Today, I am going to briefly talk about the first claim of the "Slide to Unlock" patent (US 8046721), which was publicized debate between Apple and Samsung.
So the very first line starts by a method of "unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display," which literally means that any portable electronic device that has a screen that detects touch. The very next lines says detecting at a "first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image," which means that the contact on the screen is beginning at a specific spot, but it could be anywhere on the screen and be any icon. It continues on saying that the "continuously moving the unlock image on the touch sensitive display in accordance with the movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained." This basically describes the movement of the contact while it is touching the touch screen. At last, it ends by saying "movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch sensitive display" which describes the conclusion of the movement and the conclusion of the device's response being patented.
Samsung vs Apple
Now that we went over the first claim of the "Slide to Unlock" patent, I would like to talk about patent litigation related to this patent in depth. Apple believed that Android was copying iOS, which one of the features was the slide to unlock feature. Even though Android's slide to unlock feature is not exactly the same as iOS, Steve Jobs nonetheless believed that intellectual property was stolen by Samsung. Yet, Apple could not sue Google as Google was simply giving out Android, so Apple decided to sue Samsung since it was the most influential distributor of smartphones running Android.
During the court cases, Apple has not won any Slide to Unlock patent battles in Europe. In 2014, Apple sued Samsung for various patent infringement and could later only compensate $119.6 million when they asked for $2 billion.
Great post Tiffany. Broke down a complicated case and made it easy to understand. I liked how you made sure to report on both the EU and USA's difference in rulings. Shows how subjective this case really is
ReplyDeleteHey Chris! Great comment on Tiffany's post. I completely agree that she broke down a very complicated case and made it really easy to follow. I like how you gave specific examples of what she did good. For example you talked about reporting on both EU and USA. Overall, great job Chris and Tiffany :)
Delete