I mean a scientific paper. Or industry whitepaper. If you please - you're not obliged - I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers.

"If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say."

Phraseology is a particular thing. You don't have any phraseology. I think you mean context. Anyway... my point being the context of the term was already set by someone else to be the ability of a larger sensor and lens to make better pictures in the "technical sense". But you keep using it in another context - which conflates the terms because that is not what they are talking about. It's not a problem, you just need to adjust how you're writing.

"Look at the title of this subthread. Seriously."

Which is "Or use a real camera". And how does that relate to the artistic merit of photographs?

The reality is small sensors and lenses have serious limitations in light collecting ability and it is to the detriment of the photograph.

"just as Canon Patented the EOS mount, Nikon patented the F mount..."

Which is just as shitty. Whomever made the original camera bayonet mount maybe deserves protection. Everything else is a derivation or iteration of that.

It is weird. It is weird that one can rehash a bayonet mount, combine it with some other existing idea, i.e. a breakaway mechanism, and patent it.

It is also weird that companies can be given patents for specific implementations of existing techniques (i.e. Canon and Nikon's bayonet mounts).

Really at the end of the day, America has found yet another way of gathering more power. By allowing as much material as possible to be patented by US entities, regardless of whether the material deserves a patent or not, power is centered in America. When infringement of non-deserving patents occurs, the infringing person must spend money to prove that the patent is bogus. Money they probably won't have.

The American patent system no longer achieves it's original good intentions.

"True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense)"

"ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box."

And two seconds later you conflate the terms again. ;) I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor.

Back on topic. A detachable lens on a phone (with all it's inherent limitations) will be useful for some people for casual photography. Amazingly high quality Nikon and Canon digital SLR cameras are available for not much money these days.

"that has been disproven."

Care to share that proof?

"Now who's splitting hairs? We were clearly talking about a comparison of smart phones to desktop computers. Come on."

No. Maybe you were. This is the first mention of "desktop computers" in our discussion. I meant they are computers in the purest sense. Educating you on how they are computers is not splitting hairs (it's a chore though). I'm not going to educate you further on how they are the same as their larger brothers (you can even get ARM desktops now - Raspberry Pi being a good example - get into it, it's a great way to learn about coding. Or get an Arduino board).

"Nope, you've claimed it over and over, but you've never provided any evidence showing it. I'm simply asking for your prior art evidence, since, as you admit, neither the Micron nor Neonode patents or systems show animation."

I've had my say. I'm not going to go over it again just for your benefit.

"unlike a mere blinking cursor".

The cursor is an early example. I specified this.

"Great, then you should be able to find some relevant prior art that meets the element in the patent claim."

I've been over this. I'm not going over it again just for your benefit.

'I believe you mean "to understand how trivial it is to program."'

No, I meant what I wrote. It is also trivial - I've pointed that out several times as well.

"I mean, how could learning how to program now, in 2014, possibly show whether something was obvious in 2005?"

Because the concepts of programming have barely changed.

"Isn't that the very definition of hindsight?"

No, it isn't.

"If you learned how to build an internal combustion engine (which most engineers do at some point in school), then would that mean it was suddenly obvious in the 1800s to do it?"

Not a good analogy. It would be more akin to saying that it was obvious to make the head from polished stainless steel. (side note: AFAIK, they don't teach how to build internal combustion engines in engineering anymore).

"Basically, you're confusing difficulty of implementation, which isn't required for a patent, with non-obviousness, which is."

No. I've specified that it is trivial (because it is), that it is obvious (because it is), and that it is not novel (because it isn't). Use your search function to check the thread.

I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Have a nice day. ;)

You are clutching at straws and splitting hairs to achieve some semblance of an argument. :) (I bet we'd have a lot in common if we met).

"Sure, in terms of ease of implementation. Mind you, note that no computer uses a slide-to-unlock system and every smart phone does. Maybe there's a separate reason for that, such that they're not really "one and the same"."

No, they really are computers. They are computers connected to a wide area wireless network. Hence there are millions of computers using slide to unlock. If you are unsure of this fact please go and get some education / do some more research into this field and you'll see this is how it is. You'd be surprised what constitutes a computer and how ubiquitous they are.

"Exactly: Apple added the animation, something that Neonode didn't do. Therefore, Neonode doesn't show each and every step of the patent claim, and therefore, the patent claim is valid over Neonode's implementation and patent. At the minimum, you'd have to find another prior art reference that describes the animation that you could combine with Neonode to show that Apple's claim is obvious."

I've spent some time already showing adding animation is self evident.

"Not so"

Yes so (haha - like two children). They are programmed to take into account non edge to edge contact that isn't exactly parallel to the screen frame (as the iPhone's and Neonode's both already do). Swiping left to right is easily achievable by a human without animation. The Neonode proves this. If they were having trouble achieving a left to right swipe they would have added user feedback to rectify it. But they didn't. Because you don't need it.

"You could be swiping over and over, not knowing if the phone is frozen and needs to be rebooted".

Not related and not necessarily so. An OS can still give limited functionality while being "frozen" and needing reboot. But in any case, the animation isn't intended to indicate if a process is hung or not. Just like the blinking cursor in front of me is not intended to indicated a hung process but it potentially could as an unintended consequence. BTW, a blinking text cursor is one of the earliest examples of an animated on screen user interactive function.

"they provide this "eye candy" for the same non-arbitrary reason."

Nope, they provide it because "they can", it looks cool and everyone else is doing it.

"If you want to claim that the patent is obvious, then you have to show that someone else had thought of that eye candy before, too."

User interactive functions on computers have been animated for decades before this patent. To understand how arbitrary and self evidently obvious it is you'll need to learn to program first (to a reasonable level). Once you've mastered the basics you'll see how obvious it is. Until then I doubt you'll see it.

Simple point. Everything on the computer's output to the screen can be animated. Everything. But there comes a point where it becomes a distraction in the OS (and mark my words, phones are small computers with an OS). E.g. if one animated the text as someone was typing, with colours and swirls and coalescing characters, it would annoy the crap out of you. So we don't do that. But you could. So an OS programmer chooses what will be animated or not on an aesthetic basis (taking into account whether it will annoy the user or not).

Good attempt (and thank you for doing it).

I disagree though.

Firstly, take the word "phone" and replace it with computer. They are one and the same.

I'll use Neonode alone in my examples - it's all that's needed.

"Neonode's: draw a geometric shape on a screen with no indication of success or failure or other response until the figure is complete"

Neodnode's action was very specifically left to right at the bottom of the screen (i.e. not a user specified pattern). Apple copied this exact same action. The action is arbitrary if it is not used as a coded input. Both Apple and Neonode's are not a coded input, they are a pre-specified action that tells the OS that someone wants the OS's state set to unlocked.

Neonode's success indication was that the screen unlocked. Apple copied this same indication of unlock success (the same as all computers).

Apple's "innovation" was that during the unlock procedure they animated the icon to follow the invisible cursor (which happens to correspond with your finger because it is a touch screen). The animation does not add to the success or failure of the action - since user feedback by animation is not necessary for a human to swipe a finger across a screen from left to right. It does not increase the security of the system over Neonode's - i.e. it does not prevent an unauthorised access of the system. Apple's animation is arbitrary eye candy.

I stand by my previous assertions.

"the function of changing the image is covered under utility patents."

Which in my opinion, and that of a lot of others, deserves no protection. Just like software patents.

"Allow me to help, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about."

No idea you say. Then why are you even bothering with a reply? I love how people like you (yes, like you) love to dismiss others as having no knowledge of a topic at all. The hubris is amazing. I'm pretty sure I covered this arrogance in my premade reply.

"By saying you've shown "clear prior art", you've said nothing."

Really, I'm pretty sure I'm saying there is clearly prior art to this patent.

"What you intended to say is that you've shown "anticipatory prior art"."

No, I intended to write "prior art". Because that is what it is (as you admit). I'm not addressing the animation - I already wrote that. The animation of an icon does not deserve protection. The animation of an icon really is obvious (it has always been the natural progression of icons over time when enough computing power becomes available). Breaking it down to saying "anticipatory prior art" is covered below.

"the legal standard is everything." So when 99 out of 100 claims are struck out you have what left? Certainly not a patent that will be approved. Or at best, 1% of the original patent.

"Hey, look, you can use hindsight and claim it's obvious and not novel all you want, but until you show some evidence that pre-dates the application, and not just your repeated unsupported assertion, you've proven nothing. It's like you're calling someone guilty without requiring any evidence. If you find due process to be so boring, then maybe this isn't a debate you should be having."

Yawn. It's not hindsight to claim that animation of an icon is obvious. Adding a touch screen (which from a technical perspective is no different than any other screen and input device) to the equation is not patent worthy. I'm actually disturbed you think it deserves protection. Animated icons (which is what the unlock image is) have been around since the early 90s. Linking animation on screen to user input has been around since at least the early 90s as well.

You seem to lack insight into the technical aspects of implementing these functions and whether they are technically obvious or not. That is always a problem with the lay-person addressing programming and computing devices.

I ask you. Is Apple's implementation of slide to unlock achievable under Micron's patent? Yes of course it is. Under Mircron's patent you could do it with or without an image. You could animate the image if you so chose. You could require any sort of pattern. That fact they didn't specify animated icons is because it's like specifying in a patent application for a new car chassis that it could be painted red (or any other colour). It's obvious. Since I believe that the animated icon is an obvious implementation, I believe that the Neonode video shows the invention in it's totality (and is therefore not anticipatory). Adding animation is arbitrary and obvious (as per my colour example). Changing the icon from a lock to an unlock image is arbitrary and obvious. You could use images of Nyan cat or puppies. It's just arbitrary colours to represent the function of unlocking a computing device.

I point you to Germany's ruling on this non-patent.

"If you can't support a conclusion with evidence, then legally, you have nothing."

Mate, this is Slashdot. There is a standard of evidence under the current US rules that my argument may not be sufficient for. This is not a US court of law of course (i.e. I'm not challenging it in court, I'm challenging it publicly on the grounds of having technical expertise that makes this obvious to me and millions of others like me). In short, I'm arguing that it is clear to a technically minded person (this happens to be my field - it doesn't make me an authority because of that of course) and that the prior art shows the "invention" - not anticipates it. Other whole countries agree with this. Millions of Americans know the patent system is broken and bogus patents (like Micron's, Apple's and all software patents in general) are granted each and every year. They point out how in software the patent system doesn't work. They point out that things are obvious to computer programmers and engineers (but not to patent examiners, lawyers, or the general public). Of course it falls on deaf ears.

If it's not obvious to "you" it does not mean it is not obvious to others (i.e. the developers). If you happen to be an "expert" computer programmer, I ask - how is it not obvious to you? I have to write, it is pretty hard to show it is obvious to someone who doesn't intrinsically know it is obvious and I doubt anyone is going to convince you otherwise. As I wrote, you are within your own reference frame and you can't see out of it.

I've been doing tit-for-tat derogatory statements. How do you like them? I thought you'd appreciate them. Just in case you didn't realise that you read like that way (from the get go) here and there.

I'm not interested in your reply. I'm really not. I know you're going to try and cut down what I've written and say that it proves nothing and that unless I can show you personally that it is obvious (without having to put you through a 3 year course in computer programming) then you won't believe it, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

I'm giving you an even harder task than I have. Convince someone (i.e. like me) to whom this is an obvious implementation of a trivial function, that it is not obvious or trivial. Good luck. Nice chatting. I doubt I'll reply (although I don't promise - we may have the same affliction in that regards). :)

It's such a shame you're locked into your own reference frame without being able to see out of it. It may come with time.

I readily already admit there is no unlock image. As I clearly wrote, changing a graphic from a lock to a graphic representing unlock is not novel. It's two sides of the same coin. "Oh ours is unique, it says 'unlock', not 'locked'' doesn't fly. Images themselves are covered under copyright.

"Thank you for admitting that you haven't yet addressed this part of the claim."

It's pretty clear that I did address it when I pointed out that if that is the only claim to novelty then they are clutching at straws.

You can clearly see that the actions of the Apple patent are described under the Micron patent, sans the changed animated graphic. I'll repeat that changing the graphic and making it animated are not novel. Additionally they are completely obvious (and not just because they'd been previously implemented in various forms on other computing devices).

Prior art is just that, prior art. Having shown clear prior art you deny that it is for some unknown reason. You can deny it until the cows come home, but there are a whole lot of people (as in almost everyone else who sees it) who agree that it is prior art.

"Micron describes everything in the patent! ... oh, wait, no it doesn't... "

Oh wait, no I didn't write that. I wrote Apple's first claim is "encompassed in Micron's first claim". Learn to copy and paste. When enough of the claims are covered by proven claims in other patents there is no claim to be had.

Bored meaning "bored". Don't push your parapraxis of "frustrated and ashamed" out onto others, deal with it yourself. Perhaps take a remedial course in English while you're at it.

Hey look, you can believe it's novel and non-obvious if you like and I'm pretty sure nobody is going to convince you otherwise. You stick to it. Keep believing.

I'm still bored by you. Bored that I've come across the umpteenth person that even with clear evidence of something denies it - or even the clear possibility of it.

In conclusion I'll take it a step further. All software patents are complete crap and deserve zero protection at all. Zero.

Hey look, I'll formulate your reply to save you the trouble (and it will save me the trouble of reading your reply).

"You still haven't shown me anything at all. The Micron patent doesn't cover any of the Apple patent at all. The Neonode doesn't show someone using a 99% similar version of sliding to unlock. Nobody understands this patent like me!!!".

Orly?

From Micron's patent's first claim "a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory."

Apple's first claim is clearly encompassed in Micron's first claim.

In the Neonode video at 4:13 their is an image of a lock icon. The presenter performs an action synonymous with the claims in Apple's (and Micron's) patent which unlocks the phone. The only difference is the background icon is not animated and is a lock versus an unlock icon. Changing icons is not novel (clearly). So does changing the icon and making it animated make for a novel invention? I say no.

You're boring me.

"The patent is about automatically detecting useful data in arbitrary plaintext (say dates or phone numbers in an email)"

Data mining plaintext for useful information, indicating it in a UI, and being able to manipulate or perform an action from that data predates the existence of Apple as a company. It's one of the primary functions of computers that was figured out very early on. I'd call that about as obvious as it gets.

http://news.techeye.net/mobile... which talks of:

"Micron's patent covering a "system and method for controlling user access to an electronic device" was given a US Patent 8,352,745 in January 2013 but it claims priority to an original application filed in February 2000 and lists Jim McKeeth as inventor."

http://kschang.hubpages.com/hu... which talks about, among other things the Neonode N1 - a working prior art example.

Note how this patent has been treated in Europe.

Apple's slide to unlock was non-novel (already done) and could probably be considered obvious (if multiple groups independently came up with the same solution then it is likely an obvious solution - assuming they were totally independent).

Treating a phone number like a hyperlink is very obvious. Of course the vast, vast majority of older devices, like "those...before 2000" didn't have touch screens to be able to easily implement it.