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

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?

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!

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?

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.

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

[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