If any software patents are valid, I think this one is legit.

Note that the Android unlock "grid" would not seem to be covered by this patent, as reported by the Register. Because you aren’t moving a graphic somewhere or along a path.

And I can’t think of prior art.

We all thought this was pretty cool is 2007. Remember? Before the iPhone, phones had a physical "lock" switch and/or a clamshell mechanism that obviated the need for unlock and/or you had to push star-zero, and tablets and PDAs had power buttons and styluses, but no one had swipe to unlock.

It’s genuine innovation, easy enough to work around, and I don’t hold the patent against them.

IANAL, etc.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

It is patents like this that render the innovative entrepreneurial market to a suffocating doom.

And no, it's not just Apple, of course - I'm not focussing on them particularly. They were just lucky enough to be the subject of this HN post.

Disgusting.

Generally I dislike the idea of software patents but this is a tough one. Mainly because it was a damn good idea and should be treated as such. I can see maybe treating it as a design patent kind of thing like Apple is pursuing against Samsung in Europe. If there's any debate it would be whether the task warranted a patent in the first place since how else would you unlock a phone by interacting with the touch screen if not by a gesture of some sort?

Did any touch screen devices even lock/unlock in the first place before the iPhone? If so, how did you unlock them? Physical button maybe?

From my quick glance it seems to specifically cover the type of unlocking gesture and design introduced with the iPhone so it may not cover all unlocking actions in the market.

Users are delighted that Apple creates these little flourishes, the tiny details that add character and engagement to things like the iPhone.

Many have noted and appreciated the focus that lead Steve Jobs and Jony Ive to spend ages designing something consumers hardly notice.

And they've demonstrated quite well that the parts of a product which others consider trivial and put little thought towards, are in fact the places where a maker can demonstrate the care they have for the product, and by extension, for customers.

But then when they turn around and patent them, the knives come out. Because Apple staking a claim to these silly, trivial designs is ridiculous and "disgusting".

It's going to be really hard to resolve these two viewpoints.

What does it cost to license such a patent?