"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).