USPTO fails again: Google patents gesture unlock/app launch feature
1. tedkord (Posts: 4497; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
It's not just that Apple files more, they file over broad and silly patents, then use them as bully sticks. I can imagine Google filed this so Apple couldn't file for it even though they don't use it.
But, I'd have rather seen it denied.
4. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2657; Member since: 26 May 2011)
And, when was the last time Apple used patents to bully a company? Samsung doesn't count, because that's not bullying, that's a straight up heavyweight fight.
8. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2657; Member since: 26 May 2011)
My point exactly. That was 3 years ago when Steve Jobs was still in charge
10. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You mean how HTC saw the religion, repented and then signed a patent licensing agreement with Apple after their $300 million acquisition to counter sue Apple blew up in HTC's face.
Apple does license it patents from time to time -- both IBM and Nokia got access to the rubber-band patent.
13. joey_sfb (Posts: 2737; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
I am strongly against HTC giving in to Apple and has stop buying HTC products.
I am a strong support for Samsung because Samsung fight Apple that abuse a broken patent system to wage their own patent war. If Apple has innovation ang guts they will not rely on patent war to lose everything in the process.
16. protozeloz (Posts: 5371; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
Why would you do that? HTC had no Other choice to begin with
17. Ninetysix (Posts: 1476; Member since: 08 Oct 2012)
Please tell us how much Samsung or any other Android device maker is paying Microsoft.
11. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Here's the problem that Michael H. doesn't get. The "unlock-to-app" is an idea and how you achieve that idea can be patented. For example, a "mouse-trap" might be the idea, but there are difference ways to build this mouse-trap resulting in numerous patents on mouse-traps.
When I was awarded my patent, the patent examiner referenced patents that covered the same idea, but my algorithm was so unique, that it was deemed original and novel to be awarded the patent.
I wish Michael H. or any other critic would go through the patent process to get better understanding of what is patentable. The general rule is you can't patent the idea of "unlock-to-app" but you can patent a process that achieves unlock to app. Again, you CANNOT patent the idea of a "mouse-trap" thus preventing all others from building new and novel mouse-traps.
2. MartyK (Posts: 697; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
Google know they are wrong for this, but then again, you can't blame them for doing this to prevent Apple for doing it first.
I can almost guarantee you that Google will not use this to go after a company (Except MS & Apple) for patent infringement.
6. E.N. (Posts: 2236; Member since: 25 Jan 2009)
I can understand where you're coming from, but if we're going to stick with the idea that USPTO needs to change its process of awarding patents, a little bit of consistency from those complaining (not addressing you particularly) would probably be beneficial, otherwise the whole USPTO patent debate is pretty much just fanboy rage. At the end of the day wrong is wrong and this probably should have been rejected.
12. MartyK (Posts: 697; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
I agree 100% with you wrong is wrong, but what would you do if your company was facing a enemy who is doing sneaky under hand tricks?. Playing the system.
Google came in didn't own any patent, and was going about it business, until everyone started attacking Android (oracle, apple and ms). So yeah I can't blame them for being overly protective. Heck if I was them I would file for a patent on keyboard (it might get pass uspto).
3. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5605; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Michael. I haven't seen the particulars, but if Google filed an earlier patent application and was awarded a patent for the pattern recognition unlock, and if there was sufficient 'teaching' of pattern unlock to app launch in the original application, Google can file a continuation application if they meet certain criteria. If they meet the criteria, the continuation applications the benefit of the earlier filing date. A lot of ifs, but there is a recognized path to a patent that appears to be pre-dated by other functions.
7. neutralguy (Posts: 1152; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
I think this is normal, unless used to sue other companies that started it.
9. Sauce (unregistered)
Apple is always in the spotlight. Don't get so butt hurt.
A wise man once said, "EVERY GREAT NATION WILL FALL."
14. rallyguy (Posts: 532; Member since: 13 Mar 2012)
Apple started this. All the tech companies must patent the silliest things so the compeition doesn't take their idea and use it against them.
18. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Just proves the USPTO is still in need of major help. Love Android, Google to death....but I cant throw hate at Apple and excuse Google for this.
But...the Nexus One came out before March 2012. If this is related to the Nexus One...wouldnt it be tied in with the launch date, development of the phone? If thats from Android that launched with the Nexus One, does the filing date matter? I think somethings missing somewhere from the whole story.