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.'"
Good facial recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Good facial recognition has existed for several years now. Using that tech for authentication is obvious. Patents continue to suck.
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just "facial recognition" that they were awarded the patent on. It's the method of recognition and the technology suite behind it.
I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps. Normally these are the people who are made fun of around here but really, Slashdotters aren't that much better for the most part.
How long until one of you wanna-bes post something like "But I thought scientists said coffee was good fer ya!?!? These scientists don't know nothing!!!"
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:4, Funny)
I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps.
Wait, Gimp now has facial recognition too?
He said gimp!, right? I read it on the intertubes!
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: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that enablement is a requirement based on the entire disclosure. The claims indicate what needs to be enabled by the disclosure. Also, enablement doesn't mean that every last detail has to be disclosed - anything already in the prior art, for instance, is assumed to be within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art, and so they don't have to regurgitate some face recognition technique that's well known in the art.
Re: (Score:3)
A computer program product - stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium - and comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to:
These "instructions" that are executed...where are they? I don't see any source code in the patent filing or claims. And that is the problem with these software patents. If you file a software patent then disclose the source code as part of the patent that way people skilled in the art can actually implement your invention.
I also do not see any source code or "instructions" for the "heuristics" in any of Apple's "on a mobile phone" software patents either.
Re: (Score:3)
I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps.
Quite so. So, let's see...
1. A method of logging a first user in to a computing device comprising: receiving a first image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device; determining an identity of the first user based on the received first image; if the determined identity of the first user matches a first predetermined identity, then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the firs
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that the person who wrote this patent has no background in actual facial recognition techniques and bases their knowledge on what they have seen
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.)
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in totally unrelated news, Apple had just received a patent for the same shit but on a phone!
Re: (Score:2)
Prior art in face recognition dates back many millions of years!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I have been locking and unlocking my house based on recognizing faces through a peephole since the 70s. My parents claim to have been doing it for decades longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorporating facial recognition in a device that incorporates a camera. Some thing seems decidedly wrong about that whole principle. Camera takes picture of persons face, hmm, have colour printer. Something just quite doesn't make sense about this whole security picture. Why do I get the feeling it's like selling locks with a set of locks picks designed to pick those locks.
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
Blink to unlock is a standard part of Android Jelly Bean. It has nothing to do with samsung, other than that they make at least one phone that has Jelly Bean.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't Blink. Don't even blink!
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:4, Funny)
Don't Blink. Don't even blink!
He said "Jelly Bean", not "Jelly Baby".
Re: (Score:3)
So says the Archangel Michael......
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good facial recognition (Score:5, Funny)
blink to login. ok.
but to get to root, you have to do a full sneeze. and I can't always do that on command.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sneeze expressions and orgasm expressions are identical.
Re: (Score:2)
You simply do it like the classic paper-face dolls. Horisontal folds in paper and thin string or slots in paper and pulltab.
Re: (Score:3)
Steps to defeat:
Set up a video camera with a long zoom lens from a hundred feet. Hit record. Wait for them to blink. Play back the video footage on a tablet. Steal their car or phone or whatever.
No paper cutouts needed. Now if they had two cameras, it might actually be a slight challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
But its hard to steal their phone from hundreds of feet away....
Re: (Score:2)
My lenovo laptop (Score:5, Interesting)
has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just Lenovo. I've seen Asus laptops that have this too, the first one I saw was about 3 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Lenovo has had it for longer than that. The IdeaPad my daughter got when she graduated in 2008 had it.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you fool it with a photo?
No, but a Guy Fawkes mask will let you straight in.
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:My lenovo laptop (Score:5, Funny)
Dell TOO (Score:2)
And Alienware (Score:2)
Alienware is still there, but only as it occasionally manages to beat me typing in the password (I gave up even trying to wave myself at the camera solely)
Android is pretty much as useful. "OOh new feature" *few attempts* - and back to pattern unlock.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone seems to have a laptop that did this several years ago for one person to log in. As I read the google patent, this is for multiple people who use the same device.
On my old dell laptop, it recognizes my face and logs me in, no problem. When my wife sits down in front of that laptop, though... I am still logged in and she can view my, um, facebook relationships, browsing for a hookup history, gambling history, online dating site history ... you get the idea.
What this patent does is deny access to
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: (Score:3)
This is not true, this is a complete falsehood.
You are either ignorant or a lier
.
First to FIle only even comes into play when two inventors claim to have both invented the same item at around the same time. It has no impact on prior art.
Insert "How long until Apple sues" comment here (Score:2)
Not yet (Score:2)
I'm guessing this is a preemptive patent, which Google may or may not use in the future. Currently, their face recognition software can't even differentiate between human and animal faces, let alone two human ones.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true - it bugs me that a company can patent something they don't even have the ability to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that requiring a working prototype would make it impossible for an independent inventor to patent their product before shopping around for investments.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure it can tell the difference between two human faces. Face unlock on my Galaxy Nexus lets me in, but does not let my girlfriend unlock the phone.
I don't use it often, but I tested this when I first got the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your girlfriend have a face? Maybe that's why she can't log in.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, she is even human.
You see when a slashdotter gets very old(30+) he has money and confidence so he can suddenly do very well with the ladies.
Re: (Score:2)
DO NOT USE CHLOROFORM.
Use ether, chloroform overdose is very possible with a rag based application method and will lead to cardiac arrest. For the sake of your future bride use ether!
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: (Score:2)
and not a photo of that person
Y'know, most webcams are sensitive into the IR. If they could filter out the visible, perhaps a heatmap could be built to recognize a living face.
Use some sort of liquid crystal that's opaque to IR or transmissive of IR and opaque to visible light instead of the permanent filters typically used today.
</priorartbitches>
Re: (Score:2)
The IR wavelengths that webcams can detect are not the same at which our bodies emit; the object needs to be at least at 280 degrees Celsius (536F) to be possibly detected by regular camera sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you didn't read the patent...
Re: (Score:2)
A simpler solution is to verify if the image has slightly alterations over time, or to require that the person to blink or do any other thing.
If it is just looking for random variances in the face all you need to do now is video tape the person and play it back on your laptop or iPad in front of the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
A simpler solution is to verify if the image has slightly alterations over time, or to require that the person to blink or do any other thing.
Android 4.1 (Jellybean) has a "liveness check" which requires an eyeblink to unlock:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/06/29/jelly-beans-face-unlock-asks-you-to-blink-for-the-camera-locks-out-after-several-failed-attempts/ [androidpolice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why cant the software detect movement of the face
It does, if you turn that feature on. It requires you to blink.
What are the safeguards? (Score:2)
What's to prevent J. Random Hacker, or Ima Crookedcop from showing it a photo of my face, and thereby gaining access?
Re: (Score:3)
Joe would have to get a mask or use your face.
Re: (Score:3)
Or use your recently severed head? Of course... he could just force you to look at it without severing it, but Joe's an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
What's to prevent J. Random Hacker, or Ima Crookedcop from showing it a photo of my face, and thereby gaining access?
Easy, just use a type-written password.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Only muiltibillion dollar companies like Google and Apple could come up with such original, clever, and non-obvious uses for existing technologies such as this. Facial recognition?? Whoduthunkit? Logging in? Never tried that before, but it sure sounds neat.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
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:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
That's 21st century. This patent nonsense has been around since the 19th. It's not new. Just new to high-tech. In the 19th century it was patent fights over stuff like telephones, internal combustion engines (in particular, the 4-stroke cycle), 20th century had others, and so on. And heck, the car keeps generating patents as well - hybrid vehicles - between Toyota and Ford, they've got it pretty much all locked up (Toyota and Ford only cross licensed because they ended up suing each other over hybrid vehicles).
Also, I don't think the "non-practicing entity" lawsuits (aka patent trolls) are a new concept either.
Interestingly, some patents are long lived - intermittent windshield wipers had a lawsuit that started in the mid-50's and only ended up resolved in the early 80s, well after the patent expired.
Everything old is new again.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly patents have existed for quite some time. Blaming Apple is absurd and ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many companies has IBM sued for billions of dollars after getting their products pre-emptively banned from sale? It's not Apple's patenting stupid stuff that's causing this, it's Apple's use of their patents on stupid stuff to screw the competition that's causing it.
Face unlock useless in many contexts (Score:2)
7 year old: (grabs phone off the kitchen counter) "Hey Daddy!"
Me (slicing raw pork): "Yes?"
7 year old: (phone unlocked, Runs off to play angry birds on it)
Cease and desist (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This comment has been posted in violation of Slashdot Patent 2019.42.1337, "System and Method For Acquiring Humor-Induced Positive Moderations On an Internet Comment." For a nominal fee of approximately $54.24, we will gladly license the technology for limited personal use.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, why would you settle for a used Galaxy SII? Get a new Galaxy S3 at least!
Hmmm ... (Score:3)
I'm sure I've seen a TV commercial for this. The kid is trying to open his dad's phone, and dad walks down the stairs and picks up the phone and it unlocks for him.
Wish I could remember who did this, but it seems like it's already in production by someone.
Heck, my XBox can sign me in based on the facial recognition. Just stand there and wave, and it knows which player I am.
This doesn't really sound like it is a novel idea, just a specific solution to something people have either been doing, or talking about doing, for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
I have prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I will flippantly throw out that a lot of us have been saying for years that the patent system has become "A system for doing something obvious, but with a computer".
There are a lot of things which are directly analogous to real world examples of things, but magically putting "on a computer" changes all of that. And they keep granting the patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
I'm pretty sure your mom didn't teach you to provide a prompt to the person at the door who could then answer yes, and you'd let them in. Sometimes it helps to actually follow the link in the article and read the claims, rather than just immediately crying "I have prior art" based on the title.
Re: (Score:2)
I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
I'm pretty sure your mom didn't teach you to provide a prompt to the person at the door who could then answer yes, and you'd let them in. Sometimes it helps to actually follow the link in the article and read the claims, rather than just immediately crying "I have prior art" based on the title.
Actually, I made my claim based on the abstract:
A method of logging a first user in to an computing device includes receiving a an image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device and determining an identity of the first user based on the received image. If the determined identity matches a predetermined identity, then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the predetermined identity, the first user is logged in to the computing device.
How is this notably different than a child determining whether or not to open the door after looking to see who it is? What is so unique about a computer that makes this worthy of a patent? Because their claims include using some (unspecified) facial recognition technique that looks at facial features? (isn't that an obvious part of facial recognition)? Because they fall back on normal password authentication if facial recognition doesn't match a face? Because
Re: (Score:2)
I have prior art that dates back nearly 40 years.
When I was a kid, my mom taught me that if I don't recognize the face when I look out the door peephole, don't unlock the door.
I'm pretty sure your mom didn't teach you to provide a prompt to the person at the door who could then answer yes, and you'd let them in. Sometimes it helps to actually follow the link in the article and read the claims, rather than just immediately crying "I have prior art" based on the title.
Actually, I made my claim based on the abstract:
Ah, gotcha. The abstract has no legal weight. It's just there to make quick searches of patents easier. You have to look at the claims which require that prompting step.
Re:I have prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?
You misunderstand patents; It's not what the apparatus does that's patentable, it's how it does it. There are a few other conditions as well; However it goes about its business has to be in a non-trivial, non-obvious fashion. In other words, if it took 20 electrical engineers to build the device, if I take 20 electrical engineers and tell them what the device does, they shouldn't come back with a nearly identical device; If they do, then no matter how complex it is, it shouldn't be patentable.
At least, that's the theory. In practice... Patents in the United States and most other countries are simply rubber-stamped and then the validity of the patent is contested in costly legal battles.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand patents;
No, he understands correctly. The patent is "unlock a computer using facial recognition". It does not describe a system of face recognition or a computer security model. It smiply says that you can plug these things together.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. This patent does not specify a method of recognition. It is a basic "with a computer","with a mobile device" patent.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he understands correctly. The patent is "unlock a computer using facial recognition". It does not describe a system of face recognition or a computer security model. It smiply says that you can plug these things together.
The 17,000 word filing [uspto.gov] indicates otherwise. It does describe a security model, and I quote "If the determined identity match does not match a predetermined identity, then requiring the first user to enter first alphanumeric information that matches first predetermined alphanumeric information as a condition for logging the first user on to the computing device. Then, if the determined identity match does match a predetermined identity, one or more gestures in a touch sensitive area of a computing device can
Re: (Score:2)
The 17,000 word filing indicates otherwise.
Really? There's a post above where I analysed the entire patent filing.
It does describe a security model, and I quote...
That describes a username/password to log in, or a username followed by some other authentication method (e.g. swipes).
Plenty of systems with a variety of security models (e.g. Windows with what ever it does or Linux+PAM). It doesn't describe any kind of model. It just says to fallback to a username/password (already in existence) or username/ot
Google to Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Apple was ever interested in this "feature".
Eye for an eye. (Score:4, Interesting)
Lemme see if I get this: Google has a patent on face recognition to access a device, but Apple is seeking a patent on face recognition to do anything useful on the device. Both of which are for concepts that are so obvious I can understand it without RTFA.
So we either have a de facto OS monopoly (via interlocking licensing), or no product at all. Innovation!
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
My Asus M50vm had that ability, back in '08, '09, one of those years.
It sucked, of course, but "working commercially-available implementation" should be hell of prior art.
Facial hair? (Score:2)
So if I don't shave my face for a few days, I can't log in?
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing. I have a beard, and my dog can log into my computer!
Re: (Score:2)
So if I don't shave my face for a few days, I can't log in?
No see, because they specified that you can provide your username and password in that case.
Clearly that's not obvious^W^Wnot implemented before^W^W^Wpatentable.
potential for injuries & other mischief (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a patent attorney... (Score:2)
but I have worked in intellectual property for quite some time, and have seen many patents on both facial recognition and using biometrics to authenticate computer sessions. I would be really curious to see the paperwork with the USPTO from filing to allowance – I have a hard time believing that this isn't something that a person of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at by combining some sort of existing facial recognition technique with an existing biometric authentication technique, so it woul
Re: (Score:2)
Are office actions and all the related documentation publicized? I didn't know that.
Face-Time and a half. (Score:2)
Google Awarded Face-To-Unlock Patent
How does it deal with ugly people?
prior art (Score:2)
My Windows 7 laptop has face recognition login capability which it's had since I bought it. Not that I've used it, I find it faster to type in a passphrase before the thing even gets as far as a login screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biometrics rely on parts of the anatomy that don't change (very much if at all) such as fingerprints, facial features, body proportions, palm prints, retina patterns... so pretty much any part of an adults body can theoretically be used for authentication.
Reminds me of a skit in Family Guy (I forget the episode) where the guys were breaking into a safe in Carter Pewterschmidt's mansion...
Quagmire: "I got this one, guys."
Computer: "Penile recognition confirmed."
Peter Griffin: "Oh, nice one Quagmire, how did