Didn't Apple say that OLED sucked big ones??????

[DroidXcon]

Apple files a patent describing a mobile device with a wrap-around flexible OLED

The USPTO unveiled a new patent application by Apple, that describes a mobile device that features a wrap-around flexible AMOLED display (yes, the specifically say it's an OLED display). The whole device is wrapped with the display. The patent also describes a mechanism that determines which parts of the display to use using a camera and a facial recognition software. An OLED is obviously the best choice for a full-color, flexible display that can be efficiently turned-off in some areas.

Apple's patent also describes an option to include multiple transparent displays, overlaid on top of one another. I'm not sure I understand the advantages of using several transparent OLEDs one on top of the other (except for the creation of 3D images). The device shown above represents just one of the concept device designs - Apple also describes "regular" rectangle devices and a cylindrical device. According to the patent the phone body is made entirely of glass.

This device actually reminds me of Samsung's YOUM display prototypes unveiled at CES 2013. They showed a working device that uses a flexible OLED (YOUM) display wrapped around the edges - not all the way around like Apple's patent. This technology is not so far away from commercialization...

So, yet another OLED patent from Apple. Tim Cook may claim that OLEDs aren't good enough, but the company is still fascinated with the possible designs OLEDs enables. Just last month we posted about another Apple patent describing a flexible OLED screen that can turn into a warp-around bracelet using a bi-stable spring.

In past years we reported on many OLED patents by Apple including a flexible OLED based haptic display, OLED based BLUs for LCDs, OLED control schemes and others. A few weeks ago it was reported that Apple has hired a new executive into its Display group - Dr. Jueng Jil Lee, a former research fellow at LG Display, who apparently was involved with OLED TV printing technology research. Is Apple getting closer to their first OLED product?

Source: Engadget

 

[GMJeff]

They will have to go OLED if they want any kind of flexible display like that.

It seems to be the only display tech that can accomplish this at the moment.

It's not wrong to fondle the s pen.

 

[Aquila]

How is this not prior art given that Nokia and Samsung both have separate patents for flexible displays and working prototypes that have been publicly demonstrated? The stack-ability option of stringing a bunch of these things together is somewhat interesting, but to get a patent, shouldn't you have to, you know, invent something? This is my entire gripe with the patent system... Apple hasn't ever invented anything, yet they patent things with obvious prior art despite existing patents on that prior art, then somehow successfully file lawsuits "defending" their stolen tech?

Boy am I in the wrong business. I should just go steal a shirt from J.C. Penny, spit on it, rub it on my bike tires and sell it for $100 more than the original price. Obviously then I can file a suit against JC Penny for copying the concept of a t-shirt from me... the dastardly villains!

 

[DroidXcon]

They will have to go OLED if they want any kind of flexible display like that.

It seems to be the only display tech that can accomplish this at the moment.

It's not wrong to fondle the s pen.

Yeah i know but they shouldnt have talked smack if they were going to use the technology.. Now they will recant and say OLEDs are the best thing ever because they are using it.

 

[Aquila]

Yeah i know but they shouldnt have talked smack if they were going to use the technology.. Now they will recant and say OLEDs are the best thing ever because they are using it.

No, they were right the first time too. It's not a retraction, it's an enhancement of their original position!

 

[DroidXcon]

No, they were right the first time too. It's not a retraction, it's an enhancement of their original position!

Lol they "innovated" their position

 

[Aquila]

Lol they "innovated" their position

I've been to a job interview at Apple and it goes thusly:

The applicant is instructed to journey to the restroom, which is the most amazing, high technological and innovative 'throneroom" that one can imagine. As a group, the applicants conduct their necessary business. At the conclusion of this portion of the event, approximately 1 in 50 applications will, prior to flushing away the evidence of their engagement, state cheerfully, "you're welcome" to the porcelain object at their feet. Those 2% advance to the next round of interviews. After that point, I have no idea what transpires, because I failed the first test.

 

[Aquila]

You're welcome!

 

[jroc]

Yeah i know but they shouldnt have talked smack if they were going to use the technology.. Now they will recant and say OLEDs are the best thing ever because they are using it.

They did it with phones bigger than the iPhone, they did it with styluses. Seems like Apple has a history of being hypocrites... But if they are a good company....that have to adapt to their competition. This is why companies, CEO's shouldnt talk smack. Just focus on making good, better products.

Almost forgot.....a 7 inch tablet was DOA, too small.....according to Jobs, Apple. The iPad mini comes to mind.... Which has been cannibalizing sales form the bigger iPad since it launched.

 

[androidluvr2]

How is this not prior art given that Nokia and Samsung both have separate patents for flexible displays and working prototypes that have been publicly demonstrated?

To know whether it is prior art or not, you have to read the claims.

This is my entire gripe with the patent system... Apple hasn't ever invented anything, yet they patent things with obvious prior art despite existing patents on that prior art, then somehow successfully file lawsuits "defending" their stolen tech?

This is only a patent application, not a patent and no one has posted the claims so you can't say what is and isn't prior art until you know what the claims are.

United States Patent Application: 0130076612

That first claim does not look patentable given the filing date but perhaps the application claims priority to earlier filings. Maybe none of the claims are patentable; I am not in the mood to read through it, though. If they are not, their claims will be rejected and they will need to amend the claims to narrow them if they want a patent to issue from this application.

 

[idaute]

I've been to a job interview at Apple and it goes thusly:

The applicant is instructed to journey to the restroom, which is the most amazing, high technological and innovative 'throneroom" that one can imagine. As a group, the applicants conduct their necessary business. At the conclusion of this portion of the event, approximately 1 in 50 applications will, prior to flushing away the evidence of their engagement, state cheerfully, "you're welcome" to the porcelain object at their feet. Those 2% advance to the next round of interviews. After that point, I have no idea what transpires, because I failed the first test.

I am a patent attorney, and about the only two things that I can say about this poster, at least from what the poster has posted in this string, is that the poster knows absolutely (put in the first word of the poster's sign in name) about patents, and I really wonder if the poster has failed many more tests than the one mentioned in this post. Some of the other posters in this string apparently lack much knowledge of our patent system and how it works. A large company usually has many different research projects going on simultaneously. There are two primary reasons they may file a patent application on something that they at least at the time that the patent application was filed was not one that they had high hopes for. The reasons are: (1) to give recognition to the inventor instead of snubbing him or her, and (2) as a defensive move. Now, I will let all you patent experts try to figure out what is meant by a defensive move.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Aquila]

I am a patent attorney, and about the only two things that I can say about this poster, at least from what the poster has posted in this string, is that the poster knows absolutely (put in the first word of the poster's sign in name) about patents, and I really wonder if the poster has failed many more tests than the one mentioned in this post. Some of the other posters in this string apparently lack much knowledge of our patent system and how it works. A large company usually has many different research projects going on simultaneously. There are two primary reasons they may file a patent application on something that they at least at the time that the patent application was filed was not one that they had high hopes for. The reasons are: (1) to give recognition to the inventor instead of snubbing him or her, and (2) as a defensive move. Now, I will let all you patent experts try to figure out what is meant by a defensive move.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

Reading satire is hard...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[androidluvr2]

I am a patent attorney, and about the only two things that I can say about this poster, at least from what the poster has posted in this string, is that the poster knows absolutely (put in the first word of the poster's sign in name) about patents, and I really wonder if the poster has failed many more tests than the one mentioned in this post.

No need to be so harsh. You can try to educate people without also making them feel bad. Lots of people don't understand what patents are or why the constitution gave Congress the authority to legislate patent rights. Many people see patents as an obstacle to technological progress because they don't understand the policy reasoning behind them. Nor do they realize our founding fathers did.

But here I think the issue is reading too much into a patent application. Anyone can file a patent application on anything they would like to as long as they can pay the filing fee. That doesn't mean they are going to be issued a patent.

 

[LegalAmerican]

I am a patent attorney, and about the only two things that I can say about this poster, at least from what the poster has posted in this string, is that the poster knows absolutely (put in the first word of the poster's sign in name) about patents, and I really wonder if the poster has failed many more tests than the one mentioned in this post. Some of the other posters in this string apparently lack much knowledge of our patent system and how it works. A large company usually has many different research projects going on simultaneously. There are two primary reasons they may file a patent application on something that they at least at the time that the patent application was filed was not one that they had high hopes for. The reasons are: (1) to give recognition to the inventor instead of snubbing him or her, and (2) as a defensive move. Now, I will let all you patent experts try to figure out what is meant by a defensive move.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

You should say "poster" more.

 

[androidluvr2]

(1) to give recognition to the inventor instead of snubbing him or her,

Filing a patent application is an awful expensive way to give an inventor recognition.

 

[Suda]

Yeah they did, but that was because Samsung is manufacturing it. Nothing is done right until Apple does it. Everyone knows that.

Just like flexible screens. Who cares if Samsung has already shown a working prototype, it doesn't have an Apple logo on the back.

 

[gnr_2]

Apple hasn't ever invented anything, yet they patent things with obvious prior art despite existing patents on that prior art, then somehow successfully file lawsuits "defending" their stolen tech?

And then market the **** out of it.

I am a patent attorney, and about the only two things that I can say about this poster, at least from what the poster has posted in this string, is that the poster knows absolutely (put in the first word of the poster's sign in name) about patents, and I really wonder if the poster has failed many more tests than the one mentioned in this post. Some of the other posters in this string apparently lack much knowledge of our patent system and how it works.

Maybe you should have just commented on the substance of what was being brought to light instead of speaking negatively about those in this thread. The point they were making was clear so you could have just said the last part of your post and left the first part out. And attorneys wonder why people don't like them.

Sent from my totally awesome Sprint Galaxy Nexus, even if I don't know all its secrets yet.

 

[Aquila]

OK wait... If you invent something, patent it, build it and sell it... And then a year or so later I file a patent for the same thing, build it and sell it, but I market it better and sell more... You think it is okay and the intention of the patent system that I should then file suit against you and win on the basis of my patents that came after yours?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aquila]

I'm not saying people can't defend their IP, but rather that the actual inventor should have rights, not apple years later. Because this is a pattern with apple filing suit on patents the were granted for existing products and concepts that other companies developed... I think it's common sense to see the source of frustration and reason for the satirical statements about them. This us evidenced by the rush of patent invalidation in recent months and all of the instances where multiple companies hold separate, assumed valid, patents for the same idea.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[androidluvr2]

OK wait... If you invent something, patent it, build it and sell it... And then a year or so later I file a patent for the same thing, build it and sell it, but I market it better and sell more... You think it is okay and the intention of the patent system that I should then file suit against you and win on the basis of my patents that came after yours?

I am not really following what you are trying to say but I will point out some basic info that might help clear it up for you.

First - you don't file a patent. You file a patent application.

Second - you have 1 year from the first offer for sale of an invention to get a US patent application on file. If you file later than 1 year and the patent office is aware of the offer for sale, your patent application will not be allowed. This is called the on-sale bar (35 USC 102(b)). If you know about the offer for sale and don't let the patent office know about the offer for sale and get a patent, your patent is invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Third - if 2 patents have claims that cover the same invention, the claims of the later filed patent are invalid (by later filed, I mean later priority date).