Apple patents facial recognition tech for mobile log-in Apple has been granted a patent on techniques for unlocking a device based on facial recognition. US Patent number 8,600,120, "Personal computing device control using face detection and recognition," describes a system in which a device is able to access its camera and authorize access based on recognizing your face. In …
I never thought I'd be coming to Apples defense on something, but did anyone actually follow the uspo link in the article? The paten was filed in 2008...just like their immigration system, it would appear the patent office is also backlogged...
This IS just an example of an 'on a mobile device' crap that happens for patents.....
Google brought their face unlock tech from another company, in 2007 I think.. That company had patents, which Google now hold I assume..
Another example of a screwed up USPTO
Putting aside any possibility (almost certainly probable) that Google et al obtained/devised their technology before Apple in 2008 or not, in the US as I understand it, patent pending does not technically protect the filer, but regardless of that the intent of patents is that you are to actively develop the product or process or otherwise have a granted patent and/or already a product on the market.
But even regardless of that, before Google did it, it was a stupidly obvious way to have a phone unlock mechanism.
Prior art, failure to develop on patent filed and produce a marketable product, patent not granted before competition went to market, blatantly obvious.
But that all counts for nothing. USPTO will grant it. It will go to court Apple vs Samsung (never Google), Obama will comment that Apple is good for US and Samsung bad, Apple will win, Samsung pay Apple for a feature from Google that was never stolen from Apple in the first place for an obvious idea that wasn't patented correctly and Apple hadn't developed until way after the competition had. All perfectly fair in the land of the free.
The patent system has its theoretical benefits, but in general the whole system is so corrupt it would be far better to scrap patents entirely until someone comes up with a better one.
That's fine, 'cos it's not what the patent is about.
The patent is for a couple of things, first deciding if someone is sat in front of the device but not actively using it (reading a book, watching a movie for example) and having the device not do things like switching the display off and second, if someone is in front of the device then modifying the behaviour depending on them being an "authorised user" or not.
In other words, if you give your device to someone to watch a movie (or whatever), the device won't then go about showing them all your incoming messages or allow them access to your photographs or the device settings.
It's quite similar to what the XBOne does with Skype once set up, if it recognises one of the configured Skype users in the room when a call comes in it can bring up an incoming call to be answered, but if they're not present then it doesn't.
Apple gets away with this stuff because the USA does nothing to sort out their patent situations, rather than invent they would rather help their companies sue hundreds of millions out of other countries companies. To be honest, they should be a taught a lesson, its about time UK companies started to get ridiculous patents so that they can sue US companies for hundreds of millions or stop trading the UK. Maybe then they will realise something needs sorting.
I think his point was that UK companies need to start taking out ridiculous patents in the US so they can shaft US companies... they can't take out ridiculous patents in the UK because out courts would throw them out, as has been proven with Apples ridiculous design patent, rounded corners? way too much prior art!
Despite the fact that patents for this tech already exist, as well as prior art, do Apple still think they can tack "on a mobile device" to the end of an existing patent and have it declared as new?
Whatever drugs they're on, I want a kilo. As long as I dont get in trouble for using a bong with rounded corners.
Clearly others filed for patents on facial recognition earlier, probably not for unlocking a mobile device but perhaps for say unlocking a laptop using the built in webcam.
No comments on the merits of this patent, but you can't use the "Android phones did it first, that's prior art" as an argument, since there were exactly zero Android phones for sale when this patent was filed, nor can you claim Apple is copying Android if they do choose to implement it someday.
Seems a bit unlikely they will implement it since they've already thrown in with touch ID, though I suppose doing both facial recognition and fingerprint recognition would raise the bar to some degree for someone trying to bypass the protection since they'd now have to fool two (albeit neither are terribly difficult to fool) separate systems to do so.
"Clearly others filed for patents on facial recognition earlier, probably not for unlocking a mobile device but perhaps for say unlocking a laptop using the built in webcam."
US8149089 - granted. (Also published as US20090160609). An image clearly shows some sort of mobile device.
The priority date on Google Patents for that one is Dec 25 2007, for Apple's is Jan 3 2008. However, Google says the "priority date is only an estimate", so it isn't clear from the available information which patent would take precedence (if they even have overlapping claims)
You've been duped by The Registers default melodrama setting. Reading the first independent claim it is more specific than face unlock. It relates to taking an action in response to incomming communication plus face authentication. So one application is to only show text message notifications, or incomming call numbers on the lock screen, when it can "see" it is the owner's fizzog looking at it.
Great for cheating spouses, as I understand the number one reason for getting caught is the untimely appearance of text message notifications.
So instead of saying "text message from Jane" or "text message from Bob" it just makes the alert tone.
Which is worse, the jealous wife saying "who is Jane" and maybe not worrying about Bob, or the jealous wife saying "who the hell was that texting you" after every single text message you get.
Apple are not patenting facial recognition to log in.
What they have patented is when your phone gets an incoming text message, video message or email etc then it will log you in if your ugly mug is stuck in front of the phone so you can view the incoming text message, video message or email etc.
Patent is not for log in via facial recognition so not prior art because there have been PCs and laptops pre 2008 with Facial Recognition log in.
That said I don't see how you can patent something as bleeding obvious as if you have an alert that needs you to log in on a device that supports Facial Recognition then it should log you in if you stick your face in front of its camera.
Umm, just looking at the lock screen options on my Note II - "Face unlock"... "look at your phone to unlock it"
Edit: Ah, I see the Apple 'patent' is for using the tech in some other context... obvious but nobody else has thought to patent it yet so they jump in first to claim it as their own...
What gets me with all this is the fact that this patent was lodged in 2008, and yet Apple didn't have facial recognition installed in any of their phones. In 2013 they still don't. So basically, a bunch of Apple kruhhative types sat around throwing in 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' ideas and then patenting the idea before anyone at Apple had the remotest idea of how, or even if, the thing was going to be implemented.
By that token, somebody should be frantically patenting everything from FTL drives to multiply cloned humans for organ harvesting and then sitting back to wait for someone to invent them so they can sue.
And the USPTO STILL claim the system isn't broken?
Prior art. It's time Apple stopped trying to patent the world and everything in it, and actually got back to innovating.
Stealing other people's ideas, and even patenting ideas which are already in play is generally a bad business model, and one which not only makes me hate Apple, but continues to push me away from Apple products.
The apple is filled with poison. I'm not a big fan of poison.
But the US seriously either needs to take a broom to the US patent service, design some decent laws and get their act together or else the rest of the world needs to tell the US to stick their patents wherever they fit, if they want to sell in their countries.
It's just getting so ridiculous, I think the next big thing will be a Google for patents, just so you can see if your idea has been taken already, even then, some of the patent descriptions are so open ended you could still be screwed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
