic skills and ability to reason.

Legally speaking yes, Apple at least has enough to merit an investigation. But they aren't winning anything outside of the one case in Germany. They have been unanimously turned down everywhere else, yet you come off as if they are winning all these cases. You seem to have a respect for the rule of law, but conveniently ignore the results of the court cases that dont support your view. The ones that have finished are not going Apples way. But, hey... You go on acting as if they are winning. That is what you fanboy/trolls do.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 1:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I grasp what you are saying you ignorant ass, i just think you are full of s#$t.


Calm down there, soldier ;-)

quote:
Don't think that disagreeing with you = lack of intelligence


Since disagreeing with me is disagreeing with facts, this is exactly what I think.

quote:
You need to grasp the concept that maybe, just maybe you are wrong


Since I have presented only facts, this is not an option. Which is why I presented facts. Again, you need to realise that I have still not yet voiced an opinion on the outcome I would like to see in this case, or what should be the outcome.

quote:
Legally speaking yes, Apple at least has enough to merit an investigation. But they aren't winning anything outside of the one case in Germany.


Whether Apple wins cases when they attempt to sue someone or not is not relevant to anything I've said. Nothing I've said depends on them winning all, of even the majority of their cases. Only one case in which they are successful is all that is required to prove that there was an infringement - which is all that I've claimed. The scope, region, of that infringement, do not change that reality.

quote:
yet you come off as if they are winning all these cases


Again, I think you're projecting your own issues, since I've never said anything which even remotely resembles this.

quote:
You seem to have a respect for the rule of law, but conveniently ignore the results of the court cases that dont support your view


I've not ignored any cases. Cases in which Apple sues and loses do not prove that Apple infringes copyright. Nothing I have said is reliant on apple having not lost cases. Again, you seem to make the assumption that because I put forward some points which may appear positive towards Apple, that I therefore subscribe to anything which is positive towards Apple, despite this not being in line with what I have claimed.

quote:
But, hey... You go on acting as if they are winning. That is what you fanboy/trolls do.


See, after all that I've said, your continued failure to grasp what is and what isn't being said is why I reach the conclusion I do about your intelligence. You're incorrectly inferring things which have not been said and are arguing against them. You need to read what I say very carefully, since I'm precise and accurate.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 1:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, you need to realise that I have still not yet voiced an opinion on the outcome I would like to see in this case, or what should be the outcome.
We all know your opinion, it's blatantly OBVIOUS.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/21/2012 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
"you seem to make the assumption that because I put forward some points which may appear positive towards Apple, that I therefore subscribe to anything which is positive towards Apple, despite this not being in line with what I have claimed."

Lets see here... You ignore any postitive points about competing companies cases, and ignore any negative points about Apples cases. You concentrate on any postitive points about Apples cases, and concentrate any negative points about competing companies cases. You take one side, no matter what. All that would be at least OK, if you ever did anything here but post in article s about iPhone and Apple. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you only have one subject matter? then you insult people that dont subscribe to your agenda, and lets not mince words. You ARE here on an agenda. Look at the posts in this article alone. You are all over it defending Apple as if it is your personal company. I bet you dont have a lot of friends do you? You have to so emphatically associate yourself with a company that you just cant stand to see differeing opinions. Then you state claims as if they are facts and and yes, you DO come off as if Apple won these cases when they haven't.

Really, get a life man. Apple is just a company. You dont need to defend their honor as if it matters. It doesnt. The only thing you have proven here is that you are a troll with an agenda. Wow, thats a really smart use of your time genius. Anyone half way intelligent t wouldnt feel the need to tout it several times in a single thread. ME thinks he is overcompensating for something lacking in his life. =)


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/22/2012 3:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets see here... You ignore any postitive points about competing companies cases, and ignore any negative points about Apples cases.


As I already told you - I'm not ignoring them - they are just not relevant to anything I've said. It's like me saying 'football is the best sport' and you are replying 'I like cheese' - and I'm trying to explain to you why they are not mutually exclusive. Nothing I have said is predicated on Apple having not lost any legal cases. Please, read this, over and over, because you just_keep_missing it.

quote:
You concentrate on any postitive points about Apples cases, and concentrate any negative points about competing companies cases. You take one side, no matter what.


What I am pointing out was the answer to a question - because it was what someone else was missing. They asked why Apple can copy and why Samsung can't. I explained the LOGICAL reason that some copying infringes upon patents, and some doesn't. The latter is legal, the former isn't. Furthermore, pointing out facts, whether they focus on positive or negative aspects about anything or anyone - doesn't change the fact they are facts. Facts by their very nature are true and unbiased. Again, my fears over your intelligence surface when you say 'you take one side, no matter what' despite what must be... 10 times now, I've told you personally that I've not even stated my opinion on this case. Seriously.

quote:
All that would be at least OK, if you ever did anything here but post in article s about iPhone and Apple


The articles I post in have no relevance to the points I've made. Again, complete logical failure on your part.

quote:
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you only have one subject matter?


Firstly - again, please, don't try to understand me or know what interests or subjects I have.
Secondly - even if your ludicrous and illogical assertion that I have 'only one subject matter' was right, this again, would not affect the logic behind anything I've said. Notice how none of your retorts actually respond to any of the facts I've laid out. There's a reason for that.
Thirdly - again, putting aside your idiocy, if I had a specific interest in something I would consider myself potentially more educated on it.

quote:
then you insult people that dont subscribe to your agenda, and lets not mince words


Your continued failure to recognise that I've simply stated facts is my continued evidence that I was not, in fact, insulting you - simply telling it like it is. The 'agenda' you claim I have is simply to clarify logic. As I've explained before (note that pretty much everything here has been said before - yet you failed to get it) - the fact is that the majority of idiots with false sentiments on here tend to be pro-Android, so I happen to find myself correcting people making false accusations against Apple. You are a good example. That is a fault of the anti-Apple bias on this site, and that same fault makes me, an objective neutral, appear biased. As I said, logic doesn't necessarily appear logical to illogical people.

quote:
Look at the posts in this article alone. You are all over it defending Apple as if it is your personal company


If simply stating facts is 'defending Apple' then what does that tell you? And make no mistake - that's what I've done. Again, for the 11th time, lets remind the slow guy at the back that I've STILL not voiced any opinion on who should win this case < READ. No seriously, read it. Lets not require a need for a 12th time? :-)

quote:
I bet you dont have a lot of friends do you?


LOL.

quote:
You have to so emphatically associate yourself with a company that you just cant stand to see differeing opinions


A comment to a neutral from a guy who openly admits to 'hating' Apple. There are no opinions on what I've presented - they are facts. And I don't care that there are stupid people, such as yourself, who don't realise that - in fact I quite enjoy making it clear to the educated reading world why you're wrong. Furthermore, you mention 'differing opinions' as if you have addressed any of the facts I've mentioned, in any way disproving any of them. That your whole conversation has now become an attempt to assassinate ME rather than my points, shows exactly why you're a failure.

quote:
Then you state claims as if they are facts and and yes, you DO come off as if Apple won these cases when they haven't.


If you don't understand the difference between stating the fact that Apple won a patent infringement case which got Samsung devices banned, or the fact that Motorola was found to be infringing on Apples slide-to-unlock patent, and claiming that Apple won 'these cases' (so precise, by the way) - by which I assume you mean 'all' cases - that's your own failure, not mine. Again, as I told you, all building up the stupidity picture.

quote:
Really, get a life man. Apple is just a company. You dont need to defend their honor as if it matters. It doesnt.


Lets be clear that only one of us has confirmed an irrational emotion on said 'just a company', and it isn't me. Again, your claim that I am 'defending their honour' when I am simply stating facts shows your own insecurity and your own issues and emotional attachment to said company (obviously a negative one).

quote:
The only thing you have proven here is that you are a troll with an agenda. Wow, thats a really smart use of your time genius.


This coming from a guy who just wrote a whole rant which didn't address any of the points I made whatsoever (the definition of a troll). As for 'smart use of my time' - I enjoy this, as far as I'm concerned that's the smartest use of anyone's time.

quote:
Anyone half way intelligent t wouldnt feel the need to tout it several times in a single thread. ME thinks he is overcompensating for something lacking in his life. =)


Since you lack the intelligence to know what intelligent people think, I don't attach much credence to your assertions about what they would or would not do. I wanted you to be perfectly clear that you are being illogical, coming across as stupid, and that I am clearly more intelligent than you. Whether this is driven by 'overcompensation' such as you suggest, or simply an overwhelming certainty with which I state it - only I can ever know ;-)

Good points on the discussion though, by the way, well evidenced proof that anything I've said is incorrect.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/22/2012 3:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
And by the way - compare your own analysis with what is 'biased trolling' with your own posts on this article.

Ironic much?


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/22/2012 10:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
" compare your own analysis with what is 'biased trolling' with your own posts on this article."

You are laughable... I post in all sorts of articles here. Anandtech has been my start page for over 12 years and I also post positive things about Apple. I think they drive the industry to higher standards and I am very glad for it. The initial iPhone release changed the smartphone industry in a major way for the better and we ALL owe them a pat on the back for that. A big pat on the back. I also like thier products and see why people buy them in such high #'s. I only have issue with their lawsuits and questionable patents. I leave that for the courts to decide. Like I said, so far they are deciding againts Apple. I am not going to get into that with a troll like you any longer.

At the time I post this, there are 113 comments on this article. 38 of them are from you alone Testerguy. You have argued with every single person that posted anything at all in this article, and then you have to go back to make sure you get the last word. What does that look like to you? Surely someone with your "superior" intelligence can see that it looks like you are trying WAY too hard to get your point across (/cough Troll). All that and "I have no preference toward Apple" LOL. Hilarious... You sure try awfully hard for no preference. Your just a joke at this point.

Here is a link you should find very helpful.
https://www.google.com/search?q=self+awareness&ie=...


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/22/2012 1:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are laughable... I post in all sorts of articles here.


Could not be more irrelevant.

quote:
Anandtech has been my start page for over 12 years and I also post positive things about Apple.


Could not be more irrelevant, and not in this article.

quote:
I think they drive the industry to higher standards and I am very glad for it. The initial iPhone release changed the smartphone industry in a major way for the better and we ALL owe them a pat on the back for that. A big pat on the back. I also like thier products and see why people buy them in such high #'s.


Yes, they do, yes it did, and yes we do.

quote:
I only have issue with their lawsuits and questionable patents. I leave that for the courts to decide. Like I said, so far they are deciding againts Apple. I am not going to get into that with a troll like you any longer.


You having an issue with their lawsuits does not contradict any of the comments I've made, don't know why you're saying it. when the courts do reach a decision against Apple, it has not been that Apple infringed. It's been that in that region, the other manufacturer is believed to not have infringed. There's a big difference between that and Apple losing an infringement of a non-FRAND suit brought against them (which hasn't happened recently). Similarly, it only takes one region or one court to decide with Apple to vindicate their case and to prove that Samsung or Motorola DID INFRINGE in that specific area. Just because you are not infringing in one area does NOT mean you didn't infringe anywhere.

quote:
At the time I post this, there are 113 comments on this article. 38 of them are from you alone Testerguy


As little as I respect you, I think I lost just that little bit more at you even finding this out. Congratulations.

quote:
You have argued with every single person that posted anything at all in this article, and then you have to go back to make sure you get the last word


I have corrected every single person who made a factual mistake or mistakenly tried to correct my factual statement. That this is nearly everyone further backs up my assertion that there is too much anti-Apple bias on here. As for 'getting the last word' - how ironic given that you're still replying?

quote:
What does that look like to you? Surely someone with your "superior" intelligence can see that it looks like you are trying WAY too hard to get your point across (/cough Troll).


Every time you try to come up with a new post which attempts to disprove anything I've said (actually most of the time you don't even try that anymore) - you give me more reasons and subjects with which to point out your mistakes. As for thinking that saying I am 'trying too hard' addresses any of the points I made, or contradicts them in any way, that is a perfect example of you adding more completely illogical content which I enjoy correcting - not for your benefit, but for my own enjoyment. Again, don't flatter yourself that 'getting a point across' to an inferior mind such as yours is the objective here. At least when I do comment, I stick directly to the content of either the post I'm replying to, or the article in question. The only reason we're debating this right now is because of your own irrelevant drivel which you resorted to after not being able to disprove anything I've said.

quote:
All that and "I have no preference toward Apple" LOL. Hilarious... You sure try awfully hard for no preference. Your just a joke at this point.


Again, I maintain that I have no preference towards Apple. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

And here comes my best argument, which will address all of your points, including the content of the article, and make me feel better about not being able to argue with you in any logical way... can you guess what it is yet? It's a link to a google search for 'Self awareness'...

Jeez - could you be any more of a fail? (Said in the style of Chandler Bing).


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2012 1:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jeez - could you be any more of a fail?
No, you can't possibly be anymore fail.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/22/2012 1:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, wow. What a deluded nutjob.

In prior articles, I thought he was just a biased troll. Now I see that he has much deeper issues, as well as delusions of grandeur (and intelligence) LOL. One still has to wonder what such a superior intellect is doing hanging out on a site with so much anti-Apple bias. I guess it makes him feel good about himself. He seems to need the false boost.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2012 2:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
Love how he feels the need to write a book each time to try to make his point....lol


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2012 1:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's time to just ignore him. Everything you have said is 100 percent true. He just can't help but have the last word and just continues to jabber his jaw like an idiot trying to show his "superiority" but just ends up looking like the retard he is.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/22/2012 2:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, I know, "dont feed the troll" is always good advise. I often do it anyways. In this case I actually find it interesting. Mental illness has always fascinated me... The things people think and the lengths they will go are just amazing.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2012 2:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
So true, so true.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/23/2012 2:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
5 posts not even attempting to offer any retort to my factual statements.

The definition of trolling.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 11:08:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
and also using Apple icons in their promotion.
WHAT? Complete bullshit. Why do you insist on making up lies? Really?


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 11:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Update: SetteB.IT reports (via Google Translate) that the app wall is part of the Euronics store's design and not commissioned by Samsung.
So, Samsung wasn't part of this and had NOTHING to do with it.

This is even from AppleInsider....

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/23/sams...

Go figure, just another excuse to try to paint Samsung as some copycat....


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:27:05 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't read your link, because even if Samsung wasn't behind the icons - they are a tiny part of a long list of failures which I listed.

Picking out one and disregarding all the others just shows you have no response to any of them. In actual fact, the icons being used in the background was probably the least relevant anyway, since we're talking about a specific device.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 11:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Picking out one and disregarding all the others just shows you have no response to any of them
Ironic you say that....


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
= still not addressing any of the other points.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/20/2012 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 5
Apple didn't infringe upon patents. Samsung, and Android did.

Apple saying that, and you saying that doesnt make it true. Courts are deciding unanimously against Apple on this. The only exception to that is Germany, which is a one off situation. People need to start understanding that .


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/20/2012 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People need to start understanding that
Some never will...


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By Gondor on 2/20/2012 2:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Don't like your Tony Swash moniker anymore ?


RE: Nothing new
By Ramtech on 2/20/2012 2:46:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's the difference between illegal and legal copying. People need to start understanding this.


What is this guy smoking?


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/20/2012 2:51:44 PM , Rating: 3
I have no idea, but its not a good trip.

This is the clown who insists he is not an Apple fan, and doesn't have any preference for them. Yet somehow, when you click on his ID, he only posts in Apple related articles, and no matter the issue, sides with Apple. Go figure. I guess his life is so dull, that Apple actually fills some void.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/21/2012 2:33:05 AM , Rating: 2
Whatever you need to tell yourself man. Whatever.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 2:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Good point, 'man', good point.


RE: Nothing new
By retrospooty on 2/21/2012 6:35:06 AM , Rating: 2
When a fanboy comes on and only posts in one type of article in favor of one product or company you really cant make any points. Your mind is made up and your agenda is set. Nothing I can say is going to change your view that Apple is always right, regardless of the dispute. You arent here to debate or listen to any points.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 7:44:21 AM , Rating: 1
The only thing I'm doing is explaining logic.

The same logic which applies to ANY and ALL companies.

That you interpret it as bias and believe that an interest in smartphones backs that up, is the problem.

I do make comments which I know to be correct, yes, and in that respect I am not open to debate. Whether Apple is or isn't correct, as I've explained to you several times already, is not relevant to the facts I've laid out.

It was, and will remain the case, that copying is legal where it doesn't infringe upon patents, and copying is illegal when it does. Thus, we'll call them 'Company A' can copy anything it likes, legally, if it doesn't infringe upon patents. Furthermore, Company A has every right to defend it's own patents despite the aforementioned copying.

Simple, obvious. And your best response is 'you only post on smartphone articles'.... come on. The only one who isn't listening here is you.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 8:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing I'm doing is explaining logic.
No, you aren't, it's your opinion...

quote:
That you interpret it as bias
It is...

quote:
Whether Apple is or isn't correct, as I've explained to you several times already, is not relevant to the facts I've laid out.
It is 100 PERCENT relevant, regardless of your opinion ..


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 8:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Monkey doesn't get it.

Quite time.


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 7:14:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even right now, in this article, I haven't taken any side
Bullshit. You truly are delusional.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 9:03:00 AM , Rating: 1
Again, feel free to quote which part of my comments voices my decision on which company should win....


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 10:53:45 AM , Rating: 1
Pretty much all of them are for Apple, if you deny this, you most certainly are mentally unstable and full of shit. It's obvious to EVERYONE here but you and your Apple butt buddies.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:18:28 AM , Rating: 1
Again... feel free to quote which part of my comments voices my decision on which company should win....


RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 11:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
Again, all of them. Not only are you stupid, you must be blind too.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 12:46:31 PM , Rating: 1
Again..... feel free to quote which part of my comments voices my decision on which company should win....

If you think 'all of them' - post one, and show how it concludes which company should win.

You can't, can you?

Bless.


RE: Nothing new
By bigdawg1988 on 2/21/2012 11:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
What is this guy smoking?

Apple cores?


RE: Nothing new
By drycrust3 on 2/20/2012 3:09:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's OK for Apple to do it because Apple didn't infringe upon patents.

Jason has shown that Apple should have cited Neonode's patent in their patent application because of the huge amount of similarity between Neonode's patent and what Apple wanted to do, but didn't.
So we have one of the richest companies in the world, and when they apply for a patent they overlook citing at least one patent that could have had their patent application rejected. If what you want to patent is so similar to what someone else has patented that your application might be rejected if you cite that patent, then doesn't that sound like your idea isn't unique and original?


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 7:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
on which I have not voiced any opinion
Rightttttttttttttttt, keep telling yourself that.

quote:
(at least on the evidence so far
Plenty of evidence, but like Tony, you refuse to believe it.

quote:
they were found to have infringed by a court and the Galaxy tab was banned
One court out of the many Apple has tried to ban them in.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 8:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Compared to how many courts who found that Apple infringed upon Neonodes patents and should have its devices banned as a result? Hint: 0
Yet...


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing new
By jRaskell on 2/21/2012 9:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Compared to how many courts who found that Apple infringed upon Neonodes patents and should have its devices banned as a result? Hint: 0


For somebody claiming to maintain a completely logical point of view, that is a completely ridiculous statement to make.

Courts can only judge cases that are brought before them. How many lawsuits has Neonode filed against Apple? I won't even give you a hint, it's NONE. Thus, logically speaking, the fact that no courts have judged Apple to have infringed upon Neonodes patents is completely and utterly meaningless.


RE: Nothing new
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For somebody claiming to maintain a completely logical point of view, that is a completely ridiculous statement to make. Courts can only judge cases that are brought before them. How many lawsuits has Neonode filed against Apple? I won't even give you a hint, it's NONE. Thus, logically speaking, the fact that no courts have judged Apple to have infringed upon Neonodes patents is completely and utterly meaningless.


Given that your own post explains that a court decision is predicated on the accuser actually believing they have a case, your own lack of logic is astounding. Clearly, if even the company who owns the patent can open up their eyes and see why the patent hasn't been infringed, you should be able to too..

That, is, if you weren't too busy going around illogically accusing other people of being illogical.

Furthermore, the question of Apple infringing on Neonode is not even the question being entertained here - it's about whether their patent is valid.

Finally - how does this in any way address the point which was also made in my post you quoted - where is the evidence that Apple infringed upon Neonodes patent, from an objective an unbiased basis? Contrast this, if you will, to either the Samsung Galaxy ban, or the decision this article focused on in which the Motorola was, in fact, found to be infringing.

And you dare to try and criticise my logic... pff.

Bless.


RE: Nothing new
By whatsinit4me on 2/21/2012 10:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
while i concede that apple products have been both innovative and impressive, i wouldn't buy anything apple because i don't like their marketing techniques, nor their reliance on litigious intimidation of other companies that are just as innovative. plus i wouldn't want to turn into a mindless, drooling, fanboy zombie. as everybody has stated, all these companies "borrow" ideas from each other, and the patent office is partly to blame for granting patents to something as common sense as a gesture. why not grant a patent for pressing the "enter" key or waving hello.


Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By KPOM1 on 2/20/2012 3:04:37 PM , Rating: 4
Given that NeoNode is struggling, and their phone was not a commercial success, if they do have a valid patent against the entire industry, including the most profitable mobile phone company in the world, if they are not taking advantage of that, it would be very irresponsible to the investors and creditors of the company. Perhaps there are differences, or perhaps NeoNode has concluded that their patent would be deemed invalid.

In any case, the out-of-context quote from Steve Jobs is an unnecessary character slam. I don't think he meant that Apple made it a regular practice to steal the IP of competitors. Jobs could drive a hard bargain, to be sure, but dating all the way back to the Mac and Lisa (which used technology licensed from Xerox), Apple licensed the IP that it borrowed.




RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By Chadder007 on 2/20/2012 6:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
brb....buying some NeoNode stock.


RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By jRaskell on 2/21/2012 9:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if they are not taking advantage of that, it would be very irresponsible to the investors and creditors of the company.


It can be exceedingly expensive to enforce a patent, especially against companies with very deep pockets. Neonode may very well just not have the resources available to cover an infringement lawsuit against somebody like Apple. Just another flaw in our current patent system.

quote:
In any case, the out-of-context quote from Steve Jobs is an unnecessary character slam.


There's no such thing as an unnecessary character slam against Jobs. But then, I'm admittedly utterly biased. In my opinion, Jobs was a hypocrite of the highest magnitude.


RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 11:36:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But then, I'm admittedly utterly biased


Says it all...

quote:
It can be exceedingly expensive to enforce a patent, especially against companies with very deep pockets. Neonode may very well just not have the resources available to cover an infringement lawsuit against somebody like Apple. Just another flaw in our current patent system.


If they had a good chance of success they would have no problem getting finance, especially given that the fruits of success would be similarly massive - legal teams would offer to take the case pro-bono in return for a share of any settlement / winnings. Another flaw in your biased 'logic'.

You completely fail to address the much more likely possibility that even they are man enough to know that they don't have a case here, since they aren't delusional Apple haters.


RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 11:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you are one to talk about someone being biased....


RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 12:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
I know. My absolute lack of bias means I have an objective perspective with which to observe bias.

And the fact he even said he was.


RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 12:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
objective perspective
ROFL!


RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 1:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
Good, coherent counter argument.


RE: Why No Suits from NeoNode?
By flamencoguy on 2/22/2012 10:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Neonode is too small to take on Goliath.

Google should buy Neonode or license the patent. Then
Motorola and Samsung should sue Apple to have the decisions reversed and then sue Apple again for fraudulent claims and extortion.
Then give money to Neonode to sue Apple again. They deserve it.


Claim Confusion
By Theoz on 2/20/2012 1:59:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What a novel notion -- a company narrowing its own patent to cover only what it actually has designed!

You are very confused about what a dependent claim is. The dependent claim doesn't narrow the independent claim, it just supplies an extra claim for litigation. For instance if the independent claim (claim 1) is considered invalid but adding the limitation that the display size is 2-3 inches would make the claim not obvious (which is seems very unlikely). The dependent claim does not affect the assertion of the broader independent claim. Therefore, Neonode has not actually narrowed its claims as you state, but instead has an additional narrower claim that it may assert in addition to the broader independent claim.

Consequently this statement:
quote:
And Neonode has narrowed its scope of potential litigation to 2-3 inch devices.
is very wrong.

Also, a very interesting point is that the patent office did not apparently consider Neonode's art when assessing Apple's claims as the Neonode publication was not printed on the face of the patent. Obviously, the examiner can't catch everything and, in this case, you too overlooked it. However, I didn't read the Neonode's patent application to see if it could actually be used to reject any of Apple's claims.




RE: Claim Confusion
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/20/2012 2:50:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, a very interesting point is that the patent office did not apparently consider Neonode's art when assessing Apple's claims as the Neonode publication was not printed on the face of the patent. Obviously, the examiner can't catch everything and, in this case, you too overlooked it. However, I didn't read the Neonode's patent application to see if it could actually be used to reject any of Apple's claims.

Hi Theoz, thanks for the clarification. I'm amending the text slightly to clarify that point.

I think the interesting thing is that the Neonode claim is very broad (even more so, given your note). And for those arguing that Apple's device is reliant on "continuous" contact, just because Neonode didn't spell that out, didn't mean that its method wasn't predicated on pseudo-continuous contact as well.

Some points on that:
1. Any non-click gesture requires perceived continuous contact. For example, if you drag an icon to the recycling bin, but release before the recycling bin, you can't just click on the recycling bin and expect the icon to "jump" there. Neonode did not have to list this, imo, as this is obvious.

There's multiple ways to perceive continuous contact. Neonode picked the one that was easiest at the time (2004), but left a patent that was broad enough to cover newer technologies such as capacitive displays (2007), that had come along.

2. Neonode appears to have been forced to rely on time-dependent algorithms in the implementation of its patented claim, as it only has 3 points of reference for the swipe gesture. But, again, its claim is broad, leaving open for future touch displays which have more points of reference.

3. Apple's finger position detection is not truly continuous, although the finger presence detection is. This is not an innovation -- it is an intrinsic characteristic of the grid. If the interpolated grid is smaller than your finger point, you essentially have continuous contact detection.

The coarseness is dictated by the display and sensor technology at the time. In Apple's case, the state of the art has advanced enough that contact detection time no longer had to be relied on to simulate continuous contact, as the "grid" of perceived contact points is fine enough to detect the presence of a finger (or lack thereof).

4. Apple did not invent this finer grid that allows for continuous presence detection -- to my knowledge was the innovation of display manufacturers.


RE: Claim Confusion
By sprockkets on 2/20/2012 3:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And bear in mind, Apple is not patenting capacitive multi-touch. Other people have already done that


Replying to you since you posted here...

Actually apple did patent the multi-touch screen. How the hell they did that, I don't know.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT...

Reply back if I'm wrong.


RE: Claim Confusion
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/20/2012 7:00:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Replying to you since you posted here...

Actually apple did patent the multi-touch screen. How the hell they did that, I don't know.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT...

Reply back if I'm wrong.

I meant that they weren't claiming that in this particular patent, but yes the infamous multi-touch patent is an entertaining story of its own for another day.


RE: Claim Confusion
By Keeir on 2/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Claim Confusion
By Keeir on 2/20/2012 4:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind, I am not saying Apple's patent is valid, or that Neonode's implementation doesn't show prior art. Just that Neonode's patent language does not cover Apple's patent or implementation.


RE: Claim Confusion
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: 0
Mick Fails to Support His Assertion
By Jonax on 2/22/2012 7:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
Blog writer Jason Mick asserts Neonode patented swipe-to-unlock 3 years before Apple but falls to back it up. While he mentions it repeatedly in his story, nowhere in Neonode's patent is swipe-to-unlock even addressed, only general navigation gestures.

Second, he states the "patents are ambiguous enough they don't confine themselves [to a] specific look to the unlock mechanism..." He is partly correct, in that Nenode does not show (or mention) an unlocking mechanism. What he overlooked in the Apple patent is exactly that - an unlocking mechanism. It doesn't get any clearer.

Third, if he does believe Neonode patented swipe-to-unlock before Apple he should read the patent dates of the three patents he provided links to. They prove just the opposite of what his attention getting headline claims.

The story is emotionally biased from beginning to end and as a result is rife with illogical conclusions.




By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2012 7:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
Oh look, it's Tester under a new name....


RE: Mick Fails to Support His Assertion
By testerguy on 2/22/2012 8:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
Hi Jonax,

I agree with you in that the Neonode patent doesn't specifically refer to slide-to-unlock, it seems to be more related to navigation since it offers a 'back' option (by sliding right-to-left). I also agree that the Apple patent is very specific and arguably very different. For example
quote:
'that an active application, function, service or setting is advanced one step'
- seems to be like a 'forward' function, and
quote:
'the active application, function, service or setting is closed or backed one step by gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from right to left. '
seems to be like a 'backward' function, rather than unlocking.

However, the patent in question which Jason linked was filed in 2002, compared to 2005 when Apple filed for the slide-to-unlock - so I agree with Jason on the point that the Neonode patent was first.


RE: Mick Fails to Support His Assertion
By Jonax on 2/22/2012 4:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Mick's blog title is "Analysis: Neonode Patented Swipe-to-Lock 3 Years Before Apple." Now look at the date on the top of each of the three patents. You will see Mick has his dates backwards. Not when someone drew on a napkin or filed for a patent, but the date the patent was granted. Even though Mick made an error on the dates they are still distinctly different patents so his entire argument is much to do about nothing.


By testerguy on 2/23/2012 2:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
The date the patent is granted isn't relevant.

A patent is deemed to have been 'patented' when it is filed - assuming that at any point in the future it gets granted. Thus, the patent in question from Neonode applies from 2002.

This is why 'patent pending' is enough to allow you to talk about your idea freely without fear of people copying it.

I agree with you, however, that the patents are arguably different.


Unfortunately
By Bozzified on 2/20/2012 3:40:36 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately Jason.. these facts will never be mentioned by major blogs because it is just one of the many things that shows Apple as they really are. A company that steals ideas and technology from others and puts them in a shiny package.

I have submitted your analysis to most other big blogs and not a single one of them reported on it despite the glaringly obvious facts you have pointed out.

Keep in mind, most of the media and these tech companies have vested interests in hyping up Apple and continuing to mislead public as if there is nothing wrong at what Apple does.

A lot of them will not dare write bad things about Apple because Apple would retaliate and would ban them from their events and conferences, like they did with NY Times.

This is how they control their cult message. Until we get objective tech reporting and point out how black-mailing works there will be very little we can do.

Dont' forget.. it is most likely that Apple bought off German court to rule against Motorola and turn a blind eye on the previous patents even though German judge knew very well about the existence of previous art. Apple admitted itself it is strongly lobbying German court and by lobbying we know what that really means.

I appreciate Apple's fanatical obsession for detail and design in their products, but they have truly become the worst thieves and destructive force in the technology world.

They have successfully brought the worst possible things into the tech world and the way world reacts. Full of ignorant people, mainstream audience that has no clue what they are talking about but support a toxic-to-innovation company like Apple just because of their vanity.

It's sad state of affairs.




By masamasa on 2/20/2012 4:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to apply for a patent for the phrase/trademark "F*** off Apple" since it's going to become a very popular, commonly used phrase!




Shouldn't it
By Etern205 on 2/20/2012 5:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
be slide not swipe?
I thought slide and swipe are two different things.




What about Google?
By vesord on 2/21/2012 11:28:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think Google has stolen Apple's implementation, not Neonode's. May be they didn't know about Neonode. But this doesn't change the fact that Google has stolen this from (the choice is yours): 1. Apple; 2. Neonode




Mick Fails to Support His Assertion
By Jonax on 2/22/2012 7:42:03 AM , Rating: 2
Blog writer Jason Mick asserts Neonode patented swipe-to-unlock 3 years before Apple but falls to back it up. While he mentions it repeatedly in his story, nowhere in Neonode's patent is swipe-to-unlock even addressed, only general navigation gestures.

Second, he states the "patents are ambiguous enough they don't confine themselves [to a] specific look to the unlock mechanism..." He is partly correct, in that Neonode does not show (or mention) an unlocking mechanism. What he overlooked in the Apple patent is exactly that - an unlocking mechanism. It doesn't get any clearer.

Third, if he does believe Neonode patented swipe-to-unlock before Apple he should read the patent dates of the three patents he provided links to. They prove just the opposite of what his attention getting headline claims.

The story is emotionally biased from beginning to end and as a result is rife with illogical conclusions. The cute little "thief" picture says it all.




By KOOLTIME on 2/22/2012 1:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Seen apples 2 new fuel cell patents lol

1. fuel cell to power a cell phone
2. fuel cell coupled to a cell phone for power

2 of the exact same thing, apple just wants #2, basically anyone with a new fuel cell type battery now must pay apple, to even connect one to a mobile device with the wording on item #2, lol.

No such thing as a new patent design for hooking up a battery to an already invented item aka cell phone lol.

Like saying my Michelin tires on my car are coupled, so if I bought Goodyear tires instead, I have to pay a patent coupling license fee now, lol. Sorry apply you did not invent hooking up batteries patent coupling to run electronic devices, as this one clearly is trying to claim.

Apple is just a patent thief, and bulldogging others in manipulation, that they invented something new which most of it they stole to begin with. There is no such thing as coupling a battery to a cell phone, hundreds of batteries already do that. Just because its a new battery type, doesn't effect how it couples or hooks up though. Apple is seriously going for stupid awards now.




Mick Fails to Support His Assertion
By Jonax on 2/22/2012 4:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Blog writer Jason Mick asserts Neonode patented swipe-to-unlock 3 years before Apple but falls to back it up. While he mentions it repeatedly in his story, nowhere in Neonode's patent is swipe-to-unlock even addressed, only general navigation gestures.

Second, he states the "patents are ambiguous enough they don't confine themselves [to a] specific look to the unlock mechanism..." He is partly correct, in that Neonode does not show (or mention) an unlocking mechanism. What he overlooked in the Apple patent is exactly that - an unlocking mechanism. It doesn't get any clearer.

Third, if he does believe Neonode patented swipe-to-unlock before Apple he should read the patent dates of the three patents he provided links to. They prove just the opposite of what his attention getting headline claims.

The story is emotionally biased from beginning to end and as a result is rife with illogical conclusions. The cute little "thief" picture says it all.




Pathetic
By testerguy on 2/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Pathetic
By testerguy on 2/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Pathetic
By MechanicalTechie on 2/20/2012 6:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously dude... what is wrong with you?

Who cares if its Apple or any other company... if its conducting business in an unethical way... then how is it pathetic to highlight this?

What you think theirs some big conspiracy against Apple?

Just grow up and stop acting like a child!


RE: Pathetic
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 2:33:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Seriously dude... what is wrong with you? Who cares if its Apple or any other company...


Logically differences between two different patents would exist, regardless of the company.

Similarly, if it was any other companies CEO on video who was constantly spammed with a quote taken out of context, I would say the same thing.

quote:
if its conducting business in an unethical way... then how is it pathetic to highlight this?


Keyword - 'if'.. and even if Apple ARE conducting business in an 'unethical way' (which I have not confirmed OR denied - and neither has anyone) - this doesn't make just any criticism or article which is anti-Apple justified, whether it is accurate or not. Similarly, it doesn't make completely irrelevant videos relevant, or justified. Furthermore, Samsung and Motorola are arguably acting in a FAR more unethical way trying to devices banned over FRAND patents. The Apple issue gets 5 spam articles, the Samsung and Motorola issues get a brief mention followed by a ream of anti-Apple background and justification. What's pathetic is a) The blatant unbalance, b) What's being highlighted is the wrong thing, and the wrong argument. c) The video of Steve Jobs has no relevance whatsoever.

quote:
What you think theirs some big conspiracy against Apple? Just grow up and stop acting like a child!


I don't think there's* (lol) some big conspiracy, I think it's painfully obvious to virtually everyone who reads these blogs that Jason is unbelievably biased and lets this influence his coverage. I would argue this is common sense. That you ask me to 'grow up and stop acting like a child' because I try to encourage relevant, accurate and unbiased journalism ironically exposes your own idiocies.


RE: Pathetic
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 8:17:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it's painfully obvious to virtually everyone who reads these blogs that I am unbelievably biased
There, fixed it for you.


RE: Pathetic
By drycrust3 on 2/20/2012 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It simply refers to taking good ideas (which are not patented) and improving on them.

Regardless of what Jobs meant, the simple fact is Apple are trying to stop everyone from owning a smartphone or tablet that isn't made by Apple.
Here we have a case where Jason has shown at least one example of prior art, and this should have been cited in Apple's patent application and wasn't, nor was patent US 2002/0109677 A1, and I think I found at least one or two other patents that seem to also be so similar as to require they should have been cited in Apple's patent applications and weren't.
It is arguable that if Apple had cited these two patents, and the others that aren't very hard too find but were not included in the citation list, then Apple wouldn't have been granted their patent.


RE: Pathetic
By Tony Swash on 2/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: Pathetic
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/20/2012 3:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they just don't want people buying phones and tablets that copy Apple's designs and patents
If they actually were copied...


RE: Pathetic
By retrospooty on 2/20/2012 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
"No - they just don't want people buying phones and tablets that copy Apple's designs and patents."

You mean the designs that Apple copied from other companies. So basically, Apple is saying , you cant copy that, I already did it first. I invented copying tech, therefore you cannot.


RE: Pathetic
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 3:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless of what Jobs meant, the simple fact is Apple are trying to stop everyone from owning a smartphone or tablet that isn't made by Apple.


I think the key words here, are 'regardless of what Jobs meant'. Exactly my point - the video of Jobs does not belong on this article.

I think Apple is trying to ban devices, yes, but then so are Google (Motorola) and Samsung. They don't get anywhere near the same coverage, despite their cases focusing on FRAND (much worse).

quote:
Here we have a case where Jason has shown at least one example of prior art


Be careful. Jason has not proven that these are 'prior art'. He's only proven that he believes they are.

quote:
and this should have been cited in Apple's patent application and wasn't, nor was patent US 2002/0109677 A1, and I think I found at least one or two other patents that seem to also be so similar as to require they should have been cited in Apple's patent applications and weren't. It is arguable that if Apple had cited these two patents, and the others that aren't very hard too find but were not included in the citation list, then Apple wouldn't have been granted their patent.


As I've mentioned before, you can't have a patent system in which it's the responsibility of the applicant to disprove their own patent - just like you can't have a criminal law system which forces a murderer to prove they did it. If what you claim is true (ie the court agrees with you) then the patent will be invalidated anyway.


RE: Pathetic
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/20/2012 3:00:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Oh god, how many more times is this failed journalist gonna bang on about his insecurity driven Apple-hatred by making references to a Steve Jobs video which has nothing to do with illegally stealing patents. It simply refers to taking good ideas (which are not patented) and improving on them.

How do you know? Did you talk to Steve Jobs?? The context seemed relatively ambiguous... he was talking about his creative process. I'm not saying that he was speaking directly to lifting ideas from Xerox, but it certainly shows his thinking (and his company's thinking) in a broad sense.

I'm sorry you can't handle it.
quote:
Of course, any normal person knows this. Jason is just a complete moron.

Name calling, how precious.
quote:
Furthermore, the Apple patent IS different since it specifically states that the contact point is followed with visual feedback. Furthermore, it does not restrict itself to a specific direction, simply a predefined path. Finally, it does not talk about swiping the other way to go back or to undo the process. Ridiculous article, number... 5? on this subject, none of which actually had anything intelligent to say.

Okay here's where you enter the land of lunacy.

So, you admit that the prior art is similar, but you think dragging an icon makes Apple's UI element novel enough to patent?

Have you ever heard of drag and drop?

Does it have a "visual feedback" element under your cursor??

It's even in OS X! You should know this!

Hello, prior art calling, are you there testerguy?!

As for the path, you really think it's novel enough that Apple can just take Neonode's UI innovation, change the direction of the swipe to unlock and then repatent it?

Besides, Apple itself used the SAME direction as Neonode... so it appears to be infringement of Neonode's IP, in addition to its patent being invalid.
quote:
And posting the Steve Jobs video, god you're just so pathetic. I think even people who hate Apple know that posting that video over and over just makes you look ridiculous.

My, you are emotional and bitter. Try having a level headed debate for once.


RE: Pathetic
By Dorkyman on 2/20/2012 6:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, just let it go and try not to read these comments directly, as it will just piss you off. You can't win an argument with a flamer. I'd suggest having someone else read the comments and point out the relevant ones that need a response.


RE: Pathetic
By testerguy on 2/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Pathetic
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 8:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
You are one seriously metal human being....


RE: Pathetic
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2012 9:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
Mental*


RE: Pathetic
By xti on 2/20/2012 3:29:55 PM , Rating: 1
well, grats on ruining a perfectly good point.

the abundance apple-must-die posting on DT is starting to become overwhelming, right now the home page has 3 of them taking up the most real estate space on dailytech...


RE: Pathetic
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/20/2012 4:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
If he had actually had a point...


RE: Pathetic
By Dorkyman on 2/20/2012 6:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
And for good reason.

Apple is trying very hard to hang on to its market share and is doing some pretty stupid things in the process. The facts are the facts.


RE: Pathetic
By Tony Swash on 2/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: Pathetic
By testerguy on 2/21/2012 3:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And for good reason. Apple is trying very hard to hang on to its market share and is doing some pretty stupid things in the process. The facts are the facts.


Like the facts that Samsung & Motorola tried to ban apple devices over FRAND patents?

At least the BS lawsuits with Apple are non-FRAND


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki