You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
n00b question but why didn't google patent facial recognition unlock when they rolled out android 4?
I've noticed apple patented that this year
You can't have a patent on facial recognition in general. Patents require a description with methods. Once you describe your method to do facial recognition you can patent it. If someone else comes up with a different method they can patent it too. There are literally dozens of facial recognition patents because each method of doing it is different. Posted via RS Mobile
You can't have a patent on facial recognition in general. Patents require a description with methods. Once you describe your method to do facial recognition you can patent it. If someone else comes up with a different method they can patent it too. There are literally dozens of facial recognition patents because each method of doing it is different. Posted via RS Mobile
I personally have an Iphone 4S right now, I really don't support apple in this case.
But biases aside, you seem to be all up in this thread defending apple like you're one of their lawyers. It's hard to take you serious because every post sounds like a religious fanatic with Apple being your god.
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 181
Thanked 109 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomac
Felt like this was vaguely relevant:
Vaguely. Samsung, and Android in general have already surpassed Apple in market share and will continue to do so. Apple's mobile business will end up like their PC business.
Vaguely. Samsung, and Android in general have already surpassed Apple in market share and will continue to do so. Apple's mobile business will end up like their PC business.
Formerly niche and now semi-mainstream and incredibly profitable?
IBut biases aside, you seem to be all up in this thread defending apple like you're one of their lawyers. It's hard to take you serious because every post sounds like a religious fanatic with Apple being your god.
More like I'm the only person arguing from logic and reason instead of emotions. Case in point, my very last post you commented on is 100% fact. Please tell me how stating the facts about how the patent system works (and why you can have dozens of patents for something like facial recognition) is being a "fanatic"?
My post before that asked: "I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to give a valid reason to allow the owner of a standard essential patent (SEP) to use that patent to block sales of a competitor. Or to restrict or prevent a competitor from using that patent." Come on people, if I'm so wrong then any one of you should be able to jump right in with an explanation as to why I'm wrong.
IIRC apple's is using the live picture of a person and Android's is a snapshot that gets scanned and analyzed.
I could be wrong.
Apple has two patents for facial recognition. The first is to allow facial recognition using the minimal amount of processor power. In this patent the camera on an iPad (for example) would be on as a potential user is in close proximity. The face is recognized even before the user grabs the iPad to use it. By the time the user has awoken the device, it's already been configured to the particular user it has identified by face. If you had several family members using one device, it only has to decide which person is using the device. This is not a very secure system so it wouldn't be suitable for face-unlock.
The other patent is a method for creating a 3D representation of an object using multiple 2D pictures or video. This is a very secure system and would be suitable for a face unlock feature. In this system you'd have to take multiple pictures of your face from various angles so an internal 3D model could be created from your face. If you had face unlock, then it wouldn't really matter what angle you held your phone to your face since there's a 3D model of your face stored in the phone. This makes the system more reliable and reduces errors. It also doesn't force you to hold your phone at an exact angle or distance to work.
The second patent is probably the one you're thinking of.
More like I'm the only person arguing from logic and reason instead of emotions. Case in point, my very last post you commented on is 100% fact. Please tell me how stating the facts about how the patent system works (and why you can have dozens of patents for something like facial recognition) is being a "fanatic"?
Why is it that the popular opinion from news outlets everywhere seem to give the opposite opinion then?
^^ Great article on the lengths that Apple goes to secure as broad of a patent as it can by abusing (or lets say "working") the system, pre-emptively suing companies, and negotiating in bad faith
Why is it okay for a company to try to sue a competitor by twisting facts and claiming that a tap is a zero-length swipe?
Why is it okay that a patent for slide to unlock be unnecessarily broadened so that it now covers nearly any swipe movement to unlock such that the movement of an image in any direction in any length to any region now infringes said patent? How is this a "specific implementation" when it covers this broad of an action? Every developer has worked around Apple's implementation and now every touchscreen device on the planet infringes on this ridiculous patent (yes, I am using hyperbole).
I guess as long as I can stand in line next year to get another row of icons, I'll be happy being oblivious to it all. You're telling me the entire system is fine and we (the USPTO) should keep granting these patents?
Formerly? They have less than 10% global market share. As for incredibly profitable, you must mean their iPod, iPhone, iPad division.
10% market share is huge, considering just how many hundreds of other models are out there.
And yes, there computer line up is profitable. You can't tell me a laptop that costs twice as much as a similarly spec'ed out PC unit isn't making greater profits...
Why is it that the popular opinion from news outlets everywhere seem to give the opposite opinion then?
Don't you mean the opinion of some news outlets? Did you even read those articles, or did you just look at the title and think "hey, this sounds good"? You remind me of all the conpisracy nuts who post on RS. Everytime you ask them something they respond with "watch this video and you'll understand" or "read this article - it explains everything."
For example, The Verge article is very close to my point of view. That is, the patent system works good for the most part, but could use a few tweaks and updates. This is very different from the people who think the system is a complete failure and needs an overhaul from the ground up.
Here are a few quotes from The Verge article you listed:
Quote:
Motorola (now Google) and Samsung have built their entire smartphone patent cases on FRAND patents. But promising fair licenses to anyone to encourage use of a standard and then suing to block products when there’s no agreement on terms is flatly anti-competitive, and governments around the world are taking notice:
Gee, that kinda sounds like what I've been saying all along, and again in my previous post where I explicitly asked for someone to show me why this practice is OK. And then they say this:
Quote:
Now, I'm not a software developer, mathematician, or patent expert, and I haven’t drafted a perfect software patent law that will protect real innovation and exempt mathematical principles while maintaining or even lowering the overall costs of the system.
Imagine that, a person who admits they know nothing about software development, math or patents is writing an article about why we need changes to the patent system.
And how exactly is Apple "twisting facts" to sue competitors? Are you telling me Apple is "tricking" judges into making incorrect decisions?
Apple has widened their slide-to-unlock, but the workarounds already done by Android vendors do not infringe this new patent. So please explain why there's something wrong with this patent if it isn't going to affect any existing Android vendors anyway?
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 181
Thanked 109 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomac
10% market share is huge, considering just how many hundreds of other models are out there.
And yes, there computer line up is profitable. You can't tell me a laptop that costs twice as much as a similarly spec'ed out PC unit isn't making greater profits...
This phone uses a different method, and therefore doesn't infringe Apple's patents. Nor does Apple infringe their patent (if they even have one).
The Neonode has very simple gestures. Slide Right is used for 'Yes', 'OK', or 'Accept'. Slide Left is used for 'No', 'Back' or 'Cancel'. It's the slide equivalent of the Windows "OK Cancel" pop up window.
These images are from the Neonode manual.
Now this is where it gets interesting. Apple used the Neonode user manual for the N1 in their patent application. It's listed in the supporting documents of the patent. So much for people thinking Apple was somehow blindsided by Neonode or didn't know about them. Not only did Apple know about Neonode, they used them as a reference to show the difference between Apple's system and Neonode's.
However, I searched and had a very hard time finding this manual. All the links for the manual are dead and even Neonode no longer has it available. The link Apple referenced in their application is also dead. I did finally locate one which is where these screen shots are from.
Note the area circled in red. It clearly states there is text on the screen that says "Sweep right to unlock." Yet in the video above there's no text. Nor is there any text in the N1 or N2 videos of the unlock screen - they all show the padlock. The N2 user manual (which is very easy to find, BTW) also has no reference to text on screen or images other than the padlock.
Now I'm not a conspiracy nut, but seeing how easy it is to edit PDF files I think this one I located was edited by someone to try and add fuel to the debate. Unfortunately they modified the PDF without first checking an actual phone and realizing they don't match.
Don't you mean the opinion of some news outlets? Did you even read those articles, or did you just look at the title and think "hey, this sounds good"? You remind me of all the conpisracy nuts who post on RS. Everytime you ask them something they respond with "watch this video and you'll understand" or "read this article - it explains everything."
Oh gee, I guess a judge, the NY Times (with various sources from Google, Nuance, Vlingo, Apple), and a respected game developer are just throwaway sources. Do you want me to keep looking for more commentary? Cause I can keep giving them to you if it changes your mind (unlikely). Forbes? Guardian? CNN? Pick your source. Or are all these news outlets equivalent to YouTube videos on the illuminati to you?
Quote:
For example, The Verge article is very close to my point of view. That is, the patent system works good for the most part, but could use a few tweaks and updates. This is very different from the people who think the system is a complete failure and needs an overhaul from the ground up.
Depends what you mean by tweaks (I doubt that you even know). The whole article sums up that the system needs change to reflect modern software development. You, on the other hand, repeatedly surmise that (software) patents are fine as is and serve their purpose well. I've not mentioned once that the system is a complete failure. It is screwed up and needs changing, that is for sure. Perhaps you should try reading the NY Times article to see for yourself how Apple attempts to wear down the patent office with submissions and how effective it is for them, amongst other problems.
Quote:
Here are a few quotes from The Verge article you listed:
Gee, that kinda sounds like what I've been saying all along, and again in my previous post where I explicitly asked for someone to show me why this practice is OK. And then they say this:
Imagine that, a person who admits they know nothing about software development, math or patents is writing an article about why we need changes to the patent system.
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I haven't mentioned FRAND patents once adn that is not the topic of my discussion.
Quote:
And how exactly is Apple "twisting facts" to sue competitors? Are you telling me Apple is "tricking" judges into making incorrect decisions?
No. Thankfully, the judge in question was smart enough to dismiss Apple's ridiculous claims. Apple sued Motorola on the premise that a tap was a zero-length swipe and thus Motorola's unlock mechanism infringed on Apple's patent. I'm guessing this is something that's probably acceptable to you.
Quote:
Apple has widened their slide-to-unlock, but the workarounds already done by Android vendors do not infringe this new patent. So please explain why there's something wrong with this patent if it isn't going to affect any existing Android vendors anyway?
This is up to the courts to decide. There are many ways in which Apple could argue this and I would not be surprised to see them argue that stock Android's unlock "dots" are a static image that you swipe until you reach an unlock region. In fact, the writer of that (broadened slide to unlock) Verge article has plenty of hypothetical claims that could be made by Apple.
Edit:
Here is his profile
Quote:
Matt Macari is a writer at The Verge, on issues where technology and law intersect. Matt's a lover of technology, who happens also to be a patent attorney.
Matt lives in the Phoenix area with his wife, son and mischievous cat. He is a registered attorney in Arizona, Minnesota, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Here are his posts
Regarding stock Android's unlock mechanism:
Quote:
Great question. I’ve given it some thought and both sides have an argument. The original unlock image isn’t what is moved — it’s the dotted pattern that moves to an unlock regions (perimeter of circle). That would be Google’s argument.
Apple would likely argue that “an unlock image” moves, defining that as the dotted pattern, or that the image transitions into something else, but still derives from the original unlock image.
Regarding HTC
Quote:
Matt Macari's reply:
And I don’t think HTC’s unlock screen needs you to go past any region to unlock. You just move the circle around on the screen and it only unlocks when you flick away or remove contact of the finger.
Cats-R-Friend's reply:
the region is about an inch, once its freed from the bottom of the screen it is past the region.
then anywhere you drop it the screen unlocks
Matt Macari's reply:
You’re making an argument that Apple would make. I understand it. I’m just saying it’s not a clear cut winner.
But hey.. the guy is probably a conspiracy theorist. What does he know?
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
