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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

US patent system is first to invent

[Pinky's Brain]

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

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.

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...

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: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:Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

what?

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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!