Patently ridiculous: Apple applies for iOS face unlock patent
0. phoneArena 29 Dec 2011, 12:54 posted on
This isn't the first time we've seen it from any tech company, let alone Apple, and it probably won't be the last, but Apple has put in an application to patent a technology which some of us are already using: face unlock...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
67. protozeloz (Posts: 5284; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
Nice update! Again people fail to understand what's wrong in here. It's not only that apple has no prototype using this tech but rather an idea is a mere intention of avoiding other companies from doing so. Parents where supposed to make ideas work together but is taking them apart patents ate hurting innovation because of how innovation works
I'll explain this for the last time:
Ideas are solutions to a problem people will encounter simply people figure out how to better their experience with something. Many people will come with various solutions to the same issue but some times for popularity one solutions becomes part of your life while other is discarded and goes back to the board. Now a solution could create many other problems thus this solution evolves to cover up the problems encountered and so on. Now when you cut the main solution all the others fall for they are dependable. Specially when you use other ideas but they can't touch youts
71. GodDuckman (Posts: 1; Member since: 29 Dec 2011)
What's sad about this? Apple is likely now going to sue Google to become the sole manufacturer of face unlock.
What's sadder? They're probably GOING TO WIN, because they're f**kING APPLE.
72. thelegend6657 (unregistered)
I am an apple fanboy . But what they are doing now is wrong
74. nat_frost (Posts: 4; Member since: 30 Dec 2011)
Michael, the way you wrote your article is misleading. As a few people have already noted, Apple applied/filed this patent in 2010. (in the source article it states this at the bottom). Therefore the prior art thing with ICS will not be valid in this case.
This is not to say that I have no qualms against Apple. They are stifling innovation via the courts and the USTPO is getting ridiculous as you've said and they have "stolen" features from Android in the past.
In any case it seems that the implementation of facial recognition seen in this patent is quite different from what ICS currently uses. Having looked at the source article, it seems that Apple wants to create a way of having multiple users on one device by using the camera to differentiate between users and then have the software "switch" between different personalised settings and apps.... Apple's implementation goes way beyond just "face unlock" in Android.
81. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2604; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Yes, Apple applied for this patent in 2010. Google's facial recognition came from PittPatt, which was granted a similar patent in 2007. The only difference is that PittPatt's patent wasn't specifically for mobile.
Facial recognition and its uses are the same across devices. Just because Apple's patent specifically outlines specific uses on mobile doesn't make it any more valid.
Besides, "going beyond" shouldn't be a test for the quality of a patent, that's the whole point of innovation. Apple's system is nothing but specific uses for facial recognition. Facial recognition is built on pattern recognition and optics. Optics are built on lenses and light. Everything "goes beyond" everything else, just as it should. The logical next step for facial recognition is on mobile devices, and the logical uses are productive (face unlock/multiple users/security) and entertaining (camera image warping). No one should be able to patent logical conclusions to existing patents.
75. Lwazi_N (Posts: 205; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
LOL and Apple steals nothing from Android... Yet Jobs called Android a "stolen product" that "has to be destroyed".
76. ap1989 (Posts: 143; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
Nope Samsung galaxy nexus had it first so F**k OFF apple
77. SlimSoulja86 (Posts: 640; Member since: 03 Nov 2011)
It's gonna get ugly. And oh I wonder why I was moderated when I was just expressing my opinion.
78. mctcm (Posts: 204; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
probably because your user name is a combination of enimen, soulja boy, youre in your 20s, probably black & you like iphones
79. seeds (Posts: 48; Member since: 13 Apr 2011)
after this lets hope apple patenting charging baterry,using glasses,using lithium,using 3g network,etc...
toooo ridicululous apple,not cool...
s**t my english is bad LOL
82. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
honestly, the update to the article said everything that needs to be said about the situation in an even handed manner.
83. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2604; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Why has nobody called you a Heller fanboy yet? I feel like that day must be coming.
84. remixfa (Posts: 13901; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
bah, we nitpick at each other too much for that. :) but hey, when your right.. your right. You really took everything I would have had to say about it and threw it into your update to the article. .. which means... you left me speechless!! :)
85. putes (Posts: 37; Member since: 03 Nov 2011)
Unfortunately under the new patent rules that Obama was fooled into signing this year, the rule now is first to submit and not who invented it first.
It is one of craziest things I've ever heard in my life. Obama was fooled into signing this new rule because it was promised to him that it would speed up job creation.
For me all this rule does is to make the US patent system into a simple paper stamping agency that doesn't need to do any diligence before issuing a patent.
86. Hildy (Posts: 33; Member since: 23 Nov 2011)
Patents have been getting increasingly absurd. It's time to go back to the original US Patent Office requirement that patent applications include a working model. Then, at least, you'd be patenting the algorithm and not the idea.
89. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5468; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Didn't Samsung/Google invented the FACE UNLOCKED? I'll be PISS if the FCC grant them this patent then they will SUE EVERY SINGLE DAMN MANUFACTURE in the mobile industry. This is really pissing me off.