Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!>)
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?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
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.)
Of course changing 2006 to 2005 in a research notebook isn't that hard ...
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?
The CB App. What's your 20?
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.
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!
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.
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
-nick
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.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
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?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
I'm going to run my Optimus in stealth mode.
There is simply too much glass..
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.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
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:
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
The CB App. What's your 20?
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
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
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That's all 25 claims dead right there.
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.
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..
>"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?
No sig today...
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.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
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)
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.
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."
im in ur
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.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Right, except that the Optimus Tactus doesn't exist yet. Anyone can invent it once you see how multitouch works.
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
Where as claim 10 and 11 states:
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.
Money is the root of all evil?
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!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.