Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent 194
An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that Google was awarded a patent yesterday for logging into a computing device using face recognition (8,261,090). 'In order for the technology to work, Google's patent requires a camera that can identify a person's face. If that face matches a "predetermined identity," then the person is logged into the respective device. If multiple people want to access a computer, the next person would get in front of the camera, and the device's software would automatically transition to the new user's profile. ... Interestingly, Apple last year filed for a patent related to facial recognition similar to what Google is describing in its own service. That technology would recognize a person's face and use that as the authentication needed to access user profiles or other important information.'"
Doesn't work unless... (Score:4, Informative)
...you do it with a stereo camera and verify that it's the person in person and not a photo of that person. There have been previous articles here showing that the technology has been broken using that method, simply holding up a photo of that person to the camera.
Re:My lenovo laptop (Score:4, Informative)
Yep I also have a Lenovo since more than a year, it was delivered with VeriFace pre-installed.
This shit is a bit slow to load however, Faster to just type the password...
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
This is the new reality that Apple has created.
I think Nokia got $600 million from Apple for some fairly 'obvious' stuff, before Apple started suing for 'obvious' stuff.
Not that it matters who started it really, the Patent system needs some serious reform and hopefully all these law suits will draw some scrutiny on the process.
If that's a world where scrutiny is bought to system that doesn't work properly then I don't care who made that world. I'm just happy that they did.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
Rocketing up to +5 with an anti-Apple post, I see, but this kind of stupidity in patent-land has been going on a long time. I mean, come on--Slashdot has had a knife-fork-spoon icon [fsdn.com] for "patents" [slashdot.org] for quite some time, and for a reason. 1-click purchasing, anyone?
October 1999: Amazon.com Receives Patent for 1-Click Shopping [slashdot.org]
May 2006: Amazon One-Click Patent to be Re-Examined [slashdot.org]
October 2007: USPTO Rejects Amazon's One-Click Patent [slashdot.org]
November 2007: Amazon Sneaks One-Click Past the Patent System [slashdot.org]
March 2010: Amazon 1-Click Patent Survives Almost Unscathed [slashdot.org] ... to trot out just one example.
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:5, Informative)
This patent, like most modern, computer-related patents, do not describe, much less patent, the actual solution to the problem. They patent the problem itself.
Consider, for instance, claim 12 (for increased legibility, I have added some punctuation, numbering, and line breaks):
A computer program product
- stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium
- and comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to:
1. receive an image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device;
2. determine an identity of the first user based on the received first image;
3. if the determined identity of the first user matches the first predetermined identity,
- then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the first predetermined identity,
- log the first user in to the computing device;
4. receive a second image of a second user via the camera operably coupled with the computing device;
5. determine an identity of the second user based on the received second image;
6. and if the determined identity of the second user matches the second predetermined identity,
- then, issue a prompt to confirm that the first user should be logged off of the computing device
- and that the second user should be logged on to the computing device;
7. receive a valid confirmation from the first or second user in response to the prompt;
8. in response to receiving the valid confirmation,
- log the first user off of the computing device
- and log the second user in to the computing device.
Re:My lenovo laptop (Score:5, Informative)
has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.
But you forgot Claim #9:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes a phone.
Further, the pictures may be stored elsewhere (on the network or in your google account for example). So you buy new android phone, and hold it in front of your face and it automatically logs you into your account, using a comparison against photos the phone doesn't actually contain.
Or you borrow a phone, the owner of which has unlocked it for you, and you go thru the face-unlock (again) and for the duration of that login it is your phone with your account on it. (claim 1 and Claim 20)
Further, fall back methods are specified in case the images don't compare, or the environment is not conducive to photos (dark).
Google cited many if not all of the relevant patents in this field. Then they added claim 9, and claim 20, which both specify a phone.
Its a narrow patent (not that you would ever learn that from the Slashdot summary), that applies to phones and has the added wrinkle of allowing off-device storage of the comparison set of photos which are used to make a 3d model of your face).
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:5, Informative)
Google has learned how to game the system, same as the rest. The entire patent is junk and is expected to be junk. Being novel or innovative is not its purpose. Its purpose is as a defensive weapon, which the summary mentions in passing. The entire point of this piece of idiocy is in-before-Apple. And they succeeded. Now Apple can't claim they "invented" any of this shit and sue them when the iPad 3 does it. (Ok, that's not true. Apple can and probably still will claim they invented it and sue somebody using Android for it, somewhere along the line. This is just a piece of paper that a dumbshit lawyer can understand.)