Apple's Slide To Unlock Patent Could Be Trouble For Android Phones

Apple has won a patent on its "slide-to-unlock" feature, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The patent request was filed in June 2009 and granted in October 2011 and covers the following, per the filing:

A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.

9to5mac points out that Steve Jobs introduced Apple's slide-to-unlock feature when he unveiled the first iPhone in 2007. Watch Jobs slide-to-unlock and listen to the audience gasp, and then applaud this feature:

A 9to5mac commenter noted that a Dutch judge had already thrown out Apple's request for this patent in Europe, as a tiny Swedish phone manufacturer called NeoNode had already introduced the slide-to-unlock technology on its own handsets earlier than Apple in 2005. A full rundown of that decision can be found here.

In other Apple patent news, Geek.com is reporting that Apple is suing yet another company for using its Apple logo. They've sent a cease and desist letter to Apfelkind ("Apple child") Cafe in Germany, as they say the German coffee shop's logo infringes on their own Apple. Techdirt has a nice side-by-side of the two logos; on the left side is the Apfelkind apple, and on the right side is Apple's apple:

Copyright infringement? Head over to Techdirt for a couple other examples of Apple suing smaller companies for use of an apple image in their logos.

Between these two cases, and Apple's multiple lawsuits in several countries against Samsung for infringement against both the iPhone and the iPad, Apple's lawyers have been rather busy in the past few months. Siri, call my lawyer!

Check out some of the craziest Apple patents ever filed by the Cupertino giant (below).

Comments

[brux]

01:49 PM on 11/09/2011

I don't think these kinds of things deserve patent protection ... it is obvious that gestures are going to be adopted to do simple things, and just because Apple write a particular program should not mean it deserves patent protection ... this is against the idea of patents as described in the Constitution .. and it holds back progress and makes money for lawyers.

[arunsjunk]

01:31 PM on 11/09/2011

If "slide to unlock" wasn't an important feature, why was it adopted by so many phone companies? Because it is innovative and useful. Once you add up all the patented innovations, you have a usable smart-phone. Without the patents, you have the yester-year buck-ugly blackberry "smart phone" interface that was there before the iPhone interface.

[arunsjunk]

01:27 PM on 11/09/2011

For all the people railing against patents, if you didn't have patents then there would be very little chance for small companies or innovative companies to survive since the big companies just need to keep adopting the technologies developed by innovative people without having to pay for any of the development.

More often than not, people develop ideas in the presence of strong opposition. Once it has been developed, the opposers then steal it. So, to eliminate the patent system is to enable theft in the worst possible way.

[brux]

01:53 PM on 11/09/2011

Oh really ... tell me about a small company that makes handheld devices? Patents exist for reasons delineated in the Constitution ... no one is saying get rid of them, but in many of things the patent office has been doing it has been counter to progress and competition - and that is going to kill off American technology faster than you can say slide-lock.

[Jay from Ottawa]

01:05 PM on 11/09/2011

Oh apple, what won't you patent.

I have very little respect for frivolous patents.

iCloud Communications existing long before Apple offered their iCloud services. iCloud Communications sued Apple so Apple paid them a boatload of money to rename their company so they could retain the iCloud name (and likely, patent it).

Watch out orchards around the world, you'll soon have to call them "red fist-sized fruits"

[brux]

01:52 PM on 11/09/2011

LOL

[Andrew Wojtkowski]

09:49 AM on 10/28/2011

What this country needs more than anything is an "Occupy Patent Office" movement.

It's killing our country faster than Wallstreet.

[wilray]

01:24 AM on 10/28/2011

There needs to be a threshold set below which a design element is not able to be patented. After a certain point it is not about offering unique technologies; it is simply about stifling competition. To me it's like a rear view mirror. Suppose someone had a patent for your basic rear view mirror. All it does is face rear, and you can move it around so that it you can actually see. Should one auto company have been able to patent that.

Slide to unlock is not just used on smart phones. It is used on innumerable web sites, even for logging on. It has been used on them long before Apple's patent. Are they now in violation of Apple's patent?

[wilray]

12:56 AM on 10/28/2011

Android will have swirl to unlock.

[Ted Bouklos]

12:36 AM on 10/28/2011

Meh i use the pattern lock feature. slide is for amateurs. I"m going to patent doorknobs that twist to open and sue EVERYONE

[icposse2000]

11:31 PM on 10/27/2011

If amazon can patent 1-click ordering, why shouldn't apple be able to patent slide-to-unlock? They really don't seem that different conceptually.

[wilray]

01:42 AM on 10/28/2011

A patent for once click ordering was never granted by the European Patent Office. Barnes and Noble got around the one click ordering patent by requiring a second confirmation click. Ordering from anyplace that uses Google Check out or Paypal makes it virtually as easy as one click. In fact, you may start browsing from Paypal Shops or Google Shopping. Either way you don't have to keep reentering credit card or shipping information. Of course, Paypal's process has existed a lot longer than Amazon 1-click.

[brux]

01:53 PM on 11/09/2011

I agree ... there are too many stupid tech patents because they patent office does not understand what they are doing - they are driven by money and what runs up lawyer fees. Patenting life and genes is disgusting as well.

[Goliadkin]

10:03 PM on 10/27/2011

User interface designs should not be patentable. They are nothing but lawsuits waiting to happen.

[ur2nutty4me]

07:47 PM on 10/27/2011

This is just a ridiculouse patent and never should have been approved.

[StinkyMoBub]

06:31 PM on 10/27/2011

"The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device."

No problem. When locked, allow any gesture to unlock it.

Problem solved.

[TRene11]

12:06 PM on 11/02/2011

Why bother having a lock if any key can open it?

[StinkyMoBub]

04:18 PM on 11/02/2011

How many "predefined gestures" do you think are possible?

How many are simple enough for people to remember?

How many phone users are there?

If it ain't biometric, it ain't worth a pile of poop...

[mherrera]

05:28 PM on 10/27/2011

Patents are part of a social contract which protects inventors so they can market their unique ideas for a period of time. This is done to encourage development. There would be no point in creating something new if anyone could go knock it off and compete you out of business with your own work. Those who are trashing Apple have in the past trashed Microsoft as well. All companies have to protect their creations in order to survive. If there is a basis to challenge a patent, that's what the courts are for.

[tumbler snapper]

05:32 PM on 10/27/2011

"...Patents are part of a social contract..." Agree. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

"...If there is a basis to challenge a patent, that's what the courts are for..." It may not even require that. If you have a good case, then simply (and relatively inexpensively) request a reexamination.

[jc11222]

05:42 PM on 10/27/2011

The problem is that the USPTO isn't up to the challenge of evaluating novelty and so issues patents nilly-willy which creates havoc for companies and real innovators. The European patent office takes a much more stringent approach to approving a patent and so many US companies are happy to try to lock competitors out of the USA market with the nonsense that passes for patents that come from the USPTO. These same companies only take their patents to Europe when there is real innovative value to protect otherwise they're quite happy with the nuisance value presented by the USPTO and backed up by the USA courts.

[tumbler snapper]

05:59 PM on 10/27/2011

"...The problem is that the USPTO isn't up to the challenge of evaluating novelty and so issues patents nilly-will­y..." Nonsense.

"...The European patent office takes a much more stringent approach..." Actually, it's just about the same, in its essentials. Certain subject matter areas allowed in the U.S. may not be allowed in Europe.

"...These same companies only take their patents to Europe when there is real innovative value to protect..." That's fine, if that's what you want to believe. But a foreign patent has no effect within the United States.

[jc11222]

04:20 PM on 10/27/2011

Intelligent textile company (Eleksen Ltd) displayed this capability and technology at CES, CEBIT and Apple tradeshows for several years starting in 2004. It wasn't a feature on a glass touchscreen but it was on a fabric touchscreen. So it loses on novelty and on invention. The products are even in MOMAs archive.

Looks like Apple was watching little Eleksen control iPods and iPhones using swipes, wipes and patterns. Shame on Apple and Steve Jobs for taking credit for something that someone else invented.

[tumbler snapper]

04:43 PM on 10/27/2011

"...It wasn't a feature on a glass touchscree­n but it was on a fabric touchscree­n..." But that may be a patentably distinct feature. Have you read the claims?

"...Shame on Apple and Steve Jobs for taking credit for something that someone else invented..." It's unlikely that Eleksen invented what Apple patented.

[jc11222]

06:16 PM on 10/27/2011

I did read the claims and I'm not a judge, but I don't think they pass the smell test for innovation. This is an obvious step following on from the work of companies like Eleksen, Synaptics and others who have used gesture commands with symbols and illuminated backgrounds to achieve the same goal except it wasn't to unlock an iPhone - although Eleksen did the same to unlock an iPod using EL over a electronic textile interface.

I'm not arguing that Eleksen was the inventor, but rather that such an obvious step and such simple claims shouldn't pass an patent examiner who was really proficient with technology and the technology market.

[BeautifulOnDaOutside]

04:54 PM on 10/27/2011

This is a ridiculous patent. It will probably be ruled invalid, but it should never have been granted in the first place.

The patent system is broken.

[tumbler snapper]

04:28 PM on 10/27/2011

Did you look at the claims? How can you be so certain that it will be invalidated? Do you personally know of invalidating prior art? How can you say, with certainty, that it should never have been granted in the first place? Did you look at the prosecution history ("file wrapper")?

[StinkyMoBub]

05:39 PM on 10/27/2011

Ever watch StarTrek TNG?

See a lot of gesture moves...