Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Receives Patents For Bezel-Free Display, Touch ID Button Embedded In Screen (9to5mac.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the foreshadowing-a-new-iPhone dept.

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.

25 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh man... the US patent system is beyond broken and useless...

    1. Re:Really?! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically I don't care about Apple. I just think that the patent application process should include the question "could a 3 year old come up with the idea?" and if the answer is yes, throw it out on principle.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The patent system wouldn't matter if it weren't for the stupid legal system. Apple could apply for a patent on anything and sue you and you would lose based on that you don't have enough money. Is that encouraging innovation? No. But yeah, the patent system is broken and needs to go.

    3. Re:Really?! by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh man... the US patent system is beyond broken and useless...

      How dare it grant patents to a company you don't like!

      How dare they patent something their rivals have been doing for 4 years

      --

      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.

    4. Re:Really?! by peragrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      the question isn't whether or not they patent something their rivals have been doing but whether or not the patent was in the approval process before them.

      patent applications can take years to grant.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Really?! by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      Basically I don't care about Apple. I just think that the patent application process should include the question "could a 3 year old come up with the idea?" and if the answer is yes, throw it out on principle.

      I don't think they are patenting the general idea of a bezel free display which would be kind of dumb since there are already bezel free displays, or are you are assuming that creating a bezel free display is a trivial undertaking? ... because I'm pretty sure the underlying engineering is beyond a 3 year old. The same goes for developing a method of scanning fingerprints in three dimensions, either through a display which is what they'd have to do if the display covers the entire frontal real-estate of the device or by integrating a 3D sensor into the display. But don't take my word for it, feast your eyes: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... Or better yet, borrow a three year old and see if the toddler can explain that document to you.

    6. Re: Really?! by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The basic idea (bezel-less phone) is pretty obvious. The mechanism (curved screen to slightly wrap around) is the easier of the obvious two ways to make it work.

      If your competitors design, build, and ship the claimed invention before your patent application is disclosed, maybe it's pretty obvious to one skilled in the art.

    7. Re:Really?! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not just the bezel free screen either, Samsung wanted to include a fingerprint-reader-in-the-screen feature on the GS8 but had to cancel it because they couldn't get it working properly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Really?! by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      The problem is that often patents are granted to ideas come-up-with-able by a three year old, and with engineering that looks complicated to a patent attorney, but is in no way difficult to an engineer that would be employed to create this sort of thing.

      The patent provides no societal value at all - it does not explain how to do a thing in a way an engineer could not work out in normal product development, with no appreciable added time.
      It is wholly negative in that now you can be sued for doing something obvious and not knowing of the obvious patent.

    9. Re:Really?! by thaylin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Inventors: Martisauskas; Steven J. (San Francisco, CA)
      Applicant:
      Name City State Country Type

      Apple Inc.
      Cupertino
      CA
      US
      Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
      Family ID: 1000002586884
      Appl. No.: 14/445,849
      Filed: July 29, 2014

      Less than 3 years ago.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    10. Re:Really?! by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      Kinda like that time they saw what Xerox had going and ripped it off completely? Is this not basically Apple's game in a nutshell?

      This factoid gets repeated a lot but what people who love slinging it about usually neglect to mention that the Alto finally wen on sale in the form of the Xerox Star in 1981 it turned out to be slow and under powered. It was a commercial failure and Xerox withdrew from the PC market altogether a little later, something that is also usually and conveniently left out of the story. The Apple Lisa went to market in 1983 and the Macintosh which turned out to be the hit only went to market in 1984. Xerox had ample time to make a success of the Xerox Alto/Star while Apple was still coding an OS a UI and building prototype PCs. The truth is that Xerox just gave up, Jobs didn't, you should try to just get over that fact. As for the question whether the Xerox Alto influenced the Lisa/Macintosh in a big way? Yes, it did. Did Apple ruin what would otherwise have been a big success for Xerox with their Alto/Star PC? No, the Star was a commercial failure 3 years before the Macintosh was unveiled. Is ripping other companies off Apple's game in a nutshell? Well they sometimes do it but I'd hardly call it their core business model, and besides what did Microsoft do with Windows other than rip off the Macintosh? ... and what did Google do with Android other than rip off the iOS user interface and the iPhone's basic design (virtual keyboard, big high resolution screen, use your fingers for a stylus, etc...) ? I saw early Android prototypes and they were quite clearly designed to be Blackberry killers. Then, just before they were supposed to hit the market the iPhone showed up and by some strange coincidence, exactly around that time, Android disappeared and then reappeared quite a bit later, now clearly re-designed to be an iOS killer. Companies rip each other's ideas off, everybody does it, which is another thing you should try to get over.

    11. Re:Really?! by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Not just the bezel free screen either, Samsung wanted to include a fingerprint-reader-in-the-screen feature on the GS8 but had to cancel it because they couldn't get it working properly.

      I bet Samsung doesn't employ many three year olds.

    12. Re:Really?! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Uh, the actual claim is correct. Apple DID see what Xerox did and DID rip it off.

      They paid off some value, but the fact is Apple saw what Xerox did and ripped it off.

      Let me get this straight. People come on and bitch about the patent system, then complain because the company they hate "ripped off" a graphical user interface, which means they support the patent system for patenting trivial things at the same time they hate the patent system for protecting trivial things.

      The Red Queen applauds y'all.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Really?! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well there are two questions there:

      1) Did Apple apply for the patent before their rivals started doing it?

      The bezel going to the edge is not the patent, it is the implementation. I think too many people think that the image area going to the edge of the phone is what was patented. It is not.

      2) Is the implementation they're patenting somehow different and novel, compared to what their rivals are doing?

      Yup. I performed some Slashdot heresy, and looked up the patent. This is a phone front with some flexible curving side with sensors embedded in it. It is definitely different and novel.

      As with most things in here, people who hate Apple will hate them getting a patent - or even existing for that matter. If Samsung had filed the same patent, they would be singing praises from the rafters.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Really?! by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Some problems with that. First, Apple didn't just go in, they paid Xerox money for having a look around at their place and looking at everything Xerox was doing. Adele Goldberg, inventor of Smalltalk, called her bosses idiots (well, that's what she wanted to do, probably put it into a more polite way), but they didn't listen to her. Everything Apple took from Xerox they paid for exactly what was negotiated between the companies.

      Second, Apple got less than you might think. For example, one Apple engineer saw overlapping windows at Xerox and implemented them. It turned out the overlapping windows on Xerox machines only existed in his imagination, and the Xerox guys were totally astonished that this was possible.

      And a few years later, Microsoft ripped off Apple equally legal because someone at Apple had signed a rather stupid license agreement. Things happen.

    15. Re:Really?! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're going to ding Apple over patenting this sort of thing (and you should!), do it for the fact that they're patenting something that's obvious. If you're going to make an argument about the timing of things, at least check your dates before spouting off with wrong information, because so far as I can tell, the facts don't back you up.

      The bezel patent was filed in July 2014. To the best of my recollection (and I'll admit I may be mistaken, so I'd welcome correction if anyone has better information), Samsung's "Edge" devices were the first to feature this sort of display, but the first of those was the Galaxy Note Edge, which wasn't unveiled until September 2014, two months after the patent had been filed. The S6 Edge and subsequent devices weren't even announced until the following year, meaning that the patent was filed well before any of those products had gone public. If there were any other rivals doing this sort of thing 4 years ago as you claimed, I can't find any evidence of it.

      Again, feel free to take Apple to task for patenting things that should never have been allowed to get through the system, but check the relevant dates before you make factually incorrect claims about the timing of events.

    16. Re:Really?! by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Second, Apple got less than you might think. For example, one Apple engineer saw overlapping windows at Xerox and implemented them. It turned out the overlapping windows on Xerox machines only existed in his imagination, and the Xerox guys were totally astonished that this was possible.

      Said Apple engineer was actually an unknown person by the name of Steve Wozniak. He spend weeks trying to figure out how to do overlapping windows, and when he finally solved it (in a process he called "regions" - overlapping windows subdivided the overlapped window into rectangular regions that were updated independently).

      Subsequently to this, Woz flew and crashed his plane. First thing he said to Jobs when Jobs visited him in the hospital was "Don't worry, I remember how to do regions".

      Apple paid Xerox in Apple stock, too. Xerox promptly sold it for about $30,000.

      And after figuring out regions, Woz learned that the Alto did not support overlapping windows at all. He had imagined it.

  2. Re:Cool by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Enjoy it while you have it, you must not use those now patented features anymore in the future! By punishment of catapult!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Oh great, fake buttons so much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Edge to edge display patent? by CptLoRes · · Score: 2
    Quote straight from the Samsung Galaxy S8 site, phone in sale at this moment.

    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.

    1. Re: Edge to edge display patent? by buchanmilne · · Score: 2

      "My understanding is that Samsung still has a bezel in the sense the the wrapped portion of the display (and a small amount near the edges) has no touch sensors."

      Your understanding is not correct.

      At least on the Galaxy S6 Edge, the entire screen including the piece on edge of the phone was touch-sensitive. Maybe this has changed in recent models.

  5. Re:Cool by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    I thought punishment will be by remote detonation like the previous model.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  6. A resolution to patent hoarding. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    "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.

  7. A better resolution by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:A better resolution by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      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.

      This way, it's self-enforcing. Patents become use it or lose it, and patent trolls who hold patents but don't make a product or don't license it to someone who does use the patented idea are out of business. Corporations that hoard patents merely competitive to their own patented inventions won't be able to use them to stifle competition.