Apple applies for “Face and Presence Detection” patent — Android laughs

December 29, 2011

Views: 71

I'm not really sure where to start on this one other than oh wait -- Android already has the feature. It's called "Face Unlock" and is available on the Samsung Galaxy Nexus within Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich. Just like our friendly source over at Phandroid I don't really want to simply sit here and bash Apple but I can't help but do so a little bit with this latest "innovation" and patent they've applied for.

At first glance your are probably thinking seriously, what the hell. And I was too but after looking through the patent and information a bit closer over at PatentlyApple you'll quickly notice that this has been in the works for at least a few years -- and originally wasn't aimed at iOS or mobile devices and actually was for laptops and computers.

Obviously we don't know Apple's plans, or how long this has been brewing -- or why Google hasn't patented this themselves for mobile devices but this could cause some potentially big problems later on. Something like "Face Unlock" has been around forever and seen in hundreds of movies so the thought of it being special and an innovation exclusively to Apple seems a bit ridiculous. We don't know all of the details and Apple's patent seems to be quite thorough but either way I'm not liking the sound of this already. It almost seems as if Apple is just scooping up any and all possible patents to use as ammunition to fight the competition in the court room, rather than on the shelves.


[via Phandroid]

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • Anonymous

    Apple is such a joke! GOD! Why are people so ignorant?!

    • Anonymous

      But apple is supposed to be “magical” and “innovative” or at least is in the court room.

      • Baris Bicer

        They can “innovate” a more comfortable stick to replace the one already in their asses. This is ridiculous.

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t someone hold the patent for a flying car even though they aren’t working on a prototype and the idea was around way before the patent was filed and approved?

  • Shakib

    guys, do you think that apple is stupid to apply for such patent without strong reason and evidences , I doubt.

    • Anonymous

      I think apple is stupid enough to do it. They have more money and lawyers than anyone and will throw anything at the board and see what sticks.

    • theBonVoyage

      Not stupid but ballsy…Douchey, even. 

    • theBonVoyage

      Not stupid but ballsy…Douchey, even. 

  • Learning2livelyf

    It should be invalidated in court because it already is in use and exists

  • Anonymous

    1. This is NOT a patent on “face recognition”. This application is for a very specific algorithm that the inventor claims will improve accuracy. If the Android code doesn’t use that specific algorithm, they’re not in violation.

    2. It’s not been granted. This is an application only. It was filed in June 2010. Who knows if it will be granted or not.

    • Thomas Wrobel

      ” This application is for a very specific algorithm that the”

      The one in the flowchart at least is pretty standard. Theres a few, but it really isnt unique.

  • David LaCivita

    In the US the patent goes to who applies first not who uses it first.  Look at slide to unlock.

    • Moitoi

      Simple : Prior Art … right ???

  • Airtimestudios

    if Apple get’s the patent because Google didn’t bother who’s going to look stupid then….

  • Airtimestudios

    if Apple get’s the patent because Google didn’t bother who’s going to look stupid then….

  • Anonymous

    You can’t patent something for which prior art exists. Not even if you are Apple.

  • SensibleVision

    Thanks for the article, Cory. This article describes a small part of the technology that FastAccess has used since we innovated this type of face recognition in 2006. At CES next week, we will demonstrate our new mobile version. Our patent-pending tech is highly resistant to photo and video of an enrolled person’s face.

  • Litigation Support Services

    What Apple is doing here looks like a madness to me,  clearly prior art should be seen here. They have money and lawyer doesn’t means they will keep on doing this.