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!>)
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.)
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!
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.
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
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