HTC wins swipe to unlock patent dispute against Apple

&#62; The judge said that HTC's "arc unlock" feature - which also involves a predefined gesture along a path shown on-screen - would have infringed Apple's technology had it not been for a device released in 2004.<p>No, no, no. It is <i></i>clearly obvious<i></i>, the fact that there happens to also be prior art just adds insult to injury. If there had not been prior art, it would <i></i>still<i></i> be a frivolous, trivial patent.<p>This is exactly what's wrong with the patent system - you don't need prior art to tell you something is obvious and should be unpatentable.

"We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace."<p>This. I do think that Apple is an innovative company which creates great products. But this does not in anyways justifies its actions in courtrooms all over the world trying to exploit a system that is clearly outdated.

It infuriates me when I hear of these 'swipe to unlock' and 'pull to refresh' patents that actually get issued.<p>Defensive use only when patents as pathetic as these are used is all well and good. Wasn't the patent system created to protect real innovation?<p>A fucking slide to unlock gesture is not innovation.<p>Now let me go and patent that 'dance to pay' gesture.

Following video of Neonode N1 (cited in the article) shows slide to unlock feature predating the iphone<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&#38;t=4m3s" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&#38;t=4m3s</a>

Interesting how "prior art" can require a product to be released in a country to apply.<p>So, an international company can just see what is developed in another market, copy it and patent it in their own country?<p>I can understand this being the case in 1912, but we have the world wide web. Surely this concept is out of date?

I see a lot of comments saying swipe to unlock is obvious but I disagree. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's obvious.<p>Now, that doesn't mean I think Apple deserves a patent for swipe to unlock but I do think people are mixing up the terms "obvious" and "simple".

"Apple declined to comment on the specifics of the case.<p>Instead it re-issued an earlier statement, saying: "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.""<p>This reaks of disastrous lazy damage control PR.

I'm curious, can Neonode now sue Apple over the use of "swipe to unlock"?

In tennis and cricket, you get a set amount of challenges. Once you've used them up, you can't make any more.<p>Could the courts implement something similar for patent disputes?

We need an independent invention defense. If I can show I had no knowledge of your patent and came up with the idea on my own then it must have been obvious. If 2 other parties did also, then it must of been painfully obvious.

What would the world look like if these patent trolls got their wishes?

Well, this is interesting! This is a valid patent in the U.S., but not in the U.K. - I guess that the UK had a more sensible patent system. A real pity for consumers in the U.S. I guess.

I slid to unlock the bathroom door in elementary school in the early nineties. I fail to see how doing it on a phone is new or innovative.

I just hope that someone in a high enough position would roar "STOP THE MADNESS!". These kind of patent trials are only harming the end consumer. What kind of legislation even makes it possible to patent things like "Method of swinging on a swing" ( <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227</a> )?

Sorry, but I just simply can't understand why "swipe to unlock" can be a patent...

whooopeee, does this mean my HTC phone will now get rid of that stupid "pull ring to unlock"/"pull ring to answer call" crap?