• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

why doesn't google patent notification bar?

A

ahmeny

Newbie
I am not familiar with the patent law but from what i see that apple copied the notification bar from android, why apple can ban products from being sold in a country for infringing small patent like slide and unlock while they manage to get away from that? i don't understand.
pardon my not so proper English, it is not my native language.:D
 
You can't apply for a patent if that invention was already available to the public, so if it's not already patented then it's not happening.
 
sleepingseason said:
You can't apply for a patent if that invention was already available to the public, so if it's not already patented then it's not happening.
Click to expand...

Then please tell me how Apple patented the Slide to Unlock feature? It was available long before the iphone. Or patenting a rectangular shape, Apple apparently patented the rectangular shape with rounded corners. Or the Multi Touch feature, it was invented and in use before the iphone. I totally agree with you but please tell me how Apple got these patented and how they won court cases on them?
 
the problem with all these lawsuits are the patents. They need to figure out something different because it seems way too easy to sue someone in the tech industry over patents, now.

IMO, google shouldn't patent the notification bar. I believe they should leave it as is and don't stoop to Apple's level. If google wants Android to be open source, dont patent something like the notification bar.

Thats just my thoughts.
 
nyydynasty said:
the problem with all these lawsuits are the patents. They need to figure out something different because it seems way too easy to sue someone in the tech industry over patents, now.

IMO, google shouldn't patent the notification bar. I believe they should leave it as is and don't stoop to Apple's level. If google wants Android to be open source, dont patent something like the notification bar.

Thats just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

At this point its not about stooping its about protection. Apple doesn't care about open source or innovation they want to get paid. Google needs to protect android. In Jobs book he said apple would spend every penny to kill android and that's what they are trying
 
DaviMack said:
At this point its not about stooping its about protection. Apple doesn't care about open source or innovation they want to get paid. Google needs to protect android. In Jobs book he said apple would spend every penny to kill android and that's what they are trying
Click to expand...
IMO, Apple's ultimate downfall will be themselves.
 
1. I love it.. and hope google can force ... apple to pay for the use of it.. or can not sell their devices in USA and other markets..

2. I dont think apple is stupid.. evil yes.. not stupid. before they copied the Notification bar... apple must have know this would happen. and came up with a plan(s) to fight or get around it.


this is going to be very entertaining to watch this unfold .. over many years.
 
nyydynasty said:
IMO, google shouldn't patent the notification bar. I believe they should leave it as is and don't stoop to Apple's level. If google wants Android to be open source, dont patent something like the notification bar.
Click to expand...
They could patent it and still allow it to be Open Source. They could patent it, license it to AOSP and all subsequent users with permission from AOSP/OHA. While not fully Open Source directly, this would serve a couple of purposes:

  1. The feature(s) would be protected and therefore defensible
  2. All manufacturers that can use the "gapps" package (which is licensed similarly I believe) would still have access to the feature(s)
  3. It would drive manufacturer compliance with the AOSP & OHA's premises (ie drive more source code posting and further the Open Source nature as a whole).
  4. Holding a patent doesn't mean that Google would have to begin trolling iOS, just protect its own IP.
I'm not a patent lawyer and that could be incorrect, but that is how I see it.
 
I have no idea how they have managed to get and keep the slide to unlock patent in either the face of prior art or getting over the requirement of non-obviousness - I'm writing my dissertation about the patent wars at the moment and it's amazing what ideas people are claiming that they own
 
The whole patent system is ridiculously broken. Just the idea that Google COULD patent the drop down notification bar is ridiculous. To me software is lines of code at the end of the day. It's protected by copyright, not patents. John Grisham can't patent "book about lawyers". Instead he copyrights his work and if I rip it off he sues the pants off of me.
 
sleepingseason said:
I have no idea how they have managed to get and keep the slide to unlock patent in either the face of prior art or getting over the requirement of non-obviousness - I'm writing my dissertation about the patent wars at the moment and it's amazing what ideas people are claiming that they own
Click to expand...

You many find this background interesting on the slide to unlock -

EarlyMon said:
How interesting. The story first hit 9-to-5 Mac, here's the link -

Slide to Unlock? Patented! | 9to5Mac | Apple Intelligence

Earlier, that story referenced patent 7,657,849 because it was filed in 2005 (but actually granted in Feb 2010.

Abstract:

A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.
Click to expand...
But now 9-to-5 is correctly noting the 2004 Neonode N1m was cited by a Dutch judge who declared the Apple patent invalid due to this prior art -

Neonode N1m review - YouTube

(edit - try not to go nuts on tnkgrl from Engadget swapping her lefts and rights in the explanation - she was watching another display and goofed, it happens)

Meanwhile, they also updated the article to explain that it was patent 8,046,721 that was granted on Oct 25, 2011, interestingly filed in June 2009. Note the abstract -

A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display. The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device. The device displays one or more unlock images with respect to which the predefined gesture is to be performed in order to unlock the device. The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.
Click to expand...
So - the new patent filed in 2009 is a continuation (expansion?) of the patent filed in 2005.

I'm too busy or bored to track down iPhone details. There will be a lot of work for the legal hounds on this one. Five years on that first patent - that means that an examiner was not happy and Apple had to answer to their questions. That was probably the basis for the 2009 filing.

I was curious enough to see how wide this patent went on touchscreen tech and found -

The touch screen 126 and touch screen controller 122 may detect contact and any movement or break thereof using any of a plurality of touch sensitivity technologies, including but not limited to capacitive, resistive, infrared, and surface acoustic wave technologies, as well as other proximity sensor arrays or other elements for determining one or more points of contact with the touch screen 126.
Click to expand...
If other courts agree with the Dutch judge, then Apple has tried to patent prior art and this all goes away.

If we get judges like that German idiot - well... it'll be more fun and games.
Click to expand...

A.Nonymous said:
The whole patent system is ridiculously broken. Just the idea that Google COULD patent the drop down notification bar is ridiculous. To me software is lines of code at the end of the day. It's protected by copyright, not patents. John Grisham can't patent "book about lawyers". Instead he copyrights his work and if I rip it off he sues the pants off of me.
Click to expand...

I would agree and in the old days, everything was done by copyright - but that's changed. My IP attorney advised ne that if you don't have patents, you'll find most copyright-based enforcement a nightmare. (note - he's not your lawyer, neither am I, take that simply fwiw, nothing more, cheers, thanks)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom