Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

Re:Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v... by aetherson on Tuesday July 29, 2014 @06:55PM (#8105461)

Slide-to-unlock was probably a pretty important, cool idea for whoever first invented it (not Apple -- though maybe they reinvented it from scratch). It's one of those things that's obvious in retrospect but difficult to necessarily think of when you're starting from a white page.

But not all important, cool ideas are patentable -- nor should they be. Patents are meant to reward research, not "good ideas."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v... by sitkack on Tuesday July 29, 2014 @07:49PM (#8105645)

You mean like a 3$ gate latch?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v... by lostcolony on Tuesday July 29, 2014 @08:22PM (#8105765)

Exactly. The latches on a briefcase. This is atextbook patent for 'a common real world thing, "But on a computer"'

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v... by upbeat_addict on Tuesday July 29, 2014 @08:23PM (#8105774)

it's always reminded me of an apt door chain lock.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v... by shmerl on Wednesday July 30, 2014 @12:40AM (#8106408)

> Slide-to-unlock was probably a pretty important, cool idea for whoever first invented it

You mean whoever invented the sliding lock? It is indeed obvious in retrospect, but was probably a breakthrough when it was invented (that is ages ago).

Such kind of patents are coming very close to patenting a wheel.

[ Parent | on HN ]