Apple Receives Patents For Bezel-Free Display, Touch ID Button Embedded In Screen (9to5mac.com) 176
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.
Really?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh man... the US patent system is beyond broken and useless...
Re:Really?! (Score:5, 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.
Re: Really?! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, yes. In a sensible country, court fees are applied after settlement. And loser pays all.
Re: (Score:2)
"Loser pays" makes sense only if someone who's obviously in the right has a chance of winning against a company with an army of lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 am
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally they didn't steal anything. However as far as bragging rights go, they can sod right off. I'm sick of them and their fanbois claiming they invented the sun and moon and everything below them.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally they didn't steal anything. However as far as bragging rights go, they can sod right off. I'm sick of them and their fanbois claiming they invented the sun and moon and everything below them.
One thing I've learned fro 30 plus years of research is that there are no sudden breakthroughs. Everything is on a continuum. I've seen final implementations that came 50 years after the initial idea. Xerox had a GUI, and then Apple did. Apple's wasn't the first. Xerox wasn't the first. The closest we can get ot the first GUI is the oN-Line system which used a mouse and mutiple pages. Conceptualized in 1959, framed out in 1960, and fleshed out in the mid to late 60's. And that was largely based on Vannevar
Re: (Score:2)
That's vi vs emacs, surely?
Re: (Score:2)
That's vi vs emacs, surely?
Yup. Some smart guy once told me that the closer the products, the greater the competition, Coke and Pesi like, Captain Picard versus Captain Kirk. And all of these are pretty close.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this straight. People...
They weren't People, they were an AC. Nothing of importance and most likely a small Perl script meant to troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, Apple got less than you might think. For example, one Apple engineer
Re: (Score:3)
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" - overlappin
Re: (Score:2)
oh my god. Are you retarded? We're not talking about a scanner like an image scanner. We're talking about a touch screen display.
Actually, you are the retarded one.
It's actually both.
Re: (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.
So tell us what you came up with and then we'll compare it to what Apple has got.
Re: (Score:2)
A bezel free mobile phone is not an idea?
All the possible implementations aren't covered by this patent?
Isn't the idea/implementation supposed dichotomy just bullshit patent lawyers come up with to have people parrot while they laugh at their stupidity?
Re:Really?! (Score:5, 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
Re:Really?! (Score:4, 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.
Re: Really?! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So which did ship? No really, tell us.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That however isn't what Apple describes in the patent if I read it correctly. Apple's patent involves making the bezel another touch interface to extend the touch screen. It seems to me that Apple's patent is a different solution to the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Agreed, but that's not what the patent claims. Patents include a set of claims at the end that are the only part with any legal weight - not the figures, not the title, and certainly not what some Slashdot summary describes it as. Here, the patent claims include:
A display, comprising:
a flexible display substrate having an active region and at least one bent edge portion, wherein the bent edge portion extends partially underneath the active region;
active display structures on the flexible display substrate in the active region; and
conductive traces on the flexible display substrate that extend from the active display structures in the active region onto the bent edge portion, wherein the flexible display substrate comprises a thinned region in the bent edge portion and wherein a thickness of the flexible display substrate in the thinned region is less than a thickness of the flexible display substrate in the active region.
So, it's not just claiming "bezel-less phone" or "curved screen to slightly wrap around", but a very specific implementation that appears to be different than what anyone was doing (though this application was filed in 2011, and the only bezel-less
Re:Really?! (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't available 4 years ago. The earliest Edge display I can find was the Galaxy Note Edge, which was announced in September 2014, two months after the patent was filed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. You are aware that unannounced products don't count as prior art, right? Which was the topic I was specifically addressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that actually doesn't change the situation.
I didn't mention this earlier since it seemed irrelevant and (I thought) would merely complicate the conversation unnecessarily, but the bezel patent [uspto.gov] was filed as a continuation of an earlier patent Apple applied for in September 2011 (i.e. they "claimed priority"). As such, the effective filing date for the bezel application also goes back to September 2011, meaning that a 2013 demo would still be too late to qualify as prior art.
Yay for patent law.
Re: (Score:2)
I was addressing whether the Galaxy Note Edge qualifies as prior art (it doesn't), not who came up with it first (I have no clue). You're clearly confused about the distinction.
Even though Samsung almost certainly had prototypes and perhaps even fully functional devices working at the time Apple's application was filed in July 2014, those devices do not qualify as prior art because those devices had not yet been publicly disclosed. Had Samsung filed for the patent shortly after Apple, the fact that the US o
Re:Really?! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
So now Apple's competitors get awarded prior art for supposedly trying to do something, but failing?
Re: (Score:2)
Well there are two questions there:
1) Did Apple apply for the patent before their rivals started doing it?
2) Is the implementation they're patenting somehow different and novel, compared to what their rivals are doing?
The second question is something that people often forget about. Properly, a patent shouldn't be for an abstract idea like "make a phone screen without a bezel" or "have a fingerprint reader embedded in the screen of a phone". The patent should be for a specific and novel technical implem
Re:Really?! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You would be completely wrong in that assessment. People who think for a living get really sick and tired of asshole lawyers claiming to own ideas, regardless of which company the assholes work for. And make no mistake, Apple does write their patents with the intent of owning the idea, even though that's explicitly not allowed in patent law.
More to the point, we get really irate about the patent office being 100% incapable of applying the obviousness clause of patent law. Yes, the specific implementation
Re: (Score:2)
2) Is the implementation they're patenting somehow different and novel, compared to what their rivals are doing?
Exactly this. The example I always like to use is the Sony Trinitron patents. They developed a unique, and generally superior (at the time) way of building a CRT display. Getting the details just right was hard R&D, and for that they were properly rewarded.
The patent also had the effect of forcing other CRT manufacturers to really up their game, and improve competing technologies to try and match what Sony was able to do.
Once the patent expired, you started to see clones on the market, and they were qui
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really?! (Score:5, 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 [uspto.gov] 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 [wikipedia.org], which wasn't unveiled until September 2014, two months after the patent had been filed. The S6 Edge [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
It does make it patently obvious the idea was obvious enough to occur to Samsung (and others) completely independently, which subsequently shows how patently idiotic the patent system is.
Now of course it won't qualify as obvious to a patent lawyer, because they refuse to even consider obviousness as a good metric. Obviousness is inherently and inescapably a subjective (expert) opinion. Patent lawyers will never accept that, which is why they'd rather redefine the English language (ie. obviousness becomes ju
Re: (Score:2)
Also worth mentioning: the 2014 bezel patent is a continuation of an earlier patent application from September 2011, meaning that the effective filing date for the bezel patent is September 2011. As such, for Samsung or any other rival to attempt to invalidate the patent on the basis of prior art, they would have to demonstrate that the prior art existed prior to September 2011.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Really?! (Score:2)
The patent says:
"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 âoecircuit panelâ) of a mobile electronic device so that the edges of the display panel and/or the touch sensor panel can be bent. "
Samsung implemented the version with the "and", at least on the Galaxy S6 Edge I looked at when it launched in my country in about March 2015.
Also, I don't know what definition of "bezel" you are using, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Galaxy Note Edge (the first Samsung device with the edge display) wasn't announced until September 2014. The patent was filed two months earlier, in July 2014. While the patent still shouldn't have been granted because it was obvious, the Edge devices don't count as prior art, given that they were announced after the patent was already filed.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Without having seen it doesn't that sound a lot like samsung's thing? I guess it's not copying when apple does it, its bravery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without looking, I assume it's curving an OLED screen at the edge in both cases. A feature of OLED that has already been made into a gimmick on TVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Without looking, I assume it's curving an OLED screen at the edge in both cases. A feature of OLED that has already been made into a gimmick on TVs.
But that's apple for you, talking something old and pretending its new.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what they've patented, and when. Did they file this before Samsung made their wraparound display? And did Apple file for a broad patent on "any borderless screen", or did they patent a collection of specific methods to achieve a borderless appearance. If they applied for a novel, non-obvious and specific method that is different from Samsung's (or if they filed earlier), then the patent ought to be granted.
If apple had filed before samsung did theirs do you honestly believe apple would let it happen? They already tried to sue the shit out of samsung for a generic description of design so yeah they probably would sue. So unless they've actually come up a new unique way of doing it, but when was the last time apple came out with anything actually new? TFA seems to imply its pretty generic.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Without having seen it doesn't that sound a lot like samsung's thing? I guess it's not copying when apple does it, its bravery.
So you are saying without seeing this thing that Apple is making a copy of Samsung's screen?
I guess that truthieness is alive and well. It sure seems like Apple would rip off Samsung because Apple Lisa and something something, so without me even looking, they obviously ripped off Samsung.
Sounds legit.
Come on man, you can do better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Without having seen it doesn't that sound a lot like samsung's thing? I guess it's not copying when apple does it, its bravery.
So you are saying without seeing this thing that Apple is making a copy of Samsung's screen?
I guess that truthieness is alive and well. It sure seems like Apple would rip off Samsung because Apple Lisa and something something, so without me even looking, they obviously ripped off Samsung.
Sounds legit.
Come on man, you can do better than that.
What I'm saying is increasing the screen size isn't a new thing at all in general. Edge to edge folding over? samsung beat them (others have too). Until there're images of the phone no knows exactly what it will look like but I'd imagine just like an iphone with less bevel. Have you seen any of the tv ads for samsung edge 8? Apple doing it is completely different though, is that what you're saying? It's okay for apple to do it too, but they can't really pretend it's new or clever.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying is increasing the screen size isn't a new thing at all in general. Edge to edge folding over? samsung beat them (others have too). Until there're images of the phone no knows exactly what it will look like but I'd imagine just like an iphone with less bevel. Have you seen any of the tv ads for samsung edge 8? Apple doing it is completely different though, is that what you're saying? It's okay for apple to do it too, but they can't really pretend it's new or clever.
No, what I am saying is that there are implementation differences between What Apple patented and what Samsung is doing.
If I were to prognosticate, based on the sensors inplanted in the flexible portion of the screen, the possibility exists for a screen/rest of the phone one piece construction.
Can't say I care for that idea, but then again, a bezel-less phone is of no interest to me. It's still too damn small, and a practical smartphone always will be. Unless people start going for 10 inch tablet size
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man... the US patent system is beyond broken and useless...
How dare it grant patents to a company you don't like!
Here we have a case of a +5 Insightful post sitting at 0 Troll and being punished by the people who are proving the poster's point.
Re: (Score:2)
What I just proved is that "-1, Troll" means "How dare you post a comment I don't like!"
Re: (Score:2)
What I just proved is that "-1, Troll" means "How dare you post a comment I don't like!"
Yup, some folks have a hard time understanding the truth about themselves.
The people who modded you down obviously never looked at the patent, and were almost certainly the same people who bragged about Samsung's bezel free stuff when Apple didn't.
Gawd, it's almost like the Youtube comment boards.
Re: (Score:2)
Thought Xiaomi beat them on that feature https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]
Errm, nope. Try again. Hint: nearly bezel-less is like nearly pregnant.
Re: (Score:2)
cops and courts can make you put your finger on things to unlock them.
I know Apple is probably too rigged for that, but a very good idea for this would be to have 2 different fingerprints recorded. That of your choice would really unlock your device, while another one would make believe it is unlocked, with only a subset of the content accessible (user-chosen apps, files and messages history, and phone of course, so the decoy would do its job).
Too bad I have no money for this, I would patent it!
Oh great, fake buttons so much better (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Attribute vs Invention (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent is about having a bezel-less edge-to-edge wrapped touch display. 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.
This isn't a patent for a wrapped display area - it's for a wrapped touch area.
Re: Edge to edge display patent? (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard cyberpunk trope (Score:2)
fingerprint sensor -> severed fingers
image a coupe of them dangling from a keychain.
A resolution to patent hoarding. (Score:3)
"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.
A better resolution (Score:3)
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 actuall
Re: (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.
This is a good idea going forward for new patents, but you're kind of ruining the fun of flushing out tax havens and watching Greed scramble in bidding wars.
Re:A better resolution (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Probably not. Most patents don't last anywhere near the full 20 years, because the USPTO (as well as foreign patent offices) charge "maintenance fees" or "annuity fees" that increase throughout the lifetime of the patent. Fail to pay those, and the patent goes abandoned. In the US, those fees go up to $7400. In Europe, it's $787.50 Euros... annually. Pay all the fees through the full 20 year term, and you're spending an additional $20-30k on the patent - so, for Apple, with their 56 patents, that's potenti
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Probably not. Most patents don't last anywhere near the full 20 years, because the USPTO (as well as foreign patent offices) charge "maintenance fees" or "annuity fees" that increase throughout the lifetime of the patent. Fail to pay those, and the patent goes abandoned. In the US, those fees go up to $7400. In Europe, it's $787.50 Euros... annually. Pay all the fees through the full 20 year term, and you're spending an additional $20-30k on the patent - so, for Apple, with their 56 patents, that's potentially $100-150k for just this set.
$100 - 150K? Are you fucking kidding me? For a company sitting on $200+ billion in cash reserves, even $150 million in patent fees is pocket change. Literally.
The financial argument is obviously an invalid one. If the current financial penalties were an effective deterrent, the business of patent hoarding wouldn't be a viable one.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Probably not. Most patents don't last anywhere near the full 20 years, because the USPTO (as well as foreign patent offices) charge "maintenance fees" or "annuity fees" that increase throughout the lifetime of the patent. Fail to pay those, and the patent goes abandoned. In the US, those fees go up to $7400. In Europe, it's $787.50 Euros... annually. Pay all the fees through the full 20 year term, and you're spending an additional $20-30k on the patent - so, for Apple, with their 56 patents, that's potentially $100-150k for just this set.
$100 - 150K? Are you fucking kidding me? For a company sitting on $200+ billion in cash reserves, even $150 million in patent fees is pocket change. Literally.
The financial argument is obviously an invalid one. If the current financial penalties were an effective deterrent, the business of patent hoarding wouldn't be a viable one.
It isn't. As I said, in the part you clipped out, the average patent lifespan is 12 years. Clearly, the current financial penalties effectively deter most patent owners from keeping patents longer. Literally, even, your gut feelings to the contrary notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
And if this were law, you'd see devices using them available for sale online (or in a showcase store) for a few million dollars a piece. "See? We're still using the patent!"
Nice idea in theory, but you won't fix the patent system that easily.
A lot of patents exist for the sole purpose of control and fucking over innovation as a result. There are likely quite a few that aren't even worth the R&D to develop one or two devices for the sole purpose of demonstrating usability, especially for those who only secured it in the first place in order to obtain revenue from licensing or litigation.
And when loopholes like this open up and start getting abused, you shut them the fuck down to stop Greed from gaming the system once again.
At least it's disposable (Score:2)
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.
How will (Score:2)
remember, kids! (Score:2)
It's not "innovation" until Apple steals it from you and patents it.
Bezel free? Who cares? (Score:2)
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...
Wrap around display? (Score:2)
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.
Too bad (Score:2)
Just another day... (Score:2)
...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 a
Articles on patents that do not link to patents (Score:2)
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... [uspto.gov] device including finger biometric sensor including transparent conductive blocking areas carried by a touch display and related methods: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]
Scanning depth engine: h [uspto.gov]
What real consumer benefit is a bezel-free phone? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Enjoy it while you have it, you must not use those now patented features anymore in the future! By punishment of catapult!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They're talking about the other patents - relating to the curved OLED screen at the Edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but more like any recent Samsung phone (read: newer than four years).
What did they call those edge to edge ones again? Oh yes, edge. lol
Re: (Score:2)
Does it describe vague idea or method to achieve desired result?
ha ha don't be dense.
Re: (Score:2)
Planned obsolescence....
Nothing new and have been going on for years.. Non-replaceable batteries is probably one of the better examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Touch id maybe a new thing
It's a fingerprint reader. Same thing they've been calling it for years.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [uspto.gov], the effective filing date is September 2011, when the earlier patent application was filed.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent isn't for a wrapped display (Samsung has had those for years) but for a wrapped touch area on such a display. My understanding is that Samsung and others do not have sensors on every portion that can light up (the wrapped portion and part of the edge has no sensor), while the Apple patent is for touchability even along the edges and wrapped area.
Re: Am am Using this type of phone now?? (Score:2)
The wikipedia article on the Galaxy Note Edge ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org] ) states:
"The curved edge of the screen is used as a sidebar for various purposes: it can be used to display different panels, including shortcuts to frequent applications, displays of notifications, news, stocks, sports, social networks, playback controls for the music and video players, camera controls, data usage, and minigames."
The ability to have "controls" and minigames would require the edge to be touch-sensitive.
So you