Slashdot Log In
Apple Files for OLED Keyboard Patent
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat Jan 05, 2008 02:22 AM
from the prior-art dept.
from the prior-art dept.
pegdhcp writes to mention that Apple has applied for a patent on a 'dynamically controlled keyboard' with OLED keys. This may seem remarkably familiar, since an OLED keyboard has been bandied about by Art Lebedev studios for quite a while now. "while the Optimus Maximus is a bit expensive, Apple could certainly mass-produce something similar for less money, perhaps bringing the price into reality for most users. Lebedev has, however, apparently applied for several patents for the Optimus, so it's unclear just what Apple is up to, or what would happen if the company were ever to release such a product."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Optimus Keyboard With OLED Display Keys 540 comments
Koskun writes "What appears to be a Russian design company has on their website a keyboard in which the keys are using OLED to display what function the keys represent. The product is Art. Lebedev Studio's Optimus Keyboard. The uses of this could be amazing. They have pictures of layouts for Photoshop and Quake, as well as a QWERTY and Russian. Here's hoping that this will make it to a production model and not just a design model."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sure... (Score:4, Funny)
Also, first post (hopefully!>)
claim 25 (Score:3, Interesting)
US patent system is first to invent (Score:2, Insightful)
Process Patents (Score:3, Informative)
One family of patents is the process patent. The invention is the manufacturing process, not the item. Whether or not the items manufactured are ordinary is irrelevant.
May the best idea win... (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent Fight *or* License from Art. Lebedev? (Score:5, Informative)
Surely that beats a costly Patent fight?
What about Prior Art?
Re: Optimus Keyboard With OLED Display Keys http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/14/1335215 [slashdot.org]
Re: Optimus OLED Keyboard Pre-Orders Start Dec. 12 http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/19/1911235 [slashdot.org]
I would love to see this technology in an affordable Laptop/Notebook keyboard. (Particularly one that has open source GPL'd base drivers.)
Re: (Score:2)
What about Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
I'll take 2, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
I would never purchase an Optimus keyboard because there is no muscle behind it. They can't mass produce the thing and have been paper launching the keyboard for 2 years now. Imagine getting one and needing quick support like an immediate replacement, or getting really used to the thing and discovering they don't have the money to continue producing it. Apple, Logitech, or Microsoft have the resources to do it.
Now there is lots of prior art in this area, going as far back as 1978 in monochrome alterable keys. Perhaps Apple patented this as a countermeasure against someone who would try to claim this as an original idea. A differently-worded patent on a new product is better than no patent at all. At least that's my opinion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No patent at all is better. If the product is good, it will sell. If the competition starts making things better and cheaper, that is also good, because that way the consumer gets a better products.
Patents do not encourage inovation, they block it. Could be that that was different 100 years ago, but it isn't now. Patents are used to block ideas.
Remember the saying 'I am standing on the shoulders iof giants.'? Patents tell you that
Re: (Score:2)
Another reason... (Score:2)
The problems I have are all related to the funny layout Apple's got. The "Super" key is where the alt key should be, so I have to swap those in a keymap -- which isn't working flawlessly, yet, and is a pain on my laptop, where the only way I know of messing with keys like that requires a reboot (or logout/login) to take effect. This means I can either have the Apple keyboa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'll take 2, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Plan all along (Score:5, Funny)
2.Sue first company to actually try to build keyboard.
3.Profit!
Now wait'll some one tries to knock off Duke Nuke Em Forever!
This could be fun... (Score:2, Interesting)
Notice how they only promise windows and mac support [artlebedev.com] for the keyboard because linux doesn't have enough marketshare:
Why isnt there any Linux software?
Because first we want to let 95% of people to work with the keyboard.
Is there a chance it will support Linux?
Maybe sometime.
I hope they feel violated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple and IBM (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll bet that number's gone up significantly since then.
Publicity Stunt (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that even Slashdot bought it - but maybe I shouldn't be surprised anymore...
The basic idea about a keyboard that can get programmed to display different text on the keycaps aren't really new - the difference is that the technology is better today. But the use is limited - only a few doing writing in multiple international languages/character sets will really benefit from this in a real keyboard. For ordinary people it's easier to buy a secondary keyboard and switch whenever necessary.
But in specialized applications the use of programmable keytops may be really useful. Think cash registers and other kinds of devices.
Watch the "prior art" screaming start (Score:5, Informative)
Until you've read the actual claims in a patent, it is impossible to know what Apple is actually attempting to patent. The fact that the description is of an OLED keyboard doesn't mean that prior art will negate the claims any more than the existence of LCD screens would necessarily invalidate a patent on an LCD screen.
Now to settle in and watch the ill-informed rants about patent law multiply like rodents. Anyone have any popcorn?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there 1st (Score:5, Interesting)
The 'Sec was the standard size of all such units, determined by what could fit comfortably in the normal human hand. At a quick glance, it did not differ greatly from one of the small electronic calculators that had started coming into general use in the late twentieth century. It was, however, infinitely more versatile, and Duncan could not imagine how life would be possible without it.
Because of the finite size of clumsy human fingers, it had no more controls than its ancestors of three centuries earlier. There were fifty neat little studs; each, however, had a virtually unlimited number of functions, according to the mode of operation--for the character visible on each stud changed according to the mode. Thus on ALPHANUMERIC, twenty-six of the studs bore the letters of the alphabet, while ten showed the digits zero to nine. On MATH, the letters disappeared from the alphabetical studs and were replaced by X +, / --, = and all the standard mathematical functions.
Shame on Apple for trying to claim they invented the idea.
Re:Idea 30 years old - Arthur C. Clarke got there (Score:3, Funny)
Whoever does it... (Score:2)
Judging by the pictures on this site: Optimus Mini [deadprogrammer.com], the backplane for the full blown 103 key version must be staggeringly complex, not to mention extemely difficult to manufacture within the confines of a standard-sized keyboard. Plus, a regular keyboard must be able to withstand normal typing, unlike the three-button jobbie; you have to wonder at the amount of abuse
Epic leet (Score:3, Funny)
Prior Art from the 70's (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM made a bit of hardware for the US Navy called the A/N-BQQ5 SONAR system. The main consoles had an array of buttons ( keys if you will ) that called functions and of course changed that actual text that was displayed on each button based upon the current function(s) selected. If memory serves, mind you this was 30 years ago, they had an acronym ( the Military has acronyms for everything ) and it was DROS . This is a link to a site that has a decent photo [si.edu] of the control consoles, Click on the image ( yes unfortunately it will open in a pop-up, sorry its the ONLY photo I can find ) for a larger version. As you can see the three consoles are identical; however, each console could be assigned any function that the system performed. Thus each set of keys displayed text appropriate for the consoles currently assigned function, and sub-functions.
I rode USS-OMAHA SSN-692 in winter of '78 and USS Los Angeles was commissioned in '76, so given how long it takes to get a bit of hardware like that from IBM in those days, I would imagine those buttons / keys were more then likely developed in the late 60's.
So there you have your prior art.
Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
That one takes a 5 minute patent search.... (Score:3, Informative)
That's all 25 claims dead right there.
right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Irony, or something (Score:3, Insightful)
OLEDs are rubbish anyway, I have one of those OLED MP4 watches, it got burn-in within mere hours. They also have a ridiculously low MTBF (they'll stay bright for like a year max)
Wait... WHAT?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is APPLE we're talking about. Mass produce for LESS money? Now I know who's been dipping too far into my stash!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:apple fanboys (Score:5, Informative)
every keycap.
Now please tell me the difference to that.
This is not old but ancient stuff.
G!
MACC
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess if you're going to say something stupid it might as well be really stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:apple fanboys (Score:4, Informative)
1984! , even earlier than I remembered.
The first image from the top
http://www.e3-keys.com/images/image012.jpg [e3-keys.com]
is the one I had in mind.
G!
MACC
Parent
Re:apple fanboys (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe there's something unique and non-obvious about their method of implementing the "dynamic keyboard" idea. Maybe there isn't, and they are just doing what big, ugly businesses do. Maybe they're really trying to purchase or license the Lebedev technology, and this is a bargaining technique.
But to think that a patent can't be valid and innovative just because someone has a similar product is a fallacy; it could be done in an entirely different way. Should the inventor of the rotary engine been denied a patent because there were other gas-burning engines on the market?
Parent
Re:apple fanboys (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
context specfic layouts (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm....what exactly would be the point of an OLED keyboard which DIDN'T do this?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check it out. They even show right on the web site the profiles for Adobe CS programs.
Also, check out the demo page:
http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/demo/ [artlebedev.com]
The images can and do change on the fly as needed.
Apple is attempting to patent prior art.
Re:apple fanboys (Score:5, Insightful)
My father invented a simple, cheap, solid-state radiation detector that can be embedded in devices that is being purchased and licensed by major technology organizations (GE, Siemens, Lawrence labs). Prior art includes all technology associated with the detection of radiation. However, with all the geiger counters and such, nobody had recognized the possibility of, as it were, inserting tab A into slot B and using it as a radiation detector. He did, and he patented it, including several variations. Just because there is prior art doesn't mean something can't be patented.
When my father was going through the first round of the patent process, he learned that there is a delicate balance between broad protection and specificity that goes on with every application. If you define your product to broadly (i.e. it's a radiation detector, period), then your request will be rejected because everyone and their brother has invented a radiation detector. If you define it too specifically (think of a cooking recipe), though, people can learn from your patent and easily copy your work while carefully avoiding enough of the details to avoid a lawsuit. If your patent says that what makes your detector unique is the inclusion of four micrograms of adamantium, well then, all a competitor needs to do is add five grams, and they've got a different product.
Neither extreme is a good one. One is denied because it claims too much, and one is overly specific and doesn't protect enough. The key is to find a comfortable middle ground, and then patent variations to ensure that competitors won't do the same.
I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on. That's very different from the other keyboard, which, as I understand it, is designed to be an all-one-profile or all-another-profile configuration (i.e. go into your Preferences pane and select Russian, and they keyboard will change). Long before Lebedev, there were custom stickers you could put on your keyboards i.e. to type dvorak instead of qwerty. OLED is cool, but if you're looking for prior art, in this implementation, OLED is just expensive stickers. I'd rather spend my $1500 on having the two or three keyboards I might actually need, along with a couple of spare terabyte drives with the left over money.
Here's an idea that has lots of prior art, but may be patentable. I present it here, in hopes that nobody has invented it. The parameters are:
There's lots of prior art for different elements of this invention, but unless someone has put them all together the way I have, and patented it, well, if I can build it, I could probably patent it, and rightly so. But one weakness is the specificity of the fly
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, it may still be th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a black and white contradiction with what GP said... But I'd be glad to listen if you can come up with one
And let's not forg
Re: (Score:2)
And you are also correct that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and ineffectual when trying to persuade. It's a pity that the GP--who had an otherwise good comment--fell into that trap. Kudos to you for responding to that in a wholly appropriate manner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where as claim 10 and 11 [uspto.gov] states:
You both realize, don't you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Judging by the comments on this thread, there are a lot more people whining about fanboys than actual fanboys.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There. Fixed it for you.
Jokes aside, it would be funny if there were an editorial change after the comments thus far to say that this was a Microsoft filing, not an Apple filing. Just the reverse of what you suggested, but probably equally funny. Tha