Apple Files for OLED Keyboard Patent

pegdhcp writes to mention that Apple has applied for a patent on a 'dynamically controlled keyboard' with OLED keys. This may seem remarkably familiar, since an OLED keyboard has been bandied about by Art Lebedev studios for quite a while now. "while the Optimus Maximus is a bit expensive, Apple could certainly mass-produce something similar for less money, perhaps bringing the price into reality for most users. Lebedev has, however, apparently applied for several patents for the Optimus, so it's unclear just what Apple is up to, or what would happen if the company were ever to release such a product."

Comments

apple fanboys

[timmarhy]

wait for it, they will find a way to prove it's really apples innovation.

Re:apple fanboys

[rolfwind]

I don't see what the innovation is with the entire package/idea. Maybe something in the details, but it seems to be the standard application of new technology (or one going down in price) to an old(er) device.

Re:apple fanboys

[bennomatic]

Don't forget, it's not just the concept that's patented, but the implementation. Sometimes companies will patent a dozen similar technologies to avoid someone finding a way to easily copy the one version they actually want to sell. I recall reading (in a book about IP called "Rembrandts in the Attic") that when Gillette came up with the "Sensor" razor, they patented several methods that they thought competitors might be able to simulate their new product.

Maybe there's something unique and non-obvious about their method of implementing the "dynamic keyboard" idea. Maybe there isn't, and they are just doing what big, ugly businesses do. Maybe they're really trying to purchase or license the Lebedev technology, and this is a bargaining technique.

But to think that a patent can't be valid and innovative just because someone has a similar product is a fallacy; it could be done in an entirely different way. Should the inventor of the rotary engine been denied a patent because there were other gas-burning engines on the market?

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

For real. Anyone or anything that stands in the way of their beloved corporate cult is automatically bad.

Re:apple fanboys

[Hellad]

Immediately, it strikes me that Apple will create context specfic layouts. The machine will know when you are playing quake, or using garage band (or whatever) and give you the correct keyboard layout automatically. I am not sure if Optimus was set up to do this already, but it seems like an obvious choice for Apple who controls both the hardware and software.

Re:apple fanboys

[JackMeyhoff]

"But to think that a patent can't be valid and innovative just because someone has a similar product is a fallacy;" Its called PRIOR ART.

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

"But to think that a patent can't be valid and innovative just because someone has a similar product is a fallacy;" Its called PRIOR ART. No, IT'S NOT. Learn about what the hell you are talking about or shut up. Every time there is a patent story on slashdot the comments are full of idiot replies from people like you who don't understand anything other than ignorant knee-jerk reactions.

Patents are for IMPLEMENTATIONS, not products. Someone can have the same product as me, AND have it for years prior to my own, but I can still patent my own way of making the thing, assuming no one else has used that particular implementation. As the GP said, believing a patent can't be valid just because someone else has a similar product is a massive fallacy - there are often many different ways to make the same product (some more ingenius, less obvious, or just downright cheaper, than others).

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine the sh1tstorm on here if it were Microsoft applying for this patent yikes

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Confused

Re:apple fanboys

[wellingj]

From Wikipedia

Prior art (also known as or state of the art, which also has other meanings) in most systems of patent law constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.

I don't see a black and white contradiction with what GP said... But I'd be glad to listen if you can come up with one
And let's not forget the logical fallacy of ad hominem if you are going insist on making a logical argument...

Re:apple fanboys

[bennomatic]

Correct. A loose definition of prior art would include anything in the public sphere of knowledge which has anything to do with the invention being considered for a patent. As such, things like a mouse's scroll wheel and track balls would be considered when evaluating the scroll ball on the Apple mighty mouse.

My father invented a simple, cheap, solid-state radiation detector that can be embedded in devices that is being purchased and licensed by major technology organizations (GE, Siemens, Lawrence labs). Prior art includes all technology associated with the detection of radiation. However, with all the geiger counters and such, nobody had recognized the possibility of, as it were, inserting tab A into slot B and using it as a radiation detector. He did, and he patented it, including several variations. Just because there is prior art doesn't mean something can't be patented.

When my father was going through the first round of the patent process, he learned that there is a delicate balance between broad protection and specificity that goes on with every application. If you define your product to broadly (i.e. it's a radiation detector, period), then your request will be rejected because everyone and their brother has invented a radiation detector. If you define it too specifically (think of a cooking recipe), though, people can learn from your patent and easily copy your work while carefully avoiding enough of the details to avoid a lawsuit. If your patent says that what makes your detector unique is the inclusion of four micrograms of adamantium, well then, all a competitor needs to do is add five grams, and they've got a different product.

Neither extreme is a good one. One is denied because it claims too much, and one is overly specific and doesn't protect enough. The key is to find a comfortable middle ground, and then patent variations to ensure that competitors won't do the same.

I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on. That's very different from the other keyboard, which, as I understand it, is designed to be an all-one-profile or all-another-profile configuration (i.e. go into your Preferences pane and select Russian, and they keyboard will change). Long before Lebedev, there were custom stickers you could put on your keyboards i.e. to type dvorak instead of qwerty. OLED is cool, but if you're looking for prior art, in this implementation, OLED is just expensive stickers. I'd rather spend my $1500 on having the two or three keyboards I might actually need, along with a couple of spare terabyte drives with the left over money.

Here's an idea that has lots of prior art, but may be patentable. I present it here, in hopes that nobody has invented it. The parameters are:

• It's a computer keyboard.
• It's wireless.
• For the sake of this thread, it's got dynamic displays on the keys.
• It does not accept batteries, but only has a capacitor for holding charge.
• Under each key, instead of a spring, there is a small flywheel device and ratchet mechanism which allows the keys to return to their original positions after being pressed.
• The flywheels are composed of magnetic material and as they spin, they pass through carbon nanotube coils, generating power stored in the capacitor.
• Additional power could be pulled from heat and electricity from the typist's fingers/hands.
• And there you have it, the world's first self-winding, er, self-powered wireless keyboard.

There's lots of prior art for different elements of this invention, but unless someone has put them all together the way I have, and patented it, well, if I can build it, I could probably patent it, and rightly so. But one weakness is the specificity of the fly

Re:apple fanboys

[bennomatic]

It seemed to me as well that the "It's called PRIOR ART" comment was intended to imply the contradiction. You are correct that it's not black and white; I'd be interested to see that poster come back and explain if they meant it differently.

And you are also correct that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and ineffectual when trying to persuade. It's a pity that the GP--who had an otherwise good comment--fell into that trap. Kudos to you for responding to that in a wholly appropriate manner.

Re:apple fanboys

[MACC]

15 years ago you could buy keyboards with an lcd display in each and
every keycap.

Now please tell me the difference to that.

This is not old but ancient stuff.

G!
MACC

Re:apple fanboys

[JackMeyhoff]

Use of organic LED's on the keys to communicate its purpose. Its been done prior, hence prior art for this combination.

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the AC who wrote the comment.

First you are correct about the ad hominem attack - it was out of line. It is often hard to read comments on slashdot about patents and not get frustrated because a lot of people feel the need to post without knowing the basic concepts involved. The person who posted "IT'S CALLED PRIOR ART" may or may not know about the concept proper, but in the context of his post it was not an appropriate response.

The wikipedia quote talks about "invention". It this sense it is not necessarily referring to an end product, but rather what is being patented - usually the implementation or the process used to make the end product (when someone says "invention" it sounds like they are talking about a tangilble object but this need not be the case). When the original replier stated that it was a fallacy to believe that a patent cannot be valid because a similar product exists, he was correct. A similar product would not be considered prior art if the patent described a new (presumably better) way of making that product. If the process described in the patent had already been used elsewhere, that could be prior art.

Since the post I replied to contained only the very curt "IT'S CALLED PRIOR ART" after the quote about similar products, I reasonably assumed that he believed the existance of a similar product was the prior art. This is false in general, and ironically the exact fallacy that the quote he presented was warning against.

Re:apple fanboys

[xouumalperxe]

Don't forget, it's not just the concept that's patented, but the implementation

My understanding of patents was that, for the most part, it was actually the implementation, not the concept, that mattered (though that has been seriously "expanded" by now...)

Re:apple fanboys

[dreamchaser]

Yes, and they'll mod you, me, and anyone else who dares speak out against the Mighty Steve down into oblivion. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Re:apple fanboys

[smallfries]

I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on. That's very different from the other keyboard, which, as I understand it, is designed to be an all-one-profile or all-another-profile configuration (i.e. go into your Preferences pane and select Russian, and they keyboard will change).

Are you (or anyone who has one) sure about this aspect? Looking at their website they don't specifically say if they can / or can't do that. They do show that they can dynamically update the key images (up to ten fps for the entire keyboard over usb). Adding the code to do the update on a change of active application is trivial, literally trivial given that the hook would be about five lines of code. One important question is whether or not a patent examiner would know that is a trivial extension...

Nice post, it's interesting to hear from someone who has some personal experience on a patent story for a change.

Re:apple fanboys

[jrothwell97]

It is. Layouts can be configured for Photoshop, games and any other app on the Optimus Max, and its successor, the Optimus Touch. I simply fail to see how this patent will get through, and Apple will have to come up with a bloody good innovation to get it through.

I'm expecting something not too dissimilar to the current Apple keyboard, but with OLED keys. Or, perhaps, on the supposed tablet sub-notebook that several rumour sites have claimed exists, a keyboard which can disappear and become part of the screen, á la the iPhone or the iPod Touch.

Re:apple fanboys

[SpinyNorman]

Art Lebedev's Optimus Maximus is also dynamic (application programmable). It's not just for static English vs Russian or QWERTY vs DVORAK layout.

e.g. The demo page shows specific layouts for Photoshop or even for Half-Life :

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/demo/

The Art Lebedev Mini Three suggests an even greater variety of uses, including things like e-mail notification:

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus-mini/overview/

The "dynamic" part of Apple's patent is certainly nothing new, and even if it had been it's trivially obvious. You're not going to put programmable key tops on a keyboard unless you plan to reprogram them!

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are for IMPLEMENTATIONS, not products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents#United_States

Re:apple fanboys

[dfghjk]

Love to see an example of that. LCD main displays in notebooks are barely 15 years old and color ones not even that.

I guess if you're going to say something stupid it might as well be really stupid.

Re:apple fanboys

[dfghjk]

"Don't forget, it's not just the concept that's patented, but the implementation."

You can't patent a concept at all, you can only patent an implementation. Your claims define how broad your implementation is.

"But to think that a patent can't be valid and innovative just because someone has a similar product is a fallacy; it could be done in an entirely different way."

The only people who think that know nothing about the patent system.

Re:apple fanboys

[nguy]

I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on.

Nonsense. Dynamic update of the layout is clearly anticipated by the Optimus keyboard, since gaming is one stated application.

Furthermore, you have to read the claims, and many of Apple's claims apply to ("read on") the Optimus keyboard as it is, even if the Optimus keyboard were fully static.

This patent just shows again how arrogant Apple is: either they don't know what's going on in the world, or they don't care.

Re:apple fanboys

[KlaymenDK]

The difference is in the power consumption. And resolution, probably, and colour as well.

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

Or somebody gets a bonus for every awarded patent and they thought they'd submit it and see what happened.

Re:apple fanboys

[MACC]

Looked similar to the weighty standard IBM AT keyboards 101 keys
or thereabouts.
every standard key had a 10x10 dots simple monochrome graphic
( and I think unlit) lcd incorporated under the transparent keycap.

Must have been around 1992/3. Abominably expensive.
And sorry, could not find a photo link.

G!
MACC

Re:apple fanboys

[It'sYerMam]

If anyone actually went to the patent (I know, I know, I must be new here...) they would find that the patent itself has several claims that are clearly patenting an implementation of a keyboard like the Optimus - something which is, as far as I know, explicitly what a patent is allowed to do. For example, the patent has claims related to displaying large images across several keys, relating to the way in which data is transferred from computer to keyboard and manufacturing the keys.
Now, it may still be that the Optimus is prior art, or that the patent is obvious when you look at the Optimus, but it's not nearly as clear cut as "Optimus is a similar keyboard, prior art, case closed."

Re:apple fanboys

[Dogtanian]

Love to see an example of that. LCD main displays in notebooks are barely 15 years old and color ones not even that. The Atari Lynx games console came out in 1989 and had a colour LCD display. Technically, that wasn't a notebook, but it suffices for the purposes of this discussion. Furthermore, you assume (wrongly) that "LCD display" means the modern colour type (i.e. where the liquid crystals are used with a tri-colour filter and backlight to vary the brightness of colour pixels).

As the other reply also stated, they could have been (and were) monochromatic. Monochromatic LCD displays (the type with "floating" grey elements against a non-illuminated reflective silver background), have been around since the early 1970s and were in widespread- and cheap- use by the early 1980s.

And yes, smartass, these were also "liquid crystal displays", and commonly referred to as LCDs. Up until a few years ago, this is the type of display people would have thought you meant when you said "LCD".

In other words, GP was right, you're wrong and...

I guess if you're going to say something stupid it might as well be really stupid. Oh, the irony.

Re:apple fanboys

[JackMeyhoff]

It is grounds for contesting the patent or at the very least, investigating. It also shows that the patent office has no clue of what else is out there before they grant patents.

Re:apple fanboys

[Kymermosst]

15 years ago you could buy keyboards with an lcd display in each and
every keycap.

Do you have any evidence for this? I just did quite a bit of searching and can find no evidence such a keyboard existed until this one was announced in 2005 (and only has function keys with programmable displays). This particular keyboard is evidently vaporware, and was announced after the Optimus keyboard, so it really doesn't count.

So, show us the evidence such a keyboard existed 15 years ago.

Re:apple fanboys

[Kymermosst]

Well, I just found this, but there is still no mention of a mass produced keyboard that someone could buy that had an "lcd display in each and every keycap" as the grandparent poster said.

Re:apple fanboys

[mrchaotica]

What the Hell are you ranting about? The important question that the GP asked -- and which you thoroughly failed to answer -- was this: were displays (of any sort; it doesn't matter which) ever put into the keys of keyboards?!

Re:apple fanboys

[MACC]

Thanks for the link: http://lcd-keys.com/english/history.htm

1984! , even earlier than I remembered.

The first image from the top
          http://www.e3-keys.com/images/image012.jpg
is the one I had in mind.

G!
MACC

Re:apple fanboys

[wellingj]

So... this doesn't count as prior art because the data-sheet states:

To control the display only a clock and data line (synchronous data transfer) as well as Vcc and GND are required.

Where as claim 10 and 11 states:

10. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the application specific integrated circuit has only two electrical connections to the peripheral.
11. The computer peripheral of claim 10, wherein a first electrical connection provides a power and a data signal and wherein a second electrical connection provides a ground signal.

So Apple is probably using the Dallas 1-Wire interface. Here is the rub: if that's all they got going is it still worth a patent? I mean we change that one wire interface to a I2C and it doesn't infringe on Apple's patent under your reasoning. Moreover we could patent the I2C version, as the ScreenKey is a pure 8N1 serial interface.

This is why I think the patent system needs some kind of reform.

Re:apple fanboys

[Dogtanian]

What the Hell are you ranting about? Very simple. The message I replied to said

"LCD main displays in notebooks are barely 15 years old and color ones not even that." In itself this is misleading if not downright wrong about how long colour LCDs have been around.

But *my* point was that the OP didn't specifically mention colour LCD displays anyway, and likely meant monochrome ones! *Those* have been in very common use since the 1970s. Anyone who knew what they were talking about would have realised that the OP probably had mono LCDs in mind. When the replier has the arrogance to say

I guess if you're going to say something stupid it might as well be really stupid. I'm quite happy to point out that *he's* the idiot saying something stupid, not the OP.

The important question that the GP asked -- and which you thoroughly failed to answer -- was this: were displays (of any sort; it doesn't matter which) ever put into the keys of keyboards?! No idea- since I'm not the person who made the original assertion, and answering it wasn't the reason for my post, I'm under no ******* obligation to have an answer to it.

Re:apple fanboys

[Kymermosst]

The way I read it, the first image was a prototype produced by a grad student. I still don't see any mention that the Average Joe could buy that particular keyboard. Also it is clear from the photo that not "each and every key" had an LCD... the enter and shift keys clearly do not.

What it does say you could buy is a keyboard where the function keys had LCDs in them. To me, that's pretty much useless and not much better than the little reference cards/stickers that came with some software that you installed around the function keys.

Re:apple fanboys

[rocca]

ever put into the keys of keyboards?!

Like this? http://lcd-keys.com/english/history.htm

Re:apple fanboys

[MACC]

in 1980something a PC keyboard with
LCD displays in at least all the function
and aphanum keys was advertised in
trade publications and could be bought
in Germany.
I may even have a photocopy of the advert
somewhere very far down in my archive "stack".

G!
MACC

Re:apple fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, oh why do you sign your post? Your user name is at the top of the posting, and it doesn't add anything to the talk, just wastes three lines of screen space (one empty line, one for the g! and one for the MACC). Really now, do you need to be so egocentric to think that people want to see your username twice?

Sure...

[denmarkw00t]

I'd like a keyboard like the Optimus [PRIME!!!!!] but, really, if I paid less because Apple did it a different way, I probably wouldn't be nearly as happy as with the Optimus. I mean, if its anything like a Newton, we amy have evry odd transplations, write?

Also, first post (hopefully!>)

Re:Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

what?

claim 25

[wizardforce]

about the only thing in the patent that may be innovative [that is that hasn't already been done] is claim 25 about their new manufacturing process [or not, it could be obvious in of its self, who knows] other than that, why hasn't this been thrown out yet due to prior art?

May the best idea win...

[pcbob]

Who ever figures out how to do it more efficiently (patents aren't for ideas, but particular implementation, right?) should be victorious. I'm glad to be on the consumer side on this one, however.

Re:May the best idea win...

[Anonymous Coward]

(patents aren't for ideas, but particular implementation, right?) Shhhh!! You can't say stuff like that on slashdot. This inconvenient fact happens to invalidate 99% of all the "arguments" that come up against whatever software patent is reported on every other week on slashdot.

Re:May the best idea win...

[dgatwood]

Nah. The most important argument is that in software, a very small number of practical implementations are almost immediately obvious once the initial idea is posed. Ignoring user interface patents, there is usually exactly one obvious way to do things in computers, and that one way is almost immediately obvious to a competent software architect of reasonable competence. Working around a patent on such an implementation generally requires very bizarre, unconventional designs that don't lend themselves to maintainable software. Even in cases where there are two or three ways, it is still pretty easy to patent them all.

Because minor details like choices of data structures, choices of basic algorithms, and code factoring would all almost certainly fall into the category of an "insubstantial change", the doctrine of equivalents would likely say that all code that performs a task in similar ways are equivalent, and thus in violation of any patent on any way to perform that task. Thus, a software patent (which fails the test of obviousness almost automatically) on the implementation tends to have an overly broad impact, making it almost impossible to patent any other implementation that performs the same task.

For example, let's say I want to patent an implementation of software that shuffles a deck of cards. I can think of five ways of doing this: A. pick random numbers and use them to pick the Nth card from the deck where N is a random number, B. go through the deck in order and each time, flip through a random number of cards, then take the top card, C. standard shuffling, i.e. cut the deck at random, then repeatedly take a random number of cards from the two halves in alternation, then repeat this process several times, D. random card swapping, and E. take each card and insert it into a random place in the resulting deck.

If you patent design A correctly, this patent would also be violated by part of design D, since you would be taking a card by random number (twice) in each swap. Depending on how you word it, you might also argue that design B is a special case of design A but using a smaller deck (the remaining portion of the deck), so that violates a patent on design A as well. Design D would also violate a patent on design E. This leaves us with only two fundamentally different designs: A, C, and E. (Wow, I picked the order of those randomly. What are the odds?) Prior art notwithstanding, it would be pretty easy to patent A and E in the same patent, then patent C, at which point the workarounds would be pretty horrible.

So basically two patents would make it really hard to write a card shuffling algorithm. That's what I mean when I say there is usually only one good way to do something and the workarounds for patents tend to be hard to maintain. :-) Okay, so you could do the same thing by generating a mapping table at random, then translating the deck, though it isn't clear if that would be sufficiently different from random picking to work around a patent on design A. You could do some process that splits the cards up, such as doing crypt() on the card number with a random salt and using a few bits from the LSB as the number of a hash bucket, then iterating across the buckets in order to build a new deck, and repeating a random number of times. All of these are pretty horrible compared with the simplicity of the obvious designs (A, C, and E), though, and will give your programmers horrible migraines trying to maintain the code. :-)

The only software patents that don't seem to be overly broad by nature to me are complex algorithmic patents, e.g. data compression, image compression, and DSP algorithm patents. Even these, however, are very frequently tied to file formats, and thus, patenting these algorithms is undesirable and harms the public as a whole from an interoperability perspective. Thus, even these should be disallowed if their purpose is for use in supporting a file format, communication protocol, filesystem, etc.

Re:May the best idea win...

[Anonymous Coward]

ok I really don't get why this issue gets confused all the time, since I learned it once, in Business Law class in High school, and remembered it since then with no problem, but....

Patents protect ideas, usually mechanical devices in the past, but they protect some sort of process or idea.
Copyrights protect specific implementations, usually books in the past, but also now music, movies, software, etc.
Trademarks protect, brand names and other short phrases used to differentiate yourself in the marketplace.

That's why the big deal about software patents. Someone can copyright a movie they make, but they couldn't patent the plot. Likewise, someone could copyright their FTP client, but they couldn't patent the idea of FTP - until recently.

So the idea like, "I'm going to make a keyboard with light-up programmable buttons" falls into patent coverage. The logo you put on the keyboard soulc be a trademark, and the user's manual and drivers could be protected by copyright.

Patent Fight *or* License from Art. Lebedev?

[Zymergy]

IANAL, but it seems that Art. Lebedev Studio could just negotiate a fat licensing fee for the technology/idea with Apple and both would win from the collaboration...?
Surely that beats a costly Patent fight?
What about Prior Art?
Re: Optimus Keyboard With OLED Display Keys http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/14/1335215
Re: Optimus OLED Keyboard Pre-Orders Start Dec. 12 http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/19/1911235

I would love to see this technology in an affordable Laptop/Notebook keyboard. (Particularly one that has open source GPL'd base drivers.)

Re:Patent Fight *or* License from Art. Lebedev?

[rastoboy29]

No, but you see, theirs goes to green-leven.

Re:Patent Fight *or* License from Art. Lebedev?

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone owns a patent on oled displays, noone owns a patent for keyboards or keys. So there is no prior art. Only the specific method for putting oled displays into the keyboard keys can be patented, since Apples method is different, they got a patent.

It's like apple patenting their mighty mouse, even though there is prior art for both mice, the mouse buttons, scroll ball, cords etc.

Re:Patent Fight *or* License from Art. Lebedev?

[nguy]

IANAL, but it seems that Art. Lebedev Studio could just negotiate a fat licensing fee for the technology/idea with Apple and both would win from the collaboration...?

Only if Lebedev Studio has a patent. If they don't, they can't force Apple to do anything. They might ask for the patent to be re-examined, but they can't get money from Apple for that.

If the patent issues, Apple, on the other hand, can sue Lebedev. Then, Lebedev can defend itself claiming prior art, but that's all.

US patent system is first to invent

[Pinky's Brain]

Of course changing 2006 to 2005 in a research notebook isn't that hard ...

I'll take 2, please.

[cioxx]

Art Lebedev managed to scrape together some cash and "released it" before anyone else. Big deal.

I would never purchase an Optimus keyboard because there is no muscle behind it. They can't mass produce the thing and have been paper launching the keyboard for 2 years now. Imagine getting one and needing quick support like an immediate replacement, or getting really used to the thing and discovering they don't have the money to continue producing it. Apple, Logitech, or Microsoft have the resources to do it.

Now there is lots of prior art in this area, going as far back as 1978 in monochrome alterable keys. Perhaps Apple patented this as a countermeasure against someone who would try to claim this as an original idea. A differently-worded patent on a new product is better than no patent at all. At least that's my opinion.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[brian_d_w]

>A differently-worded patent on a new product is better than no patent at all. At least that's my opinion. Actually it isn't. Patents are strictly offensive weapons. The only way that a patent can protect you is if you can threaten to use it against then one that is suing you.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to get a patent to avoid future lawsuits. If they market it & it is available for purchase (or at least what's different about it) at a reasonable cost, they can throw the lawsuit out of the court arguing prior art. They only have to prove that they did not steal the concept. Now if they want to patent as the original idea of patents, then it's a different story.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[fortunato]

Your other comments may have merit but the complaint about mass production and quick support is one I have to take exception to. I mean REALLY, you can't just plug in any old keyboard and keep typing away? If you find some obvious business model around OLED keys that is irreplaceable I would be more sympathetic, but as new as this technology apparently is I don't find that a compelling argument. Time and success of the product will bring the mass production and quick support. Anyone who has ever been in any sort of start-up venture knows how hard it is to ramp up to that sort of thing, especially when you have something bleeding edge. It not just about the technology, its also about all the stuff that goes around it like infrastructure, investment capital and scale.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[Fizzl]

Well, Gee..I wonder why startups offering real tangible products have no other option than to hope for a merger with one of the big boys.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[bluephone]

Patents are strictly offensive weapons. The only way that a patent can protect you is if you can threaten to use it against then one that is suing you. Ok, you're wrong twice. A) You describe a DEFENSIVE weapon. You're using it to defend yourself, that's not an offensive weapon. B) Patents are both defensive AND offensive weapons. You can threaten or actually countersue based on your portfolio if you're sued for infringement, or you can be the first mover and sue for infringement.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[houghi]

A differently-worded patent on a new product is better than no patent at all.

No patent at all is better. If the product is good, it will sell. If the competition starts making things better and cheaper, that is also good, because that way the consumer gets a better products.

Patents do not encourage inovation, they block it. Could be that that was different 100 years ago, but it isn't now. Patents are used to block ideas.

Remember the saying 'I am standing on the shoulders iof giants.'? Patents tell you that you can't do that anymore.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[PietjeJantje]

I would never purchase an Optimus keyboard because there is no muscle behind it. Funny, that. I seem to avoid purchasing products from companies when there's too much muscle behind it. Big companies are too powerful as it is. No Microsoft keyboard for me, for example, I rather spend on a small, promising player.

Re:I'll take 2, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are such a Jobs dick sucking piece of shit.

Re:Could I make a custom button...

[Anonymous Coward]

PyCURL + hotkey
(Don't.)

Plan all along

[edwardpickman]

1.Come up with a plan for a keyboard we can't build but is so cool some one will want to.

2.Sue first company to actually try to build keyboard.

3.Profit!

Now wait'll some one tries to knock off Duke Nuke Em Forever!

This could be fun...

[padonak]

Now maybe they (the A.L. Studio) will get some sence about Apple and the likes. Because they love doing business with them, apparently.
Notice how they only promise windows and mac support for the keyboard because linux doesn't have enough marketshare:

Why isnt there any Linux software?
Because first we want to let 95% of people to work with the keyboard.

Is there a chance it will support Linux?
Maybe sometime.

I hope they feel violated.

Re:This could be fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over yourself. A small company (Art Lebedev) scrapes together some money to produce the most expensive keyboard on the market (hell, who could reasonably justify $1500 for a keyboard?), and then decide to forgo the one market (Linux) containing people who complain when they have to pay for anything, and demand that the source be available for all to rape and pillage? It's been hard enough for A.L. to get Optimus off the ground, let alone pay money for someone to develop a Linux driver for it that no Linux user will want to pay for.

You want free GPL drivers to run your $1500 keyboard on Linux? Write them yourself, release them to the public for free -- that's the open-source way isn't it?

Geez.

Re:This could be fun...

[padonak]

Nice troll.
Next time try not posting anonymously to make your bullshit look more credible.

Re:This could be fun...

[SanityInAnarchy]

A small company (Art Lebedev) scrapes together some money to produce the most expensive keyboard on the market (hell, who could reasonably justify $1500 for a keyboard?), and then decide to forgo the one market (Linux)

With that price point, why would they forgo a market if they don't have to? Is it really that hard to develop cross-platform USB drivers? (Hint: From what I understand, it is harder to go from Windows to OS X than from OS X to Linux.)

You want free GPL drivers to run your $1500 keyboard on Linux?

Surely $1500 should pay for those drivers, right?

Oh, by the way: I would easily pay that much for a good keyboard, if it weren't for the fact that I already have one. I develop software for a living, so, Linux geek or not, my keyboard is pretty central to my livelihood.

Re:This could be fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? It looked like a pretty rational response to me. Can you actually point out any errors in his reasoning, or are you just knee-jerking against an idea you don't like?

Re:This could be fun...

[AaxelB]

Notice how they only promise windows and mac support for the keyboard because linux doesn't have enough marketshare Note that A.L. Studio is not in any way a hardware or even computer-related company; they are a design studio.

On their website they have a large repertoire of websites and advertisements and logos and objects that they've designed. Some of the things they have were obviously designed just for fun, as a bit of a joke (e.g. a ridiculous TV remote and an adapter to stick your fingers in an electrical socket) while others are simply interestingly designed everyday objects (like this coffee cup). I have a feeling the OLED keyboard was either conceived as an interesting idea or seen somewhere else, and they just went about doing their jobs, designing an interesting keyboard that happened to get a ton of attention on the interblogs.

In short, I can really see how from their pespective, it's not quite worthwhile to invest the resources to develop Linux software. Their business is design-for-hire, and my impression is they just make these objects for fun and to give an idea of their capabilities and design philosophy.

Apple and IBM

[NickCatal]

Apple and IBM own enough patents to patent every square inch of my kitchen if they wanted... it is called R&D... most of this stuff won't make it to market

Re:Apple and IBM

[bennomatic]

Although, as of about 10 years ago, IBM was pulling in over a billion dollars a year solely in patent license fees. They could have stopped selling hardware, software and services and still pulled in a billion dollars a year.

I'll bet that number's gone up significantly since then.

For varying ranges of particular

[Pinky's Brain]

If we are going to play that silly little semantic game how about raising the stakes ... is the following an idea or an implementation :

Putting a matrix of LEDs on each key of a keyboard?

Re:For varying ranges of particular

[IAmGarethAdams]

To my non-lawyer mind, that's an idea. An implementation is when you actually do it.

OLED? Why not E-Ink?

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't oled sap the power? wouldn't e-ink be better if it is just to replace the characters on the board? I mean, it's not like they are going to change all that often...

Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan... but some how I image this thread would go an entirely different way if it were Microsoft filing the patent.

Publicity Stunt

[Z00L00K]

is probably the cause for this - it doesn't matter if there is any substance to the content or if the filing is denied as long as it makes it to the papers - which will provide free advertisement for Apple. "Them guys ain't dumb"

The irony is that even Slashdot bought it - but maybe I shouldn't be surprised anymore...

The basic idea about a keyboard that can get programmed to display different text on the keycaps aren't really new - the difference is that the technology is better today. But the use is limited - only a few doing writing in multiple international languages/character sets will really benefit from this in a real keyboard. For ordinary people it's easier to buy a secondary keyboard and switch whenever necessary.

But in specialized applications the use of programmable keytops may be really useful. Think cash registers and other kinds of devices.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

> Think cash registers

I'm afraid that example doesn't work. Cash registers are designed so they can be used with fairly little trainnig, which is why virtually every function the things can do has a separate button with an explicit label. Were you to introduce changing buttons, not only would you have to explain this to people before they started, which takes time. Said people would have to get used to this since no other object you're likely to ever use does the same (except arguably ATMs), which takes even more time and, most likely, would make people more error prone.

The only thing I could see where this might come in handy is for checking out veg, but even for that there's usually a dedicated specialised keyboard already.

Watch the "prior art" screaming start

[Infonaut]

Until you've read the actual claims in a patent, it is impossible to know what Apple is actually attempting to patent. The fact that the description is of an OLED keyboard doesn't mean that prior art will negate the claims any more than the existence of LCD screens would necessarily invalidate a patent on an LCD screen.

Now to settle in and watch the ill-informed rants about patent law multiply like rodents. Anyone have any popcorn?

Re:Watch the "prior art" screaming start

[makomk]

I've read the claims, and it seems to be a patent application for exactly what people are saying it's a patent application for - keyboards with OLED displays on the keyboard, like the Optimus Maximus. (Actually, it covers slightly more than that - claim 1 is for any computer peripheral with one or more keys containing more than one LED that can be switched on or off. It's not narrowed down to just things like the Optimus Maximus until claim 4.)

Re:Watch the "prior art" screaming start

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had read the claims yourself you would have seen that most of the claims have prior art. I dunno about all of them but they seriously would have to get rid of like 20 of the 25 claims before they would have something resembling patentable.

Re:Watch the "prior art" screaming start

[Mike1024]

Until you've read the actual claims in a patent, it is impossible to know what Apple is actually attempting to patent.

Sounds good - let's take a look!

Claims

1. A computer peripheral including one or more keys, each key having a plurality of light emitting diodes disposed on a face of the key, each of the light emitting diodes being operable to switch on or off in response to a data signal received from an application specific integrated circuit dedicated to the key.

2. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the computer peripheral is a computer keyboard.

3. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are organic light emitting diodes.

4. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are placed in a dot matrix pattern on each key and operable to display symbols indicating an action that will be performed by a computer connected to the peripheral when the key is depressed by a user.

5. The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diodes are switched on and off with a predetermined frequency to create animation effects on the key face.

[And so on - you get the picture.]

Each claim is a separate invention, which Apple claims the exclusive right to produce. In other words, Apple claims the exclusive rights to produce computer peripherals with keys, where those keys have more than one LED on, and those LEDs are on/off controlled, and that control is performed by a per-key ASIC.

For example, claim 1 of Apple's patent would cover the two-LED backlit power button on my monitor only if it is controlled by an ASIC dedicated to the button.

So, what's the point of claim 2, saying "The computer peripheral of claim 1, wherein the computer peripheral is a computer keyboard." - in other words claiming a subset of what is already claimed? That's a dependent claim, due to "Clarification of the independent claim language" and "Possible invalidity of base claim".

So, for example, if Art Lebedev has prior art/a patent which invalidates claim 1, Apple would still have (e.g.) claim 5, animated keys, claim 7, images displayed across multiple keys, etc. Of course, claims 5 and 7 could be also invalidated if someone has prior art on them.

So, what have Art Levedev done anyway? I can't find any patent numbers for their product, but I can find this patent, (I'll call it 'IBM's patent') which contains the claim:

1. Apparatus comprising: a plurality of key buttons, wherein each of the key buttons includes a transparent central portion; a support structure mounting each of the key buttons to move vertically; a plurality of resilient members, wherein each of the resilient members holds one of the key buttons upward within the support structure; a plurality of traducers, each producing an electrical signal in response to downward movement of a key button in the plurality of key buttons; a display screen extending under each of the key buttons and under the support structure to provide changeable display patterns visible through the central portion of each of the key buttons.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display screen includes a liquid crystal display.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the liquid crystal display is transilluminated.

4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display screen includes a plasma display.

Re:Watch the "prior art" screaming start

[TheLink]

Personally I don't see why anyone should be granted a monopoly over any of the possible ways of doing that sort of stuff.

So far in the past 20 years there have been very very few real innovations (not just incremental improvements).

Way back in the 1960s that Douglas Engelbart guy had a chord keyboard, mouse, was doing hypertext, wordprocessing, shared screen collaboration with another person over a remote link, etc. Too bad he was a bit too early ;).

The people who are really innovative would be so far ahead of their time that 20 year patents won't help them ;). And having longer patents would enslave the rest of us to the far more plentiful crappier "inventors".

So I don't see why anybody should be getting monopolies over anything. Hardly anyone who's got a patent deserves to have a monopoly.

Maybe in the absence of patents we could award some innovation prizes or something, so that the really innovative people can at least be comforted decades later that they were trail blazing the right track.

You don't need patents to get incremental improvements - there are millions of people in China who know how to do incremental improvements, and they will do them whether you like it or not :). I just bought two made in China toy RC helicopters for about USD27 each, they appear to be a clone of the original Mosquito helicopter BUT they have more robust rotor blades from the original, and they also have a stabilizer bar which the original doesn't appear to have.

If you're smart and you want to get rich go run a few laundromats or something. Boring? Doesn't require lots of brains or inventiveness? Good, that means you can pay someone not too smart a salary to do it. Then you can use the money and time left over to do your fun stuff.

Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there 1st

[slyall]

The book Imperial Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Earth by Arthur C. Clarke from 1976 featured something similar:

The 'Sec was the standard size of all such units, determined by what could fit comfortably in the normal human hand. At a quick glance, it did not differ greatly from one of the small electronic calculators that had started coming into general use in the late twentieth century. It was, however, infinitely more versatile, and Duncan could not imagine how life would be possible without it.

Because of the finite size of clumsy human fingers, it had no more controls than its ancestors of three centuries earlier. There were fifty neat little studs; each, however, had a virtually unlimited number of functions, according to the mode of operation--for the character visible on each stud changed according to the mode. Thus on ALPHANUMERIC, twenty-six of the studs bore the letters of the alphabet, while ten showed the digits zero to nine. On MATH, the letters disappeared from the alphabetical studs and were replaced by X +, / --, = and all the standard mathematical functions.

Shame on Apple for trying to claim they invented the idea.

I hope so

[tyler.willard]

Perhaps then they could continue, and expand, the legacy of the TouchStream. I.E., the tech they bought, for the iPhone, from FingerWorks.

Re:I hope so

[mremond]

Yes, please, go the Touchstream way. I am looking to buy one, but the product has been discontinued after Apple bought the company ...

Prior art.. Star Trex. Indutrial contollers.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already been done to death. This is such a old idea it's pathetic if they manage to get a patent.
Optimus has already a one screen design.

Whoever does it...

[xx01dk]

...don't expect it to be cheap. And I mean that even if Apple produces such a thing, the Logitech diNovo is going to seem cheap by comparison.

Judging by the pictures on this site: Optimus Mini, the backplane for the full blown 103 key version must be staggeringly complex, not to mention extemely difficult to manufacture within the confines of a standard-sized keyboard. Plus, a regular keyboard must be able to withstand normal typing, unlike the three-button jobbie; you have to wonder at the amount of abuse a standard flex-pcb can withstand. I'm seriously concerned about that aspect.

It's no wonder that the street price for these things is going to be so high; I think that the sheer complexity of mass-producing such a beast reliably is probably the only thing standing between us and our uber OLED planks.

Cheers~

Epic leet

[xx01dk]

I'm going to run my Optimus in stealth mode.

Re:Epic leet

[canajin56]

When you said stealth mode, I imagined taking a picture of your desk and mapping the corresponding portions of the photo to the keys above that location, so it looks like the keys are transparent ;)

Re:Epic leet

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL or you could buy $10 keyboard and rub off the markings to save $70. You're right though that is so leet that my mind is about to explode!

Re:Epic leet

[grendel03]

How will I ever find the any key?

Prior Art from the 70's

[FlyingGuy]

IBM made a bit of hardware for the US Navy called the A/N-BQQ5 SONAR system. The main consoles had an array of buttons ( keys if you will ) that called functions and of course changed that actual text that was displayed on each button based upon the current function(s) selected. If memory serves, mind you this was 30 years ago, they had an acronym ( the Military has acronyms for everything ) and it was DROS . This is a link to a site that has a decent photo of the control consoles, Click on the image ( yes unfortunately it will open in a pop-up, sorry its the ONLY photo I can find ) for a larger version. As you can see the three consoles are identical; however, each console could be assigned any function that the system performed. Thus each set of keys displayed text appropriate for the consoles currently assigned function, and sub-functions.

I rode USS-OMAHA SSN-692 in winter of '78 and USS Los Angeles was commissioned in '76, so given how long it takes to get a bit of hardware like that from IBM in those days, I would imagine those buttons / keys were more then likely developed in the late 60's.

So there you have your prior art.

Re:Prior Art from the 70's

[Anonymous Coward]

So IBM is the company I have to blame for the BQQ-5? I hate those things! Luckily we're moving away from them finally. Our boat only still has BQQ-5 because we're an SSBN and we get all the upgrades last.

You're right about the key labels changing but those labels sure are hard to read.

Re:Prior Art from the 70's

[smorken]

some more prior art:

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8492#

Re:Prior Art from the 70's

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse, you could have had to deal with the BQN-3F.

Re:Prior Art from the 70's

[FlyingGuy]

Gad I am dredging here, but I think you are referring to the BQS-11/12/13 and assorted gear that was on the 637 class. I went to C school for that suite, which I much preferred.

Re:Prior Art from the 70's

[Anonymous Coward]

The BQN-3F was an ancient piece of NAV ET gear (640 class Poseidon/C-4 backfit) for bathymetric navigation. The Sonar folks didn't have to deal with it, a fact for which I recall they were thankful :).

Re:Prior Art from the 70's

[FlyingGuy]

Hmmmm I used to hang out in the ESM closet an yak with a bud that was an ET but I never paid much attention to their gear, although the little beeps, bonks and buzzes it made were pretty cool.

Spent most my off-time doing chump 'o da watch qual's. I was bored as shit a lot of the time and liked talking on the 1MC. I think I was one of the only 2nd class sts's to ever qualify to stand the watch. I would stand it occasionally if the COW for that watch was really beat and needed an equalizer.

Ahh the halcyon days of "big and black and they don't come back".

I was in Pearl a few months back on business, I saw an SSN heading out, I stood there watching until I couldn't see it any more. I must confess a part of me was longing to be riding her. In reality I would go near uncles canoe club these days. They seem to have turned into a bunch of bible thumping, non-smoking, high an tight haircut tight asses. When I was in we worked hard and we partied even harder.

Re:Prior Art from the 70's

[base3]

My experience with ESM is limited to the ancient WLR-1. The concept is pretty cool, but we didn't get into it near to the degree that you guys no doubt had do.

Even though I was only a boomer sailor, I understand the nostalgia and feel it now and again myself (though I will never miss "All hands, don EABs" but memories of "High chlorides in the port main condensate header" and the like will always bring a smile to this coner's face). I served in the mid-80s to the early 90s, and saw the transition to the Navy you describe starting to happen with the advent of NADSAP, the "Smoke Free Navy by the year 2000" and TQM. It seems it's gotten even worse since I left.

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[iamnafets]

Having buttons that can change their caption is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire GUI revolution is based on this idea that a screen becomes something of a foundation for a bunch of virtual buttons sans the tactile feedback. This 'idea' is so central to how we live and work in this century that it seems to easily fall under the category of obvious.

It has to be said

[ghyd]

I wish one day Ars and Slashdot make such a news about Microsoft, just to see the comments. Then two days later tell it was an Apple news finally.

Re:It has to be said

[bennomatic]

I wish one day Ars and Slashdot make such a news about some big bully which had kicked you in the face a thousand times, just to see the comments. Then two days later tell it was actually about Mother Theresa, who has a history of trying to do good deeds.

There. Fixed it for you.

Jokes aside, it would be funny if there were an editorial change after the comments thus far to say that this was a Microsoft filing, not an Apple filing. Just the reverse of what you suggested, but probably equally funny. That having been said, though, it's no mystery that the comments might be different. Apple's not a saintly company by any stretch, but in general, it could be said that their products and practices show a bit more class than those coming out of Redmond.

Re:It has to be said

[i_liek_turtles]

In tech news, Steve Jobs patented a new method for seating devices to become airborne. Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, claims prior art.

Mod Parent Up!

[bennomatic]

Now *that* sounds like a good example of prior art related to what appears to be the core unique concept on the Apple patent application. Significantly closer than the Lebedev keyboards, if I understand correctly. MOD PARENT UP!

Next? Keys that change shape, size, or texture

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someday we will see keys that can dynamically change their shape (this includes how much (or whether or not) they protrude) or size? Maybe even the amount of pressure required to press them?

So imagine that pressable buttons only appear on the display surface when you need them. Of course I have no idea how to implement it given current technology (some kind of flexible material that can harden in an electric field or something?) but just wanted to put it out there.

OLED keyboard revision 2.

What about Prior Art

[Udo Schmitz]

Yeah, what about Prior Art? You think Lebedev was first? Check the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Maximus_keyboard which has links to http://www.unitedkeys.com/ and http://lcd-keys.com/english/history.htm

Re:What about Prior Art

[Romwell]

LCD keys aren't as impressive and use a different technology (monochrome lcd vs. color OLED), although the "idea" is "the same". As for United Keys - never heard of them, show me the product please. They only have design concepts so far. The real achievement of Art Lebedev, though, is that his studio turned a mere concept into something one can touch, and looks kewt =)

You both realize, don't you?

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's been a meme for awhile now. You know, the pre-emptive "Watch the fanboys defend..." and "Imagine if (Microsoft|Sony|MPAA|Bush) did this, what a shitstorm there would be!"

Judging by the comments on this thread, there are a lot more people whining about fanboys than actual fanboys.

Another reason...

[SanityInAnarchy]

I like Apple's keyboards right now. I haven't really been able to find a faster (to type on), quieter keyboard yet. Easier to clean, too.

The problems I have are all related to the funny layout Apple's got. The "Super" key is where the alt key should be, so I have to swap those in a keymap -- which isn't working flawlessly, yet, and is a pain on my laptop, where the only way I know of messing with keys like that requires a reboot (or logout/login) to take effect. This means I can either have the Apple keyboard work, or the built-in keyboard, but not both at once. So, when switching keyboards, I pretty much have to reboot.

That's just the beginning. All the F-keys are slightly off, ending with F12 -- they've been shoved left to make room for an eject key (which all my OSes currently ignore -- eject which drive, now?) -- followed by F13, F14, and F15 instead of PrintScreen, ScrollLock, and Pause. At least they were nice enough to throw in an extra F16, F17, F18, and F19, where normal keyboards have capslock/numlock/etc LEDs. (This thing has a Capslock LED, on the capslock key, which is cool, but it has no LEDs for ScrollLock or NumLock.)

Instead of NumLock, there's Clear, which (finally, a break!) is the same keycode. But then, going clockwise around the numpad, there's =, /, *, -, +, and enter, where the standard is /, *, -, +, and enter. This is especially frustrating as the keypad plus is half the size it should be, and the minus takes up the other half of the same space.

The worst part, though, has to be Insert. Home, Pageup/Pagedown, Delete, and End are all where you expect them to be, but Insert? No, you get fn. And from what I understand, that fn actually does expose the fancy features that I see on those F-keys, like brightness, expose, dashboard, fastforward/rewind, play/pause, volume/mute. None of which really do anything right now.

Not that I would mind mapping them, but I basically have no option to put insert where I think it's supposed to go, and I do actually use it (or did).

I suppose it would be the perfect keyboard if I was on OS X, and actually, there's very little I physically dislike about it. Given enough time and patience, I'm sure I could remap everything except that fn key. The reason I'd want a keyboard which can physically show me the keymap is that I strongly doubt they'd be stupid enough to make a fixed fn key on that. It would also be especially cool if I could have the mapping stored in the keyboard itself, so that I don't have to teach my various OSes to flip between keymaps when I change keyboards.

Re:Another reason...

[Angostura]

To summarize:

I suppose it would be the perfect keyboard if I was on OS X

Re:Another reason...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Which means I have to choose between the perfect keyboard and the perfect OS (Linux). I want them both, damnit!

(Alright, Linux isn't perfect, but it's closer (for me) than OS X will ever be.)

That one takes a 5 minute patent search....

[originalhack]

This 1984 patent kills their first 12 claims and this product shipping in 2005 kills their remaining 13 claims unless you believe that the product had a wiring harness going from an lcd driver not on the keytop down up to the keytop.

That's all 25 claims dead right there.

Re:That one takes a 5 minute patent search....

[tgd]

You should learn how to read a patent before declaring something dead because of prior art on early claims.

You just look like a fool in public, particularly on a site like Slashdot which has a lot of people who work with patents all the time.

Art Levedev products

[Paul_Hindt]

Apparently the Optimus Maximus keyboard is now shipping and according to the Art Lebedev Studio site it costs $462.27. They also have another product concept for a single-surface display keyboard where any part of the display can be used to take input or display images. The site says, "Any part of the [Optimus Tactus] surface can be programmed to perform any function or to display any images."

Re:Art Levedev products

[Anonymous Coward]

They've been shipping a while- and $462 gets you ONE dynamic key- $1500 gets you the real deal.

Process Patents

[AHumbleOpinion]

about the only thing in the patent that may be innovative [that is that hasn't already been done] is claim 25 about their new manufacturing process [or not, it could be obvious in of its self, who knows] other than that, why hasn't this been thrown out yet due to prior art?

One family of patents is the process patent. The invention is the manufacturing process, not the item. Whether or not the items manufactured are ordinary is irrelevant.

right.

[apodyopsis]

I would imagine the real question is: how large a firm are lebedev and can they afford to see Apple in court to protect their IP?

..after all, I find thats the real issue at stake in these weaselesque (is that a word?) situations..

Re:right.

[phorest]

..after all, I find thats the real issue at stake in these weaselesque (is that a word?) situations..

I'd at least copyright it if I were you...

Re:right.

[dfghjk]

Why would you imagine that? Have you seen or do you suspect any Apple product infringing on such IP?

eat up martha

[unfunk]

I think you missed the joke...

context specfic layouts

[Joce640k]

>"I am not sure if Optimus was set up to do this already"

Ummm....what exactly would be the point of an OLED keyboard which DIDN'T do this?

Re:context specfic layouts

[svunt]

Programmable versus pre-programmed. That would be the Ummm point.

Re:context specfic layouts

[Joce640k]

Again, what would be the point of "pre-programmed"?

The whole point of having a $1000 keyboard which can change symbols is that they change dynamically. If they just get set to a specific layout at system boot then you might as well not bother.

Re:context specfic layouts

[svunt]

preprogrammed as in each application's settings could be set by the OS, as in Apple's case, or the user may have to configure it to different layouts per application themselves, like with the whatsamagig.

Re:context specfic layouts

[Eli Gottlieb]

Actually, it would make manufacturing keyboards for international sale a little simpler, since the regional keymap could be "printed" onto the keyboard by the OS at boot time.

Which is the most obvious use for an OLED keyboard I can think of. Typing in French? Your machine switches to a French keymap. That and video-game controls.

Re:context specfic layouts

[Oktober Sunset]

Not useful for yanks tho, cos European Keyboards are a different shape to US keyboards. My UK keyboard is the shame shape as my French and German friends keyboards, only the letters are different. US keyboards are a different shape and have a different number of keys.

Re:context specfic layouts

[Eli Gottlieb]

Is this a problem that can't be fixed by apt use of the Shift key? You don't need to duplicate everything on a European keyboard (for example, number pads), just the parts that actually contain localized letters.

Re:context specfic layouts

[kimvette]

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/

Check it out. They even show right on the web site the profiles for Adobe CS programs.

Also, check out the demo page:

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/demo/

The images can and do change on the fly as needed.

Apple is attempting to patent prior art.

Re:context specfic layouts

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Apple controls the development tools as well, at least for mac OS.
So not only do they design the hardware, and tweak the system to build support in.
But open those libraries to the dev's, and in a way that reduces the work needed to get the feature to run.

So you could see them having Interface builder automagically pass to the keyboard a graphic you associate with it. So your tool palettes are already set.
Shortcuts, start scrolling there menu name when you hold down the command key.
Still leaving room for other tricks.

This is a good thing

[EdIII]

I'll let the USPTO work out the patents, and if Art Lebdev is really in a position to launch a first strike at Apple with the Lawyerpult (I love Dilbert) then that's just fine and dandy.

This may bring competition into the OLED keyboard market. That's a good thing. OLED. It's what keyboards need :)

I just want one of those things to get semi-affordable. Like say all the keys being OLED, awesome looking, and at less then $500. I mean, it's just plain COOL. Also, it's not like Apple has never made anything that looked cool and could be considered almost art. No. Of course not. If Apple does end up making one of these babies, I just PRAY that will make it compatible for other platforms.

Is OLED backlit too? Cuz I like the idea of being able to type in the dark, cuz.... ummmmm... there are things on my computer I like doing in the dark.

Re:This is a good thing

[Vegeta99]

No, OLEDs are not backlit. That's the wonderful thing about the "LE" part of the acronym =)

LED Number pad

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh seems one of the last times I saw a friend he had just bought a programmable LED number pad somewhere, was gonna invest in the company, and this was in 1995

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[balloonhead]

My idea is one further. My new patented keyboard has one button and the software works out what letter it is that you mean to press each time.

Bribe/Extort

[fozzmeister]

Apple will probably get their patent, then they'll release the product, then they might sue Lebdev.

The way it was explained to me

[DeanFox]

Several lives ago I worked for the company that patented the holes on the left/right of forms allowing them to run though "pin fed" equipment like printers. The were called KS holes as in Can't Slip. I know, maybe CS was already taken... The original concept was to keep multi-ply forms interlaced with carbon paper aligned while they were fed through a device.

I asked if we had the patent why were other companies producing forms with holes on the sides. As explained, first the patent expired like 40 years before I got there but more importantly you can't patent and "idea" only a "process". In other words the idea of having holes on the side of the paper could not be patented. The process for putting holes on the sides of paper could be. Figure out a new or different way of putting holes on the sides of paper and you got yourself a new patent.

Maybe that's changed by now, IANAL. The way I see it the OLED "idea" isn't what's patented. One patent may be a 1500 matrix of mini-LEDs for the display. However, if I figure out a way to shrink a LED flat panel screen to the size of a key, I can patent a new way to do the same thing.

This may or may not be right and it may have changed but it's the way patents were explaind to me (20 years ago). I still see patents written starting with "A process for..." So maybe it hasn't changes all that much.

-[d]-

that what Apples good at.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is good at taking somebody elses hard work. making slight and almost unnoticeable changes to it, and then patent it for themselves.

i just wonder when they'll do it to somebody who wants to stand up for their work...

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[Jacer]

Funny..... Clark also said something about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from fiction, or magic, or something make belive and/or fantasy. The verbatim quote escapes me, but the point is still valid.

Are you absolutely sure Lebedev's is like that?

[argent]

I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on.

That's not a function of the keyboard, that's a function of the software in the computer driving the keyboard. It's also obvious... why would anyone pay fifteen hundred bucks for a programmable keyboard if it couldn't change in real time based on software in the computer? That's the whole point of programmable buttons in the first place!

Re:Are you absolutely sure Lebedev's is like that?

[thegnu]

why would anyone pay fifteen hundred bucks for a programmable keyboard if it couldn't change in real time based on software in the computer?

hmmmmm....
[edits]

why would anyone pay fifteen hundred bucks for a programmable keyboard?

Ahhhh... Much better! (in my best Duke Nukem voice, mind you)

Re:Are you absolutely sure Lebedev's is like that?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Some of us like type in different languages, you know. I would love pressing CMD-SHIFT-N to switch to a non-English keymap and see my keys change to reflect the characters I can now type.

Re:Are you absolutely sure Lebedev's is like that?

[bennomatic]

If it were just a one-trick pony--i.e. only sold as a multi-lingual keyboard--the shifting from language to language could be done with a special function key on the keyboard. Some people might find that to be worthwhile. I wouldn't spend $1500 on it, but I'm sure someone would.

Re:Are you absolutely sure Lebedev's is like that?

[argent]

That's "changing in response to software in the computer".

It's all about the documentation.

[argent]

You want free GPL drivers to run your $1500 keyboard on Linux?

No, I want that FAQ to contain a link saying "here's the API, write your own driver" with a link to the USB HID spec for the keyboard all the way down to interfaces and end-points and packets.

a large "iphone" keyboard

[roqetman]

My guess is that they want to create a large version of the "touch" keyboard interface that the iPhone uses.

Re:a large "iphone" keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Like one of these? http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus-tactus/

Re:a large "iphone" keyboard

[Eli Gottlieb]

Right, except that the Optimus Tactus doesn't exist yet. Anyone can invent it once you see how multitouch works.

Re:a large "iphone" keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats your point? Because Apple made a touchscreen device, all future touchscreen devices are rip-offs?
I much prefer to see developments like Art Lebedev's Tactus, than Apple's iPatient.

You know what?

[Waccoon]

I'd be happier if Apple introduced keyboards with media keys. How about function keys that aren't microscopic? How about keys that aren't Chicklets given that they want $1500 for the machine? Ah, the sacrifices we have to make in the name of style.

Re:You know what?

[corsec67]

How about if keyboard manufactures started putting Ctrl in the correct place, left of A. (Photo is from the OLPC XO-1 keyboard, a keyboard layout I really like), left of A.

I know that you can remap the keyboard on most operating systems, but why does Caps Lock deserve such a prominent place when it is hardly used?

Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

The AEGIS Display System uses (or at least used) custom control buttons in a separate keypad which displayed different options depending upon the context in which the user is working. The keypad (20 by 20 keys, if I remember correctly) allowed up to three different values per key through clear keys, overlay labels, and three different internal lamps.

Goetz

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[kalidasa]

The sec was otherwise somewhat like a PDA or iPhone.

the really stupid part is that 2 decade ago I saw

[WindBourne]

these. Not with OLED, but with leds. It was just a bank of keys, but still the same. THe idea that a patent could allow the matrix to change AND the number of keys is expanded indicates to what level companies like Apple (and MS) have sunk.

Re: patents

[v1]

That raises the question of whether a patent is to protect an idea or an implementation of an idea.

My personal take on it is that a patent should be to protect an implementation of an idea. If you patent the widget, you should patent YOUR widget, not the idea of widgets. That leaves me free to "build a better widget" in a different way. It's still a widget, (in that it still accomplishes whatever a widget is made to do for the consumer) but it's MY widget, and is creatively and innovatively different than yours, and I should be able to make that to compete with your different or inferior implementation of the idea of widget.

I suppose the problem comes up of where to draw the line. People write patents as general as possible to get them through the patent office. If I were trying to patent a keyboard I could describe my invention as "a piece of computer hardware with multiple switches representing symbols, numbers, and letters". That covers a lot of ground, and prevents anyone from making a better keyboard than you did if allowed. That would be patenting an idea rather than an implementation.

I don't consider ideas patentable, only implementations.

Also, ideas are much easier to describe in generality than are implementations, aggrivating the problem of very general patents.

yet another stolen idea

[xxdesmus]

So it's just like the Optimus keyboard? Gee, way to "innovate" Apple. Some things never change.

Irony, or something

[Cloud K]

I love how if Microsoft stole ideas from some little innovational business they'd be seen as the scum of the universe, but Apple does the same thing (this and not to forget Konfabulator) and everyone is busy thinking up excuses for how it's perfectly fair.

OLEDs are rubbish anyway, I have one of those OLED MP4 watches, it got burn-in within mere hours. They also have a ridiculously low MTBF (they'll stay bright for like a year max)

hahaha

[thegnu]

I know it's sort of trollish, but this is actually a pretty damn funny post, and is actually sort of about trolls and not directly trolling. On that same note, while I missed the slashdot party (kicks self), I thought it would be pretty great to be a troll AT THE PARTY.

Host: Hey there! How are you doing?
Me: FIRST NIGGER!!!! I LOVE FRIED CHIKKIN!
Host: Erm...
Me: Apple shit! FUCK slashdot.
Host: Uh, sir, this is inappropriate...
Me: Oh, I'm sorry. Sometimes I suffer from tourettes.
\me bends over
All: AAAAWWWWW!!!!

You guys forget

[Matt867]

You guys forget that this small company already holds the patents on this keyboard. How would you feel if you owned the small company that held the patent on this keyboard and a large company patents a slightly different version of your coolest project and says they deserve the patent because they can mass produce it for cheaper? Thats like me telling a little girl who owns a lemonade stand and a delicious patented lemonade recipe that I was going to steal her recipe, mass distribute a version (for cheaper) with a little more sugar, then run her out of business and perhaps void her patent completely. She does deserve it after all, she didn't patent every possible alternative recipe to her delicious lemonade.

I for one think apples monopoly is getting a little out of hand at this point.

get real

[nguy]

Maybe there's something unique and non-obvious about their method of implementing the "dynamic keyboard" idea.

Why don't you just stop guessing and read the fscking patent? It's on the USPTO web site.

I did. Apple didn't try to patent anything new, they really are just patenting the Optimus keyboard exactly.

That is wrong. It may, in fact, be fraudulent because... how out of it can Apple engineers be?

Re:OLED? Why not E-Ink?

[lazyforker]

Because OLED supports colours, and e-ink is monochrome.
Imagine having your Photoshop keyboard, or Final Cut keyboard colour-coded for different functions.

that's not the issue

[nguy]

Lebedev didn't apply for a patent, Apple did. By doing so, Apple is falsely claiming that they invented the technology, and they are trying to exclude others from using it. That is both dishonest and wrong.

Perhaps Apple patented this as a countermeasure against someone who would try to claim this as an original idea.

That's not how patents work. You can only legally patent things that you actually invented. You aren't patent things that you know to be invalid simply because you think you might be able to sneak them past the examiner.

A differently-worded patent on a new product is better than no patent at all. At least that's my opinion.

Ah, the criminal mind at work: you don't care whether it's legal, you don't care whether it's ethical, you just care whether you can get away with it. Say, do you work for the mafia?

Re:that's not the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Lebedev didn't apply for a patent, Except he did. From a european perspective, this is typical of the megacorporations too - they don't tend to care about foreign patents, treaties be damned, and expect US patents to "win" in any dispute.

Patents are not, and have never been, about "rewarding innovation". That's the Big Lie used to sell them. They're a vestige of mercantilist protectionism now used for corporatist protectionism.

You aren't patent things that you know to be invalid simply because you think you might be able to sneak them past the examiner. That's the theory. The practice is a long history of precisely that sneaking happening. And note, even if apple is completely in the wrong, they can still crush people with frivolous lawsuits. I have a net worth of EUR30000 or so after 8 years as a programmer (that might actually sound small, but I've been burned by high-risk investments twice, just my nature). In the US, I couldn't even pay for competent legal defence.

The normal state of the patent system is for it to be abused. The damage from that abuse far outweighs any (largely hypothetical and unproven actually - it's shocking how little actual research is done, the "emotive reward innovators" crap is just trotted out again and again) purported benefits of it, I'd say.

Re:that's not the issue

[nguy]

The practice is a long history of precisely that sneaking happening

Sure. The mafia also has a long history. That doesn't mean one can't criticize them for what they do.

Apple, in particular, deserves to be criticized sharply for these kinds of patents (they file junk like this regularly) because their marketing department is creating the false impression that Apple is "innovative".

I agree ...

[Pinky's Brain]

Regardless of opinions about ideas and implementation though it was also a paraphrased form of the first claim of the patent. So either the patent clerk didn't think it was an idea, ideas can be patented ... or the third option, the idea/implementation dichotomy is pure sophistry.

Squish squish squish.

[uid8472]

Given Apple's tendencies lately with the mechanics of their keyboards, I find it hard to get all that excited about the idea of such a keyboard from them.

(Sigh. I remember when Apple took out a two-page ad for the PowerBook line where (among other things, of course) they boasted about employing dedicated "keyboard engineers" to get the action of the keys just right. Those days are clearly no longer.)

OK, smartass...

[argent]

"why would anyone pay for a programmable keyboard if it couldn't change in real time based on software in the computer?"

Nicely done

[Infonaut]

Nice analysis, Mike. I appreciate you taking the time.

You actually looked at the claims and based your opinion about prior art on what you saw in the claims. This is in contrast to the posters I was referring to, who start firing off salvos about prior art without any factual basis.

Karma whoring is killing Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent whore down some more. The only way to teach people to stop blatantly fishing by posting random mishmashes of memes is to invert their "reward" and punish them publicly.

Force these assholes to go AC or not post at all.

Re:OLED? Why not E-Ink?

[Nethemas the Great]

Perhaps because electronic paper is reflective and OLEDs are emissive...

Re:OLED? Why not E-Ink?

[Maavin]

because of the "oooooooo shiny" effect, I presume. eInk displays would make even wireless models viable...

www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus-tactus/

[ZERO1ZERO]

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus-tactus/

The Apple Monopoly strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... Apple stealing someone's ideas. Seems like they aren't "thinking different"... unless they are going to say other people's ideas are what are "different".

I guess all that patent litigation is why there's the "Apple Tax". Enjoy your overpriced electronics and your Leoptard blue screens, neubs.

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[vdorie]

Shame on Apple for trying to claim they invented the idea. A patent isn't just an idea, it requires demonstration of implementability. Occasionally people will attempt to patent pure speculation, but thankfully our economy isn't controlled by science fiction writers.

Wait... WHAT?!?!?

[Khyber]

while the Optimus Maximus is a bit expensive, Apple could certainly mass-produce something similar for less money

This is APPLE we're talking about. Mass produce for LESS money? Now I know who's been dipping too far into my stash!

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[dangitman]

Because of the finite size of clumsy human fingers, it had no more controls than its ancestors of three centuries earlier.

If one had infinite-sized fingers, rather than finite, wouldn't:

• One's fingers be even more clumsy than finite fingers?
• One have even fewer buttons than someone with finite fingers?

Reason: Doom

[lullabud]

They'll be changing pretty fast once somebody ports doom to the new Apple keyboard.

Coverflow?

[lullabud]

Maybe they'll just buy the rights like they did with coverflow?

Emailed this idea to Apple back in the 90s

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when I was still waiting for Apple to provide a modern OS (then codenamed Rhapsody IIRC) to my Twentieth Anniversary Mac (TAM) in the late 90s I actually emailed Apple a few design ideas. Naturally I never heard back from them, but the idea of a keyboard with LED keys was among them. Being multi-lingual I reckoned it'd be practical to have various language layouts available on a single keyboard. Lighted keys would also be useful in a dark environment.

This patent application appears to expand on my simple multi-layout idea a tad by suggesting active app/context-sensitive key changes (which is a bit silly, unless only applied to a separate set of function keys) but this whole idea is still so obvious that allowing it to be patented would be a disgrace. Every manufacturer should be allowed to make such keyboards without stupid layers of lawyering and licensing hassles and costs because such keyboards really deserve to become extremely cheap and commonplace around the world. No one, including Apple, deserves to collect tax on this obvious idea from billions of people.

Even if no one at Apple ever read my emailed ideas, a search through Apple's email archives should raise suspicions wrt. the obviousness of the Wondrous LED Keyboard Invention!

PS. Apple (Jobs!) later refused to release the promised modern OS (Rhapsody -> Mac OS X) to the PPC603 level machines like the TAM so it has remained an expensive paperweight to this day. It was a priviledge being able to help with your turnaround of the "beleagured Apple"!

OLED Keyboards: Potential Uses

[ErkDemon]

It's not just for text. It's also for icons and colour-coding.
Suppose that you're doing video editing or graphic design, or using your 'puter to produce music commercially. The keyboard then ends up being used more for navigation and shortcuts than for actual typing. You might have hundreds of individual context-specific actions that you could perform on a section of audio or video, or on a file, most of which will probably already have little assigned icons. But unless you have a multi-screen setup, you probably won't have all those icons on-screen at the same time.

So, with an OLED keyboard, you can have those icons (and maybe a few characters of tiny text) set up to appear on keys, and have the setup automatically switching when you move between different screens, or menus, or in response to your actions. Maybe when you highlight a section of the file, a block of keys goes blue, and gives all your cut/copy/paste/export/reverse/normalise/filter/etc... options. When you select a file, the block goes yellow and gives you load/save/rename/revert/etc options, and an adjacent block goes green and gives you options for changing the file's tags for author/category/copyright/embedded icon/notes/etc. If you click one of those options, the icons disappear and the keyboard goes back into QWERTY mode.

This could be fun for more everyday applications, too. It could seriously improve the speed at which you get used to a new piece of software. Think of all the keyboard shortcuts that a wordprocessor has, and how different wordprocessors use different shortcuts. You move from MSWord to OpenOffice, and suddenly the keys do different things! Arrgh!
So, wouldn't it be nice if, when you held down Ctrl or Ctrl-Shift, the keys suddenly changed to colour-coded representations of their shortcut functions?

A web browser could have the keyboard jump into QUERTY mode when you select a menu bar or dialog box or embedded textbox, but betweentimes show thumbnails or FavIcons for of your web-page history, and/or your favourites, and/or and/or the pages currently open in tabs. The Enter/Escape keys could go red when a two-button dialog box is open. The function keys could tell you exactly what they do on the currently-active program.
You could use whatever media player program you liked best without having to constantly relearn which keys each one uses for transport controls.

It would be cool.

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[LKM]

Hey, that sounds like an iPhone! Apple wins yet again! :-)

if they do mmass produce it cheaply....

[vuffi_raa]

I hope that there is a PC version (xp drivers)or a PC knockoff that is made inexpensively as the optimus is insanely expensive but I would love to have one

Affordable for users

[softdevs]

software company

It ain't the LCD

[Swift2001]

It's the way it changes. Open an editing program, and your keyboard switches icons, showing the edit commands. Hold down the option key, and the alternate characters display. The old Mac app Keycaps in a keyboard. Change languages, look down and your keyboard's Urdu or French or Danish. That would be the real innovation: a variable keyboard, and that's what the display fight is over.

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[mikabreto]

All these companies are dumb. If they just took fiber optics from each key and ran them to a small yet hi-res display inside the unit, they wouldn't have to build lcd displays into each key. It wouldn't even have to be a single display. It could even be multiple smaller displays. Isn't brightness on fiber plenty good for the kind of internal distances of a keyboard? And where is my touchscreen Macbook Pro replacement with a 20-hour battery life?

eInk

[Mike Buddha]

They should consider eInk technology instead. That way the keys would stay even if the power was off or the keyboard was unplugged. Color eInk is coming, so they say. I guess the key caps would glow with OLED's though.

Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there

[Christian Benesch]

I didn't know that Arthur C. Clarke built everything he wrote about. Maybe somebody should break into his garage, it'll advance humanity by 300 years.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion