Slashdot Mirror


Typo Keyboard For iPhone Faces Sales Ban

time_lords_almanac (3527081) writes "BlackBerry is trying to put the kibosh on the Typo, a physical keyboard attachment for iPhone. And they've won the first round, in the form of a sales ban on the attachment. From the article: '"BlackBerry is pleased that its motion for a preliminary injunction against Typo Products LLC was granted. This ruling will help prevent further injury to BlackBerry from Typo's blatant theft of our patented keyboard technology," a spokeswoman for BlackBerry told the news agency in an email.'"

128 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. patented keyboard technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because, you know, physical keyboards are such an advancing field.... I can't imagine how awful keyboards would be with out BlackBerry's patented technology.

    1. Re:patented keyboard technology? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because, you know, physical keyboards are such an advancing field.... I can't imagine how awful keyboards would be with out BlackBerry's patented technology.

      Advancing? Hardly, there are patents and so no advancement is possible.

    2. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Kangburra · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

      --
      Common sense is not so common
    3. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just look at the Typo. It is blindingly obvious that they ripped off the Blackberry design.

      Hey, if Apple can sue over rounded corners and slide to unlock, then this is fair.

    4. Re:patented keyboard technology? by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hadn't heard of this keyboard until this Slashdot article.

      With the angle-topped keys and the particular choice of layout, I think that I actually agree with Blackberry on this one, though I'd think this would fall into trademark territory more than patent technology. Maybe the curved ridges on the keys somehow have a patent I guess...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What advancement? The typo keyboard is virtually a 1 for 1 copy of the Q10 keyboard. They didn't even bother changing the colour of the frets.

      You guys would be pretty pissed if "6oo6le" copied Google to the point of even using the playskool colour theme on the letters, but it's A-OK to rip off BlackBerry 100% because you don't like them.

      Hypocrites.

    6. Re:patented keyboard technology? by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      though I'd think this would fall into trademark territory more than patent technology. Maybe the curved ridges on the keys somehow have a patent I guess...

      Design patents, like (downmods coming in 3 ..2... 1) rectangles with rounded corners.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:patented keyboard technology? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Just look at the Typo. It is blindingly obvious that they ripped off the Blackberry design.

      Hey, if Apple can sue over rounded corners and slide to unlock, then this is fair.

      If Apple is a contemptible shit for suing over rounded corners, then so is Blackberry for suing over a tiny modified qwerty keyboard with black keys.

      "Mommy, Billy is COPYING me. Make him stop! Wah, wah, wah."

    8. Re:patented keyboard technology? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Having used a lot of keyboards. There are a lot of subtitle thing with them that makes it a good keyboard vs a bad one.

      For example the chicklet keyboard. Apple and Lenovo think pads work. HP doesn't.
      If you want it on the cell phone there are more little details. Making a really good one is hard. And costs a fair amount of R&D to make. However after you make it it is too easy to copy. Hence the pattent protection on it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:patented keyboard technology? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      I don't know why this myth persists in a world of open court documents. Apple never sued anybody over rounded corners.

    10. Re:patented keyboard technology? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Advancing? Hardly, there are patents and so no advancement is possible.

      Is too. The latest version has a sarcasm detector.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    11. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      Some people still believe the Earth is 6000 years old in the age of open science. If you don't want to know, then you won't.

    12. Re:patented keyboard technology? by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BB did have a patent on the angled keys that they sued Palm over back in the late 90's. It actually is a fairly innovative design that optimizes the direction of the bevel on each key based on the kinematics of your thumbs so that the keys act much larger than they are (if they actually cloned it correctly). It has also become sort of a mark of BB (both because of the exclusivity and the general unpopularity of portrait QWERTY layouts), so I guess that might even be grounds after the patent expires (which has to be coming up soon ...).

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    13. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple never sued anybody over rounded corners.

      They sued on the basis of an overly broad design patent that included rounded corners, and would have essentially prevented anyone else making a phone that looked like LG's Prado.

      Commentators simplified the comment to "rounded corners" to emphasize the pettiness of the suit.

    14. Re:patented keyboard technology? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I think you were just whoooshed too.

    15. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? Because I'm pretty fucking sure they did, in fact, do exactly that. Samsung vs Apple involved patent USD504899, which claims "the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described", to wit a rectangular cuboid with rounded corners. So, yes, Apple did sue Samsung over rounded corners (although the jury did find Samsung did not infringe, that does not change the fact that Apple did in fact sue Samsung over a thin rectangular design with rounded corners.)

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    16. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your link is for an Apple suit over a design patent. Rounded corners was only a part of that design patent. Anyone can use rounded corners and not violate the design patent. They can't copy the entirety of the design patent. Hence the conclusion that Apple suing over the stand alone concept of rounded corners is a myth.

    17. Re:patented keyboard technology? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      A lot of the patents out there are ridiculous, but have you actually seen these keyboards? They are straight up copies down to the beveling. Its not a "whats the corner radius maybe they stole from apple" thing, its a "they very probably sent a photo of a blackberry keyboard over to manufacturing" scenario.

      Aside from BES, keyboards definately were (are) the best things about blackberry; Id probably lose my crap too if I were RIM and someone straight up copied it.

    18. Re:patented keyboard technology? by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The shape and feel of the keyboards is basically everything there is to the keyboard, and its all basically a copy. Its not even remotely similar to the apple case.

    19. Re:patented keyboard technology? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Now here's a post that deserves a +5 funny.

    20. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, except Ryan Seacrest openly admitted that they stole the design from Blackberry. That's some nerve and Blackberry has every right to sue them.

    21. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Sun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let me see.....

      GP linked to the patent. The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D).

      So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners.

      Shachar

    22. Re:patented keyboard technology? by ljw1004 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think that I actually agree with Blackberry on this one, though I'd think this would fall into trademark territory more than patent technology. Maybe the curved ridges on the keys somehow have a patent I guess...

      Rule of thumb: IP law is so complicated that it's safe to assume that (1) TFA got it wrong, (2) the Slashdot summary and title got it wrong, (3) all slashdot posters (including me) got it wrong, with the sole exception of NewYorkCountryLawyer. I think the only way is to read what the actual filing said, and then look up patents, and then look up the claims section of those patents.

      As far as I can tell, Blackberry complained that Typo Keyboard infringed one or more of:

      * US Patent 7629964 - a patent about the invention of a particular angling+placement of keys on a handheld mobile device where the keys are optimally placed and angled to allow two-thumb typing. It looks like there was thought and extensive user research into figuring out that particular angling and placement. While it was obvious that some kind of angling+placement would be good, I guess no one had done the inventive work to figure out that particular angling+placement.

      * US Patent 8162552 - a patent about the invention of a particular ramping of individual keys for the same end. I know that HP had beveled keys before. This patent is for a particular angling and beveling and crest and so on. Again it looks obvious that some kind of beveling is useful, but I guess no one had done the inventive work to pick out this particular angling and beveling. It looks like anyone who used a DIFFERENT angling and beveling wouldn't infringe on this patent.

      * US Design Patent D685775 - a design patent which is very specifically for Blackberry's design. Design patents are for the ornamental shape of a functional item, and only apply when the design is novel and not the obvious shape for devices. I guess we didn't have the particular Blackberry proportions or layout on other devices before.

      * Blackberry's trade dress. Trade dress is about the recognizable look of a product, that would let consumers readily recognize whether something is distinctively a Blackberry from its distinctive shape, colors etc.

      I don't know on the basis of which of these the temporary sales ban was enacted. But I do know that Blackberry keyboards are indeed nicer to type on than any other phone keyboards I've used, and it really does suggest there was something non-obvious about their research into key placement and contours and their particular results. And I do think that Blackberry keyboards have a distinctive recognizable look. From photos, that Typo keyboard really did look a heck of a lot like a Blackberry in both its overall form. If indeed it also copied the particulars of Blackberry placement/beveling, rather than using any of the INFINITE other possible placement/beveling, then it seems like a slam dunk for Blackberry.

    23. Re:patented keyboard technology? by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware that it has more than one definition; I just don't accept some of them, as they're misleading. A word becomes useless when you give it so many definitions than don't even fit it.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    24. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      It's not about stealing. It's about infringing on an legally granted monopoly, It's akin to trespass.

    25. Re:patented keyboard technology? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Informative

      What advancement? The typo keyboard is virtually a 1 for 1 copy of the Q10 keyboard. They didn't even bother changing the colour of the frets.

      Just a illustrate how blatant a knock-off it is, here's the Typo keyboard from the linked news story, and here's what Typo copied to create it.

    26. Re:patented keyboard technology? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      With the angle-topped keys and the particular choice of layout, I think that I actually agree with Blackberry on this one, though I'd think this would fall into trademark territory more than patent technology. Maybe the curved ridges on the keys somehow have a patent I guess...

      Neither patent nor trademark, but "design patent". US law unfortunately decided to call legally protected designs "design patents", which then every time someone sues over a design patent provokes an outcry of idiots on slashdot and elsewhere that don't understand the difference between a "utility patent" and a "design patent".

    27. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      Rectangle with rounded corners does not exist.

    28. Re:patented keyboard technology? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Because, you know, physical keyboards are such an advancing field.... I can't imagine how awful keyboards would be with out BlackBerry's patented technology.

      I hate to be a Devil's advocate here, but if physical keyboard technology is so straightforward, then why don't you buy yourself a keyboard of a different brand?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    29. Re:patented keyboard technology? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Rule of thumb: IP law is so complicated that it's safe to assume that (1) TFA got it wrong, (2) the Slashdot summary and title got it wrong, (3) all slashdot posters (including me) got it wrong [...]

      In other words, IP law is so complicated, only judges and lawyers are capable of understanding it.
      Errr, somehow this sentence feels wrong.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    30. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      It's rounded corners all the way down.

    31. Re: patented keyboard technology? by kqs · · Score: 2

      IP law is so complex that only people who have studyed it for years can understand nontrivial cases? That seems right. I wish it were not so, but them I wish I could understand particle physics and molecular biochemistry without years of study too.

      The anti-vaxxers and the anti-AGW folks show the hilarity that results when people assume that they know more than the experts.

    32. Re: patented keyboard technology? by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      So we are living in a society where only a select bunch of "experts" know the laws.
      Seems like a terrific idea!

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    33. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Sun · · Score: 1

      In what way do the design patent drawings not cover the aspect ratio?

      In the practical way. Samsung were sued for violating this patent despite having a different aspect ratio. Obviously, Apple doesn't think the aspect ratio in any way limits the applicability of this patent.

      The aspect ratio was so different that Apple felt the need to photoshop evidence to make the devices look more alike.

      Shachar

    34. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      So less patent infringement and more copyright issue?

    35. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Sun · · Score: 1

      And I answer again:

      I ask again, in what way do the design patent drawings not cover a specific aspect ratio?

      In the most practical way. If you issue a device that has a different aspect ratio, you might still get sued (as Samsung has).

      More generally, you need to be a patent lawyer in order to answer, in general, whether things like aspect ratio are part of the specific claims of a design patent. I am not a lawyer. Obviously, Apple's lawyers thought it is not.

      If you know differently (maybe you are a patent lawyer), please do speak up. If not, please avoid re-asking the same question merely because you do not like the answer.

      Shachar

    36. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Trademark, umm yes, people who bought the iPhone snap on keyboard were actually intending to buy a blackberry phone, yeah right. I think you missed the whole point of trademarks.

      Reasonable consumer: "Huh, Blackberry came out with a hard keyboard add-on for the iPhone? I guess that's a smart idea since their own phones weren't selling well. This way, they can still remain a player, at least in peripherals for other smart phones. Good job, Blackberry, at repositioning yourself. I think I'll buy one, since I trust the Blackberry name and quality."

      I think you missed the whole point of trademarks.

    37. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Let me see.....

      GP linked to the patent. The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D).

      So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners.

      Then how come Apple told the court that Samsung could have avoided infringement without modifying the rounded corners by adding a bezel (or changing any other of a list of several design elements), which they subsequently did in the Galaxy Tab 10.1N? It has the same exact rounded corners as the 10.1, but does not infringe the design patent. So, no. The design patent isn't solely about rounded corners.

    38. Re: patented keyboard technology? by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with the sentiment that IP laws (laws in general!) should be much simpler. There's two problems with your argument, though. First, some areas of law are necessarily so complex that only a tiny fraction of lawyers and judges (let alone laypersons) are competent to handle them. I would not trust a constitutional law guru to handle corporate bankruptcy, nor a brilliant civil rights litigator to draft a patent on synthetic DNA.

      Second and more importantly, there's nothing "select" about who can know and understand these laws. Anyone who wants to become well-versed in the vagaries of US IP laws can do any or all of the following:

      1) Read the actual laws
      2) Pick up a book that will aid you in understanding IP law (no quality guarantees there, I just googled "understanding IP law" and this is the first thing that popped up)
      3) Go watch some YouTube videos that explain, for instance, design patent law or the concept of trade dress (again, no quality guarantees, just showing there's tons of content out there)
      4) Go to law school and take some IP courses (I don't recommend this if all you want is a passing understanding of IP law)
      5) Ask NYCL himself to explain the issue to you

      Unlike some of the scientific content discussed here on /. (esp. things like QM and particle physics), IP laws are not particularly hard to grok for the average person—with a little effort and a helpful search engine. Stop me if I'm stabbing a scarecrow here, but I think you might be confusing "IP laws shouldn't be unreasonably complex" with "IP laws should be intuitive enough that people don't even have to look them up".

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    39. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Sun · · Score: 1

      Then why did Apple think they had a chance to win? Why did the German judge, when confronted with Apple changing Samsung's tablet aspect ratio, not think they were falsifying evidence? Why didn't Samsung defense center around the aspect ratio?

      It seems to me that a lot of people who know a lot more about the field than me (you haven't stated what your qualifications are, if any) do not agree with you.

      Shachar

    40. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Sun · · Score: 1

      I think we need to cover what makes patents bad. One of the things that make software patents bad (only one of them) is the fact you can't be certain whether you infringe them, even when you have the patent right in front of you. This is due to ambiguities in the patent. You simply cannot know which way claim construction is going to go.

      If you aim is not to infringe a patent, you must avoid the most broad interpretation the patent has, since you never know how that is going to be interpreted.

      Back to our design patent. The bezel is clearly marked with a dotted line. To the best of my understanding, that means it is not a part of the patent. The same goes for the earphones jack location and the charging socket. Moving any of those around not will cause you to not infringe the patent. Probably. I think. To the best of my limited understanding.

      Basilbrush is trying to claim that the aspect ratio, clearly part of the solid lines, is part of the patent. Just as clearly, however, Apple did not think so. That means that whether he (she?) is right or wrong is irrelevant. When you are trying to avoid infringement, you had !@$#%!@# better assume a different aspect ratio will not save you.

      Which brings us back to the bezel. At trial, Apple has a clear interest to show the patent as being as narrow as possible, while still including whatever it is Samsung has done. Make the patent seem too broad, and the jury might think it is invalid. So it is entirely possible that Apple bringing up the bezel was a strategic move.

      Of course, they are safe to bring it up as, at the point, they already knew what Samsung did and did not do. It is entirely possible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlikely that, given other circumstances, Apple would have claimed that the bezel means nothing at all, but the color has to be different, or that the bezel and the color are both irrelevant, but having a logo would have changed everything. Apple's strategy during the trial is dictated by Samsung already past actions.

      Discussing what a patent covers, however, pertains to future actions and future litigation. Combining all the different, often conflicting, ways to read this patent yields just one strategy to avoid infringement: don't use rounded corners.

      So whether Basilbrush is right or not, the patent covers "hand held device with rounded corners" (the hand is marked with solid lines, so I think it is safe to say it is mandatory). Anything else is a risk.

      Shachar

    41. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      My Apple Wireless Keyboard is almost identical to a Model M: the keys are in the same basic arrangement, they're squarish, each key's label contrasts with the plastic of the key itself, and they have many of the same non-alphanumeric keys (shift, delete, etc.). They are clearly infringing.

      There are only so many ways you can make the thing and still have it usable by people who've practiced on others with similar features. In short: form follows function. This seems utterly obvious and doomed to be smacked down.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    42. Re:patented keyboard technology? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Basilbrush is trying to claim that the aspect ratio, clearly part of the solid lines, is part of the patent. Just as clearly, however, Apple did not think so.

      How the hell is that clear? You claimed elsewhere that Apple falsified a picture to make it look like the Samsung was the same aspect ratio. Why would they do so if they didn't consider the aspect ratio part of the design patent?

    43. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I think we need to cover what makes patents bad.

      I'm happy to change the topic to discuss this, but first we should acknowledge that you are apparently conceding that the design patent was just about rounded corners.

      One of the things that make software patents bad (only one of them) is the fact you can't be certain whether you infringe them, even when you have the patent right in front of you. This is due to ambiguities in the patent. You simply cannot know which way claim construction is going to go.

      If you aim is not to infringe a patent, you must avoid the most broad interpretation the patent has, since you never know how that is going to be interpreted.

      Back to our design patent.

      This is not a software patent, however, as you acknowledge. This is a design patent - there is no Markman hearing, and claim interpretation is not an issue. Furthermore, the problems you speak of are not unique to software patents, but are true of every utility patent: inevitably in any litigation, one side wants some word construed one way, the other side wants it construed a different way. That has nothing to do with software, but rather the inherent ambiguity of descriptive language.

      The bezel is clearly marked with a dotted line. To the best of my understanding, that means it is not a part of the patent. The same goes for the earphones jack location and the charging socket. Moving any of those around not will cause you to not infringe the patent. Probably. I think. To the best of my limited understanding.

      Your understanding is correct, with one caveat - that's the screen border, not the bezel. But I do understand the part you're referring to and yes, features shown in dotted line in a design patent are not part of the claimed design.

      Basilbrush is trying to claim that the aspect ratio, clearly part of the solid lines, is part of the patent. Just as clearly, however, Apple did not think so.

      I'll need a citation on that latter assertion. As I recall, in the German case where the whole "rounded corners" quote comes from, Apple explicitly referred to the aspect ratio as being one of the many specified elements in the design.

      That means that whether he (she?) is right or wrong is irrelevant. When you are trying to avoid infringement, you had !@$#%!@# better assume a different aspect ratio will not save you.

      Which brings us back to the bezel. At trial, Apple has a clear interest to show the patent as being as narrow as possible, while still including whatever it is Samsung has done. Make the patent seem too broad, and the jury might think it is invalid. So it is entirely possible that Apple bringing up the bezel was a strategic move.

      Of course, they are safe to bring it up as, at the point, they already knew what Samsung did and did not do. It is entirely possible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlikely that, given other circumstances, Apple would have claimed that the bezel means nothing at all, but the color has to be different, or that the bezel and the color are both irrelevant, but having a logo would have changed everything. Apple's strategy during the trial is dictated by Samsung already past actions.

      Discussing what a patent covers, however, pertains to future actions and future litigation. Combining all the different, often conflicting, ways to read this patent yields just one strategy to avoid infringement: don't use rounded corners.

      So whether Basilbrush is right or not, the patent covers "hand held device with rounded corners" (the hand is marked with solid lines, so I think it is safe to say it is mandatory). Anything else is a risk.

      Design patents are similar to trade dress - the test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer would consider the patented design and accused design of being substantially the same. In trade dress, the test is whether a consumer woul

    44. Re:patented keyboard technology? by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. I am not ignorant that the meanings exist; I just reject them as useless and incorrect. You're the one being ignorant by not even attempting to understand my position. I would expect no less from someone that uses language in an effort to get their 'opponents' riled up, even if that usage is blatantly illogical.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    45. Re:patented keyboard technology? by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      Also, this is a legal matter. You'd better start using the correct terminology (And stealing is not the correct terminology.).

      --
      [End Of Line]
    46. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I see a different number of keys on the bottom row. I see that the little ridges on each key is more rounded on the Typo version than the Blackberry version. I also see that the bottom row on the Blackberry keyboard has significant curves at the right and left sides where the other one does not. Then there is the fact that the Typo version is removable and can be added to a smartphone that did not come with a keyboard to start with. What is left that is similar is fairly insignificant, the colors and little silver horizontal bars between the keys. Why does Blackberry stay alive if that is all they have to offer.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    47. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Neither patent nor trademark, but "design patent". US law unfortunately decided to call legally protected designs "design patents", which then every time someone sues over a design patent provokes an outcry of idiots on slashdot and elsewhere that don't understand the difference between a "utility patent" and a "design patent".

      I don't think they're confused, so much as every time they hear about design patent enforcement, they don't think that's the sort of thing that should be patentable.

    48. Re:patented keyboard technology? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Do you realise a keyboard and a mobile phone are different products, again , I repeat you have no concept of trade marks beyond I own everything greed. They are strictly limited.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    49. Re:patented keyboard technology? by lonOtter · · Score: 1

      Well this is no different.

      I reject that use of the term as well. This is a legal matter, too.

      And yes, whether wilful or not, you are ignorant.

      To be ignorant, I'd have to lack the knowledge that people use these terms in these ways. I do not, so I am not ignorant. I just reject those usages, just like I reject propaganda terms like "intellectual property."

      I know that's not what you want to hear, so go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears like a child might.

      To not know the difference between being opposed to something and not knowing of its existence shows that you're ignorant. I know that's not what you want to hear, so go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears like a child might.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    50. Re:patented keyboard technology? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Do you realise a keyboard and a mobile phone are different products, again , I repeat you have no concept of trade marks beyond I own everything greed. They are strictly limited.

      First, this is actually trade dress, not trade marks. Similar, and still falls under Lanham 43, but if you're throwing around the "you have no concept of what we're talking about" stone, you might want to make sure it's the correct stone. Otherwise, you're liable to hit one of your glass walls, y'know.

      Second, trademark registrations under Lanham 32 are "strictly limited" to fields. For example, here is the registration record for Blackberry. And here's the fields it's "strictly limited" to:

      IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images, namely, electronic handheld units, mobile phones, telephones, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) for the wireless transmission of data and/or voice signals; data processing equipment, namely, printers, scanners, cameras and computers for use with electronic handheld devices; computers; mobile computing and communication devices, namely, mobile phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), tablet phones, tablet computers, mobile computers, and mobile apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images; computer communication software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer; computer software and programs in the field of music, movies, animation, electronic books, digital maps in the fields of general entertainment and communications; computer software for navigation; the aforementioned for computing and communication devices in the nature of apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images, data processing equipment, and computers, and mobile computing and communication devices in the nature of mobile phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), tablet phones, tablet computers, mobile computers, and mobile apparatus for recording, transmission, processing or reproduction of data, sound or images. embedded computer software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer, the aforementioned software used as a feature found on the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; embedded computer software for GPS navigation used as a feature found on the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; downloadable software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer, the aforementioned software for the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; mobile application software for the synchronization, transmission and sharing of data, calendar, content and messaging between one and more electronic handheld devices and data stored on or associated with a computer, the aforementioned software for the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; downloadable entertainment content, namely, music, movies, animation, electronic books, digital maps in the field of general entertainment and communications; downloadable entertainment content in the nature of games, and music; downloadable video recordings; operating system software for the foregoing computing and communication devices and mobile computing and communication devices; enterprise software, the afo

  2. So what's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Change the beveled key shape to something not covered under a patent and call it a day.

    1. Re:So what's the problem? by pollarda · · Score: 3, Informative

      Beveled Keys have been in use since the HP 35 calculator. The HP35 was HP's very first calculator and the first iterations only had printing on a few of the keys -- the rest of the key designations were printed on the board the keys protruded through. The HP41 (early to mid 1980's) had a full alphabet keyboard as well as punctuation and all the keys were beveled. As I understand the patent, it should be thrown out due to prior art or at least obviousness since all the HP keys were beveled.

    2. Re:So what's the problem? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Beveled Keys have been in use since the HP 35 calculator. The HP35 was HP's very first calculator and the first iterations only had printing on a few of the keys -- the rest of the key designations were printed on the board the keys protruded through. The HP41 (early to mid 1980's) had a full alphabet keyboard as well as punctuation and all the keys were beveled. As I understand the patent, it should be thrown out due to prior art or at least obviousness since all the HP keys were beveled."

      There exists a thing called a "design patent" which prevents others from copying your style. I could be wrong, but I suspect that is what is at issue here.

    3. Re:So what's the problem? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      While there at it, can they make some that slip over popular andriod phones? By the look of the design, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to make versions that fit other popular phones, and keep using the same bluetooth keyboard (fyi, it extends the length of the phone a bit, so this isn't a question of how much non-screen real estate exists at the bottom of the phone).

      Slightly off topic... anyone know of a good keyboard case for a galaxy S4? The only one's I've found add incredible bulk, have poor reviews, make camera use very awkward, and just don't seem usable. I miss my evo shift keyboard, and G1 before that :-(

    4. Re:So what's the problem? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Beveled Keys have been in use since the HP 35 calculator. The HP35 was HP's very first calculator and the first iterations only had printing on a few of the keys -- the rest of the key designations were printed on the board the keys protruded through. The HP41 (early to mid 1980's) had a full alphabet keyboard as well as punctuation and all the keys were beveled. As I understand the patent, it should be thrown out due to prior art or at least obviousness since all the HP keys were beveled.

      The desktop HP 9100 was HP's first calculator. The HP35 was their first portable calculator (basically the 9100 that fit in a shirt pocket), but otherwise, what you say about HP is correct. As for your conclusion on the patent, I will defer to others.

    5. Re:So what's the problem? by pollarda · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you want to call the 9100 a calculator. ;-) Actually, I have one. It was really cool and had ferrid core memory and gold plated PC board. I've also got a few HP35s floating about both with and without the printed keys. Ah, the wonders of growing up in Los Alamos and what was once known as Zia Salvage. (They even had a nuclear rocket engine at one point -- though probably without the core.)

    6. Re:So what's the problem? by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      If they were making something that looks like blackberry for the purpose of selling to apple users, I don't think an injunction was necessary.

    7. Re:So what's the problem? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There exists a thing called a "design patent" which prevents others from copying your style.

      Really? In that case, I'm totes gonna sue Li'l Wayne.

      Brother's been biting my style for the longest. Even down to my face tattoos and penchant for purple drank.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:So what's the problem? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      The HP35 was HP's very first calculator

      Wrong. There were HP calculators before the HP35. HP made desktop calculators that sported a small CRT display. I used to have one. It had core memory in it. It had no ICs at all. Hundreds and hundreds of diodes.

    9. Re:So what's the problem? by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      HP35 keyboard
      Side-by-side Typo vs Blackberry keyboard

      The HP35 isnt even close, and the Typo is a blatant ripoff. I hate patent trolls as much as the next guy, but come on, theres not even room for debate here. Theyre EXACTLY the same. Even ALT and Shift are in the same spots, and the numbers-- which have generally gone across the top on other phones-- are laid out the same way.

    10. Re:So what's the problem? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I still have and occasionally use my HP-25 (although I've had to replace the battery pack a long time ago). RPN confuses people as much today as it did back then.

    11. Re:So what's the problem? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Patents can be on nitpicky things, and frequently are. Obviously, beveled keys per se don't deserve a patent, but keys beveled in a certain way may.

      I haven't looked at the patent, but if it was just on beveled keys it would probably have been thrown out earlier, and if not Blackberry would be careful about suing over it.

      However, on /., it is standard practice to look at part of something and present it as if it were the whole thing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Sick of patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're over-valued and create significant litigation. The only people who benefit are the lawyers.

  4. How dare they make the user experience better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Further proof that patents harm customers far more than they promote innovation.

    1. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by danomac · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you even look at the article? That keyboard looks like a blackberry keyboard to me. It's a blatant ripoff of the design. While I think software patents are absurd, this is a copy of a physical device.

    2. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it costs a significant amount of money to come up with these things in the first place. It does not cost a significant amount of money to copy them though. The result is that by elimination of dominated strategies, the best strategy in a world without patents is to not actually come up with anything new, but instead to just copy what everyone else is doing, as it gets you the same result with much lower cost.

      That's not something the government wants to promote, for obvious reasons.

    3. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by fnj · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because it costs a significant amount of money to come up with these things in the first place. It does not cost a significant amount of money to copy them though. The result is that by elimination of dominated strategies, the best strategy in a world without patents is to not actually come up with anything new, but instead to just copy what everyone else is doing, as it gets you the same result with much lower cost.

      That's not something the government wants to promote, for obvious reasons.

      A spectacular example of backward thinking. If the government took its grimy hands off, it wouldn't be PROMOTING anything; it would remove an artificial suppression of free trade.

    4. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The result is that by elimination of dominated strategies, the best strategy in a world without patents is to not actually come up with anything new, but instead to just copy what everyone else is doing, as it gets you the same result with much lower cost.

      It's not an unreasonable first guess, but that turns out to actually not be how people behave when the constraints are lifted.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That keyboard looks like a blackberry keyboard to me. It's a blatant ripoff of the design.

      That seems stupid - they should have ripped off the Treo design - straight rows of keys don't make sense for actual human thumbs.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm interested to know how many ways you could possibly think of cramming a keyboard into a 2" x 1" space.

      Regardless of how it looks, do you really think that putting a set of standard keys in a small space is somehow deserving of a patent? Or OMG my dell keyboard has a Fn key that lets the F1 key share with the sleep function, should that be patented too? Maybe IBM should patent the fact they removed the SysRq button from their keyboard while they are at it.

      If anything Blackberry was shamelessly ripping off the QWERTY layout. Man if Christopher Latham Sholes was still alive I'm sure he'd sue the bastards into Bankrupsy. Mind you that seems to be Blackberry's business strategy right now anyway.

    7. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Yup, there's only so many ways you can make a keyboard. Ergo, anyone copying the key bevel and switch technology is justified in doing so. After all, there's no difference between the tactile feel of Cherry switches and cheap membrane switches, just to name one single aspect of keyboard tech.

      Oh, wait...

      (Cue someone random popping in to say a cellphone doesn't use a full-size keyboard, failing completely to understand the concept of an anaolgy.)

    8. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So I'll wait until you show me the patent on the switching mechanism blackberry used.

      Still waiting.....

      Ahh screw it, I'm not dying of old age. The answer is there's no keyboard out there with any proprietary switching mechanisms.

      So come again and answer my original question, and this time take into account the size of a mobile phone and the realisation that a membrane switch doesn't work at such small scales as there isn't sufficient supporting structure in such a small space.

      Now if you think that the shape of a key is somehow patentable .... well that's a very scary connotation to make up there with patenting genes, patenting round corners, and patenting a lot of other absolute rubbish which isn't innovative in the slightest.

      I'm not arguing that they didn't violate the trade dress, the keyboard looks a lot like the Blackberry one. But to consider any of the above even remotely patentable is absurd in the highest order.

    9. Re:How dare they make the user experience better by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      It wasn't someone random who fails to understand what "analogy" means after all. Usually the person to whom a response is addressed doesn't walk right into something like that. Bravo.

  5. End times by nbohr1more · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the twilight of our civilization, endless patent and copyright fights over obvious things. A keyboard at the bottom rather than the side of a phone? Obviously this is a precious work of genius that must be protected at all costs. Soon someone will make a new generation of 8K HDTV's and they will patent "the use of a remote control with 8K HDTV's" When will someone see through this horseshit and revoke these stupid patents.

    1. Re:End times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Presumably the fact that he wasn't born rich.

    2. Re:End times by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      Self respect. How about you?

    3. Re:End times by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Twilight of civilization? This is about a near magical device that we've made with science which can give you any answer you can think of, communicate with people on the other side of the world, and see pictures of people having sex. What about this gives you such cynicism? Yes, these are idiotic arguments, but think about the idiotic disagreements that lead to real wars in the past. Civilization sure doesn't seem to be on the downward slide.

    4. Re:End times by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Not all civilisations. The civilisation making the stuff is OK and doesn't give much more than lip service to patents.

    5. Re:End times by Threni · · Score: 1

      If patents didn't exist it would make absolutely no difference to the amount of progress which goes on, because the patents are bullshit. Apple would not make a penny more profit if samsung didn't have to use a slightly different shaped case or whatever. Microsoft wouldn't be going hungry if they were not able to make more money from FAT patents rather than selling their own shitty smartphones.

  6. Further injury to Blackberry? by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean it's possible for someone to destroy Blackberry faster than Blackberry has done itself?

  7. Re:Fuck BlackBerry by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    I wish they would just die with a little grace and accept that they world will be better off without them

    Ya, like SCO did - oh, wait... :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  8. Dear Blackberry by hax4bux · · Score: 2

    Nobody decides to buy a BB solely based upon a hardware keyboard.

    Probably could have stopped w/"nobody decides to buy a BB"

  9. Re:http://slashdot.org/?source=autorefresh by issicus · · Score: 1

    I understand why they have it, but it annoys me also.. reloading while I'm reading an article isn't helpful.

  10. Not taking sides. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Informative

    They have gone further than just putting a keyboard on the iphone, see pic:

    http://www.macrumors.com/2014/...

    They've copied the shape of the keys, the horizontal bars between the keys etc.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:Not taking sides. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Just wait till Apple realises that the edges are also curved.

    2. Re:Not taking sides. by Shompol · · Score: 1
      So they copied look and feel. Are there any patent-worthy inventions involved?

      Patents are supposed to protect inventions, not megacorps that happen to be butthurt.

    3. Re:Not taking sides. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Were the patents involved design patents? If so, then it's not about what functionality was "invented" but rather how it looks as an entirety.

  11. Can't get past the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would they name a keyboard "typo"? Even as an amusing meta-reference, it falls flat.

    It's like trying to sell a toilet paper named "Anal Scraper".

    1. Re:Can't get past the name by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Softer, Stronger and thoroughly abrasive?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Can't get past the name by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      It's rough, it's tough, and takes no shit.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Can't get past the name by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes John Wayne Toilet Paper :)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  12. Die Blackberry (the) by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It is stunts like this that ensure when Blackberry finally must close their doors, few will weep. Roughly one year remains.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Die Blackberry (the) by narcc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we've been hearing that for years now. Still hasn't happened.

      Just keep making predictions until you get a hit, Silvia Brown. I'm sure we'll all be impressed with your intellectual prowess then.

  13. Re:Fuck BlackBerry by TWX · · Score: 2

    Android and iOS give the buying public what they want. Apple is continuing its personal computer paradigm of having an OS that goes with their somewhat more upscale hardware and Android has essentially pulled a Windows and been the "clone" OS to use. Both offer fairly sophisticated suites of interconnected applications that also tie-in well to computers.

    I honestly couldn't tell you what Blackberry does. And that's their biggest problem.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  14. Blackberry won... by CTU · · Score: 1

    ...but we all lose. These bans do not in any way help consumers and should be laughed out of court. One thing to not steal tech from the people who invent it, but this is about ideas. Like banning people from making wheels because some comp owns the round shape patent

    1. Re:Blackberry won... by fnj · · Score: 1

      Look up "design patents". They are completely different animals from "utility patents". There are also abortions called "plant patents" (yeah, plant as in green growing thing), and "defensive publications", the latter now superseded by "statutory invention registrations". See this.

      The court is doing its job. If a design patent is infringed, what else can the court do? The contemptible lunacy of design patents is on the heads of the legislature.

    2. Re:Blackberry won... by CTU · · Score: 1

      Blackberry dose not or at least should not own the paten to a physical keyboard which is what this boils down to. Judges have struck down patens when a suit came up because it was given in error and somehow I feel that this should have been the case here.

  15. Funny by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    Funny. There's a shit-ton of Chinese messaging phones using Blackberry style keyboards with shaped keys (oooh so innovative). I doubt they're licensing the patent given the low price point these sell at in emerging markets.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Funny by narcc · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it is "oooh so innovative". There's a reason why everyone raved about the quality of their keyboards, you know.

      Ever try to type, well, anything on a Motorola Droid Pro or Palm Pre? There's obviously a lot more here than just "shaped keys".

    2. Re:Funny by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Yep. A Blackberry is pretty much just a refined HP Chiclet keyboard... 30 years later.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  16. We need reform by Sean · · Score: 1

    Asserting a patent that turns out to be invalid or not applicable should cost the accuser big time. All of the defendants legal costs plus 5% of annual worldwide gross revenue would be a good start.

    1. Re:We need reform by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Asserting a patent that turns out to be invalid or not applicable should cost the accuser big time.

      Of course, the problem is that an 'invalid' patent is a valid patent, and once the USPTO grants it it's enforceable. No matter how stupid it is.

      Now, if the USPTO had some liability for allowing patents which boil down to "a system and methodology for doing something we've been doing for decades, but with a computer/hand held/on the interwebs".

      As it is, they just keep approving things which never should have gotten past review.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  17. Re:Quick, Slashdotters! by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Challenge accepted.

    After playing the role of plaintiff in multiple patent lawsuits concerning relatively miniscule design innovations, the double-edged sword that is the US patent system is now seemingly also willing to slice the apple.

    Perhaps the only hope for reform of the patent system relies on it becoming inconvenient even for it's former proponents?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  18. One small victory in the war on Ryan Seacrest by idioto · · Score: 2

    this isn't about patents or saving blackberry, it's about stopping ryan seacrest. he's the one behind the kardasshians for heaven's sake. set aside your petty libertarian and socialist differences and unite against tyranny of another more diabolical sort!

  19. Re:Fuck BlackBerry by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Blackberry sells the only device "owned" by the corporation. Secure end to end encryption, owned by the owner, not a cloud provider. It's a walled garden where the owner of the device owns the walls and the garden. It's security-focused enterprise/government that keeps it going. If you aren't one of them, there's no reason to consider it. I know a few home users that have them. The last one had to use an android phone for 2 weeks. He never turned his Blackberry on again.

  20. Re: Fuck BlackBerry by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    The GPU in the Galaxy S4 consistently beats the Ax processors in the graphics department, so no.

  21. Gotta side with Blackberry by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

    Gotta side with BlackBerry on this one.

    Keyboards like this one...

    http://0.tqn.com/d/ipod/1/0/w/...

    ...have been around for years.

    However, one look at the "Typo" tells you that it's a blatant BB ripoff. If you want / need a keyboard like that, buy a 'Berry.

  22. Lets Make a Deal by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

    This is being blown way out of proportion here. Filing the infringement lawsuit and winning the injunction was the first step towards making a deal. With the injunction in hand Blackberry has demonstrated to Seacrest and his investors that this is serious, but they've also left open the way to a deal. This would probably take the form of royalty payments from Typo to Blackberry for each case sold, the amount to be negotiated after agreement in principle to pay royalties. The remaining Blackberry shareholders are hard core professional investors and financial types now, not technologists, so they will be eager to squeeze any money they can out of the patent portfolio even if that cannibalizes a few Blackberry sales down the road.

  23. Re:Quick, Slashdotters! by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Well you have me there.

    See, every now and then it does pay to get out of bed in the morning!

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  24. Re:Fuck BlackBerry by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Its hilarious to hear this in a world where SSL is a beseiged technology, and RIM offered the only solution with per-device keys. Clearly we'll all be better off without the only mass-produced product that is neigh on unhackable.

    I have of course moved on to android because RIM hasnt kept up-- but the world would be better off if they had because they had some incredibly good offerings and to this day have the only workable physical keyboard. With as much as I love swiftkey, Im still not convinced it holds a candle to a good Blackberry.

  25. Really? "Theft"? by evo2 · · Score: 1

    Guess they don't know the definition of the work "theft".

    1. Re:Really? "Theft"? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      If some one grants you a monopoly and you don't have that monopoly any longer, than the monopoly was stolen by those who infringed upon it.

    2. Re:Really? "Theft"? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see. Then the "thief" must have the monopoly.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    3. Re:Really? "Theft"? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Thieves steal copper cabling all the time. The value to the thieves (as scrap) is a mere fraction of what it's worth to the telecom provider.

    4. Re:Really? "Theft"? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I'm just trying to steer the conversation towards monopoly, and away from larceny.

  26. ( family guy shop teacher ) by gavron · · Score: 1

    Oh Nos!

    This will surely help blackberry survive in the market!

    Good job with those patents! Now nobody can have a working keyboard, not their
    nonexistent client nor the iPhone people who could have used a Typo.

    E

  27. Re:http://slashdot.org/?source=autorefresh by Arker · · Score: 1

    Might I suggest setting your browser to ignore it?

    Personally I have my browser set to ignore nearly everything a web server hands it these days. Refreshes, ecmascript, plugins - all the crap that makes the web suck.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  28. How would you discribe this keyboard ? by DirtyFly · · Score: 1

    Try to think of a discription you'd made for this kwyboard, and see if the sentence 'like the blackberry one' does'nt appear in the description,

    1. Re:How would you discribe this keyboard ? by DirtyFly · · Score: 1

      that wold be dEscribe ... sorry for the mistake !

  29. Re:A little late for Blackberry. by susanjane · · Score: 1

    I couldn't agree more. If Blackberry had come out with their own keyboard and bundled it with BBM five years ago, they'd be making money today.

  30. I USE ONE AND OWN FOUR by susanjane · · Score: 2

    Why? Because I'm stockpiling in the event that TYPO goes belly-up. Using a Typo-keyboard with my iPhone is the finest mobile phone experience available and I am loathe to go back to a glass keyboard. I had a death grip on my Blackberry but I switched to iPhone a few years ago for reasons too numerous to list. I tried a few keyboard cases for iPhone. Although not perfect, the Typo is by far the best of the lot. Using it allows me to have the whole iPhone screen visible. I can thumb type quickly and accurately and avoid iPhone autocorrect hell. I live in the most densely populated area of New York City, where everyone is in a hurry and good percentage of them are morons. People have asked about my phone with the keyboard but no one has ever confused it with a Blackberry. As previously posted, Blackberry could have come out with a similar keyboard bundled with BBM for iPhone and the most popular android devices years ago. Had they done so, they might just be making money now. This is a fine example of a moribund company reaching up from the grave to drag a really great product down with it.

  31. Wow rip off by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    I _was_ going to say, "I can't imagine blocking such a product would increase RIM's market share. All this does is make people hate Blackberries even more."

    But then I saw what it looks like. It's a freaking Blackberry keyboard rip off! At least take the time to design something a LITTLE new, guys.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Wow rip off by susanjane · · Score: 1

      The keyboard may, at first glance, look the same. It is not. A Typo keyboard is smaller, has more keys and functions as a case for an iPhone. The Blackberry is keyboard is larger, wider and most importantly is part of the phone. Would you still think it was a rip-off if it was bright blue instead of black?

  32. Re:Quick, Slashdotters! by mcmaddog · · Score: 1

    perhaps I'm missing something, but Apple didn't make or sell this keyboard add-on

  33. Re:not exactly rocket science by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Overlaying the qwerty keyboard-- specifically the "qwe-asd-zxc-0" keys-- with 0-9 is something that is pretty specifically Blackberry. Every other phone with qwerty I've seen has overlaid it over qwertyuiop. On-screen keyboards have generally had it as an alternate keyset, or overlaid it over the qwerty.... keys.

    Its not even just that, its that when you put the two side by side you cant really tell which is which. Everything about the styling and design is exactly like Blackberry, and generally one of the thresholds for cases like this is whether it is likely to confuse a customer as to the maker of a product.

  34. Re:http://slashdot.org/?source=autorefresh by issicus · · Score: 1

    I had noscript but I find setting permissions on it more annoying than what it's stopping.

  35. Re:Amnesia? by susanjane · · Score: 1

    This is not an Apple product. It is a very good accessory for an iPhone made by a small, start-up third party. Blackberry does not offer one nor do they intend to make anything remotely like it in the near future. They just don't want anyone else to do so. The keyboard may, at first glance, look the same. It is not. A Typo keyboard is smaller, has more keys and functions as a case for an iPhone.