Apple Acquisition of AuthenTec Meant No Nexus 6 Fingerprint Scanner

[Guest Kloaked]

How was the dimple on the NEXUS 6 meant for a fingerprint scanner when the first Moto X (and other Motorola phones?) had the dimple before the Nexus even launched? Or did I miss something.

[martinrox1568]

Motorola helped pioneer fingerprint sensors, so those who say it was gonna be shitty need to do some research...

Yeah their scanner sucked tbh. Apple is the only one out there with a fingerprint scanner that seems to actually be easily usable

[Builder]

Yeah, and Sennheiser was going to put a Beats logo on the Momentum on-ear before Apple acquired them. How the fuck is this Apple's fault? They bought a company that one of their competitors depended on for parts and used their innovations to make a better product. It's the perfect business move.

 

i really hate companies that try to control the market

You're right. Apple now has a monopoly on AuthenTec fingerprint scanners. And iPhones.

 

I can see the headlines now.

 

I remember finger print scanning being around before cellphones or even apple was a thing, this patent stuff it's out of control.

And I remember fire being around before internal combustion or even engines were a thing. This patent stuff, it's out of control.

 

Do you realize how absurd that sounds? Your sentence does not sense make. I can barely even parse that syntax let alone understand the semantics. 

 

That hasn't stop them before when it comes to litigation though.

Oh, hasn't it? What would they even litigate over? The IDEA of a fingerprint scanner?

[Techteen14]

To all the Apple fanboys people saying Motorola's implementation would be inferior because it's not made by Apple: it probably would be exactly the same as Touch ID, as they were going to use the same company's tech.

As Builder said, this was a perfect business move.

[Misanthrope]

Oh, hasn't it? What would they even litigate over? The IDEA of a

I'm no lawyer but they can come up with something ridiculous like "non stationary rectangle that scans fingerprints....yep that's our patent"

[Builder]

I'm no lawyer but they can come up with something ridiculous like "non stationary rectangle that scans fingerprints....yep that's our patent"

Um...how about...no.

 

Regardless of the fact that prior art would invalidate the issuing of that patent in the first place there's literally no description of a patentable technology there. Technology patents protect unique implementations of a solution, design patents protect design contextually. You're getting the two confused.

[LAwLz]

Yeah, and Sennheiser was going to put a Beats logo on the Momentum on-ear before Apple acquired them. How the fuck is this Apple's fault? They bought a company that one of their competitors depended on for parts and used their innovations to make a better product. It's the perfect business move.

 

You're right. Apple now has a monopoly on AuthenTec fingerprint scanners. And iPhones.

It is Apple's fault because they keep things to themselves. Makes sense from a business POV, but it slows down technology advancements. Apple having exclusive rights to the best supplier of finger print scanners for phones hurts everyone (including you), and only benefits Apple.

 

Um...how about...no.

 

Regardless of the fact that prior art would invalidate the issuing of that patent in the first place there's literally no description of a patentable technology there. Technology patents protect unique implementations of a solution, design patents protect design contextually. You're getting the two confused.

Apple has been able to get patents for things with prior art before, and been able to enforce it. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if they managed to get a patent (design or utility) on finger print scanners on all phones.

I mean, really. This is one of their design patents "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."

 

You don't have to infringe on 100% of a design patent to break the law either (the word "substantially" is key here), so the patent linked above is quite literally a patent on square electronic devices, and believe me when I say those existed long before 2004.

[Builder]

You don't have to infringe on 100% of a design patent to break the law either (the word "substantially" is key here), so the patent linked above is quite literally a patent on square electronic devices, and believe me when I say those existed long before 2004.

Yes I realize what a design patent is. I've tried many times before to explain the concept to you, but seeing as you think design is purely aesthetic and not functional you will never understand why people would want it protected. You first have to have a basic respect for industrial design before you can understand design patents. It's not a patent on square electronic devices, but I appreciate your attempting to paint it that way. I'm not going to argue about this with you, you're an anti-copyright, anti-patent troll and you don't care about design.

 

Good day.