Slashdot Mirror
Apple Receives Patents For Bezel-Free Display, Touch ID Button Embedded In Screen (9to5mac.com)
Apple has just been granted patents for two of the biggest features expected from the iPhone 8: an edge-to-edge display, and a Touch ID button embedded into the screen. 9to5Mac reports: The edge-to-edge display patent has the rather mundane heading "Reducing the border area of a device." It describes how a mostly-flat display can have a curved border area allowing it to wrap around the sides of the device: [...] "This relates to methods and systems for reducing the border areas of an electronic device so as to maximize the display/interactive touch areas of the device. In particular, a flexible substrate can be used to fabricate the display panel and/or the touch sensor panel (referred to collectively herein as a 'circuit panel') of a mobile electronic device so that the edges of the display panel and/or the touch sensor panel can be bent. Bending the edges can reduce the width (or length) of the panel, which in turn can allow the overall device to be narrower without reducing the display/touch-active area of the device." The embedded Touch ID patent is one of many submitted by Apple, describing different approaches it could take. This one re-uses language from a separate patent granted back in February, describing the benefits of allowing a user to authenticate without having to remove their finger from the screen: "Where a fingerprint sensor is integrated into an electronic device or host device, for example, as noted above, it may be desirable to more quickly perform authentication, particularly while performing another task or an application on the electronic device. In other words, in some instances it may be undesirable to have a user perform an authentication in a separate authentication step, for example switching between tasks to perform the authentication." Apple has been granted a total of 56 patents today. For more information, visit Patently Apple.
Oh man... the US patent system is beyond broken and useless...
Such wow! So innovation!
(Typed on my S8 that has these features standard)
Does it describe vague idea or method to achieve desired result?
The best thing about the iPhone was the physical home button. At least you knew by feedback that you were activating it purposely and not by mistake. I'm old school,I like physical switches and buttons and to me software buttons are just a way to save money and do not work as well.
Edge to Edge display? like umm a projector?
Has anyone patented the flying car yet... because it's a car... that flies, and describing attributes seems to be all that's required for a patent these days. How does it actually go about flying? we'll figure that out later let's just stop everyone else from working towards a vague idea or product attribute.
Touch id maybe a new thing (be nice to really know what they are talking about), but Apple are definitely not 1st with Bezel-less displays . Apple should stick to innovating luxury new pizza box containers, they are clearly the leaders in that niche market.
IPhones are much more prone to shattering the display glass when dropped. The only way to avoid it is to not drop them (haha) or enclose them in a protective cover which adds a protruding frame around the display. Apple is innovating for fragility.
/look at Samsung S8 /faint
Boundaries removed The Infinity Display has an incredible end-to-end screen that spills over the phone’s sides, forming a completely smooth, continuous surface with no bumps or angles. It’s pure, pristine, uninterrupted glass. And it takes up the entire front of the phone, flowing seamlessly into the aluminum shell. The result is a beautifully curved, perfectly symmetrical, singular object.
fingerprint sensor -> severed fingers
image a coupe of them dangling from a keychain.
"Apple has been granted a total of 56 patents today."
Just another day on the Monopoly board of Innovation.
I have an idea. Every patent that has been granted in the last 20 years that is not actively being used should be forced to go up for auction. I'm guessing a trillion or two would come flying out of tax havens as companies scramble to bid and secure patent stockpiles, which those funds would be available as capital funding for new startups based entirely out of the US, along with that money being taxed properly.
But here's the catch. We repeat the process every year for every unused patent until the concept of hoarding patents for litigations sake is not a sound investment strategy.
US startup investing and onshore hiring. Considerable tax revenue gained. Short-circuit pointless patent hoarding and allow innovation to thrive once again.
Every patent that has been granted in the last 20 years that is not actively being used should be forced to go up for auction.
Ok let's go with that for a moment. Define "actively being used" and tell me who is going to monitor all these patents for activity. I think you are going to find that to be a LOT harder than you think.
I think a better idea is to have an exponential patent renewal fee. Anyone who gets a patent has to pay an annual fee. The fee is say $100 the first year (indexed for inflation) and it doubles every year after that. The patent remains valid as long as the fees get paid. This way patents that are actually valuable get used and less valuable patents enter the public domain sooner. It wouldn't be hard to maintain the patent for 5-10 years but after that it becomes very expensive. There is no point in paying the patent fees to hold a patent that brings in insufficient value. This would mean that by year 25 a patent would have to be worth in excess of $1 billion to be worth paying the fees to maintain. You can adjust the length of the average patent by adjusting the starting price.
If you want to make it interesting you could make it so that the patent holder gets first rights to pay the patent but if they decline to pay it, it goes up for auction with a starting price at the fee the patent holder would have had to pay. If someone buys the patent then they get to continue the payment schedule.
Touch id maybe a new thing
It's a fingerprint reader. Same thing they've been calling it for years.
So they already had the curved screens that make it impossible to use a glass screen protector, and now they're removing the bezel so there's no way to put it inside any sort of protective case. I might as well just go back to a landline, because I won't want to take it out of my house.
If your display doesn't have a border, then it can't be reduced. You do not fall foul of the description of the patent:
"Reducing the border area of a device."
And if you reduce your bezel to zero, that is the bezel, not the border reduced.
If the patent covers something OTHER than the claim of the heading, then the patent is null and void for being incorrectly described.
How will I hold my phone in certain positions or angles, I DO NOT LIKE having to keep my thumbs on the screen while using it. I already have to, that's why I like bigger cases. Best phone ever had was still the Nokia 1520 with a case.
It's not "innovation" until Apple steals it from you and patents it.
I am so confused....I have not fully read the actual patents that were granted, but I first read this story on an Android phone that seemed to have both those features or a very close variation of those features. Not only is the US Patent process broken, but this just seams like bad will on Apples part.
I have yet to see a single high end phone from any company that isn't wrapped in some sort of bumper, and typically a complete 3-side box. And when I hold the phone my hand overlaps some of the screen.
I'm really failing to understand this "feature". Touch-anywhere, yeah I can actually see how that is kinda useful, but bezel-free? Hrm...
Great! Maybe now the Slashdot poll and sidebar ads will be on the back of my device where I don't have to see it.
Have gnu, will travel.
Seems like a natural progression not an actual intellectual leap. So patent system still broken and Apple still overrated.
Good to know.
It will cost close to, if not over $1,000.00 for the good one. Phones are crazy expensive, for something a lot of fools toss down money for, every year, or 2-3 years.
How can you hold this phone in your hand without putting your fingers in the screen (and clicking unintentional button)?
First to market? No. First to file? Yes. The filing date on the bezel patent was July 2014, beating the Galaxy Note Edge's announcement by two months. As such, those other products (all of which were announced after the Note Edge) would not qualify as prior art, given that they weren't disclosed until after the filing.
I wish we'd all spend less time on this red herring with the dates and more time focusing on the fact that it shouldn't have been granted because it's obvious.
...in broke patent land.
Because of course the US Patent Office would grant patents to a company when competing companies not only came up with the concept first, they already have multiple models on the market to prove it while Apple has none.
Guys, the patent for the bezel free display isn't even a matter of talking about the S8... the Note Edge which fits the description perfectly came out in 2014.
Interestingly enough, Sharp also had a prototype phone that's more or less similar to the Xiaomi Mi Mix that also had curved edges:
https://www.gizmochina.com/201...
This was also back in 2014.
But it's to be expected by the US Patent Office to grant stuff that's in direct conflict with existing products. The whole system has been broken for a while now, it only serves to feed patent trolls and the entire system supporting frivolous lawsuits and whatnot.
I wonder how much the recent substantial investment Apple made in Corning has directly to do with these applications.
patentlyapple only links to one of the patents, but at least included the patent numbers for all three patents that they discuss. The other 53 patent numbers are in an image.
9to5mac can't even be bothered to print any patent numbers.
For reference
Reducing the border area of a device: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... device including finger biometric sensor including transparent conductive blocking areas carried by a touch display and related methods: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
Scanning depth engine: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
This is on top of the breathless bullshit cries that Apple has patented all bezel-less displays (hint: the patent does not claim all bezel-less displays).
Of course, you neglect the fact that the patent isn't for the concept of a "Bezel-Free" display, rather it is for a particular implementation of it. Is their implementation new or unique?
The same thing goes for the touch-id embedded in the display. The patent is for a novel way of achieving this, not for the concept itself.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Cool story bro. Now try Nexus 4 (released in 2012).
Patent-system implications aside, it is unfortunate that Apple is adopting Samsung's usual role, and slaving copying their largest competitor's features. I own a Galaxy S7 Edge, and the screen is completely obnoxious. Without a phone cover which adds an extra plastic bezel (something I had avoided on all previous models, as it significantly increases the phone profile and consequent pocket bulge), the S7 Edge is a slippery piece of crap that causes unwanted palm-scroll actions every fifteen seconds or so--when it's not just slipping out of your hands, anyway. In addition to being a difficult-to-hold minefield of unwanted touch actions, the curved edges of the screen are harder to see, and force you to look squarely at the center of the phone if you want to actually see anything with low margins. Literally the only benefit of the bezel-less display that I have been able to discover is that it looks cool when the phone is just sitting there, unused.
And now Apple is going to make this standard as well, after which it will eventually be difficult to find a normal bezeled display on any phone? Oh joy.
A) The Nexus 4 didn't have a curved display. It had curved glass covering a flat display. Not even close to the same thing.
B) Even if the Nexus 4 was a valid example, however, it still wouldn't matter, because Apple's application is technically a continuation of an earlier patent for which they've claimed priority. As such, while this one was filed in 2014, the effective filing date is September 2011, when the earlier patent application was filed.
Seriously. Am I the only klutz who'd destroy an all-glass bezel-free phone within three months if I couldn't wrap it in a drop-protecting case?
Gorilla Glass? Pfft. Drop *any* phone glass-down onto asphalt or ceramic tile from 6 feet without a proper case. If it doesn't get cracked the first time, it almost certainly WILL the second time around.
Personally, I'd be afraid to even HOLD a bezel-free phone that couldn't have a robust case. My phone get fumbled, dropped, or accidentally semi-flung AT LEAST once or twice per month.
If a patent creates a monopoly, why wouldn't they just use a pricing model that sets the price for the good at a level that supports paying the extended patent fees?
Monopolies are not inherently profitable. Just because you have a patent (a de-facto monopoly) doesn't mean it is worth billions. You can set whatever price you want but that doesn't mean people will pay it. That's why a graduated payment system makes sense. It clears out the patents that aren't commercially valuable in a reasonable amount of time and it creates use it or lose it incentives without having to bother with trying to determine if it is being "used" in some productive fashion. Once the value of a patent is exceeded by the cost of the payments it becomes public domain. This incentivizes economically valuable patents and makes holding large numbers of mostly worthless patents too costly to justify.
A simpler method of controlling hoarded intellectual property: Three years after being granted, if a patent is not used in a product it is held to be "idle" and demonstrating an idle patent becomes an affirmative defense in a patent violation lawsuit.
That's not simpler at all and it ignores several realities. First, all you are doing is incentivizing a bunch of bogus "products" to show that the patent is being "used" to get around your proposal. Don't doubt for a second that this would absolutely happen. Second, you have to implement a complicated and expensive review system. A payment system is FAR simpler and easier to administer and has the desired outcome without having to make subjective judgements about whether something is being used or now. Third, some items that get patented (like drugs or medical equipment) take considerable time to bring to market because of safety and efficacy concerns. It might take a decade or more to be able bring a real product to market after the research is done and patent granted. Fourth, you have to define what "being used in a product" actually means. That's not nearly as easy as it sounds and is positively loaded with opportunities for bad judgement.
I agree with your intent but I think proposals to judge whether a patent is being used are doomed to failure. A payment schedule is a MUCH easier way to achieve the desired end result.