Apple Wins Patent for Pressure-Sensitive Device Casings

[PracticalMac]

That's funny, I have a Logitech mouse that already has pressure sensitive area. Buttons under rubber area or spring plastic (does not feel like buttons, or barely perceptible)

What is do different about Apples design?

 

[justperry]

That's funny, I have a Logitech mouse that already has pressure sensitive area. Buttons under rubber area or spring plastic.

What is do different about Apples design?

Capacitive pressure sensitive.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Patents seem to mean **** all as others will copy your tech whether you like it or not.

 

[wizard]

You have no idea what property rights are do you?

Absolutely right - it's not you that's dumb, it's the patent system that is.

There is nothing dumb about what the patent system does for inventors. I can pretty much tell from your post that you will never invent something on your own so I don't really think you can grasp how important the patent system is to inventors. The whole point is that you end up protected as an inventor from the illegal use of your IP.

The other thing would be that if you don't use it within a certain period, you must licence it at a fair price to anyone else, as in the mobile phone industry.

OK lets look at it this way, using your logic you should be required to offer up the use of your bed, kitchen, TV and anything else somebody might take an interest in. After all it really isn't your property. The patent system simply defines a period of time during which you own a device. It isn't forever.

Consider for a moment the machine tool industry. Here a few US companies set the standards for machine tool design early in the last century. Patents protected those industries for a period of time. Eventually though the patents ran out and the knock off industry developed in Asia.

The thing you don't seem to grasp is that patents are exclusivity for only a very limited time as it is. There is no need to license out a tech because in the end it becomes available to anybody that wants to use it anyways.

 

[iGrip]

Does this mean that Apple will now sue every other phone manufacturer because they use capacitive soft buttons on their phones?

 

[econgeek]

MacRumors: Stop your asinine editorializing.

I challenge you to name ONE time Apple has used a patent against a competitor that wasn't part of an Apple product.

Stop characterizing Apple as a patent troll, which is what you're doing when you claim they "patent things ... they don't use... to prevent competitors from using them."

Prove that, when they don't use something, but a competitor wants to, that apple doesn't give them a cheap or free license.

After all, despite Samsungs rampant violations and strong competitive position, Apple didn't take them to court at first, Apple just offered them a license!

 

[iGrip]

So, if you squeeze the casing hard, it can tell the antenna to stop working properly

What Apple did was SO much more elegant than that. You could detune the antenna with one finger!

 

[econgeek]

Does this mean that Apple will now sue every other phone manufacturer because they use capacitive soft buttons on their phones?

It's sad that people have been mislead to the point where they think it is Apple who is abusing the patent system .

It's sad that people are that ignorant to begin with, and its sad that googles desperation to pretend like they aren't incompetent ripoff artists, and instead are somehow "innovative" has resulted in an anti-patent campaign that has people thinking Apple's the bad guy.

Sad and pathetic.

Most of the people I've debated patents with who were opposed to them (And most of the commentaries in this thread on that position) clearly didn't even understand what patents ARE.

 

[wizard]

Generalizing here: A lot of these patents are used for anti-competitive reasons - stop competitors from doing the same thing. I agree - a patent should become invalid if not implemented within a given time.

That is the whole point of the patent system! That it gives the inventor exclusive rights to an idea for a fixed period of time. It amazes me that people don't grasp this.

The patent system is directly responsible for innovation as it compels competitors to come up with new or unique solutions to a problem. In a nut shell it is one of the tools that government has to drive innovation and frankly is directly responsible for the success of the US economy and its technology leadership role.

 

[econgeek]

Patents seem to mean **** all as others will copy your tech whether you like it or not.

Samsung's $1B fine, which was puny to begin with, was cut to around $600m. This is for a case with many, many blatent violations. Meanwhile a troll managed to get a $374M case against Apple. --- a huge fine for a BS patent, and nothing for a legit case?

The lesson here is, Apple gets shafted in the courts (once again) due to politics.

 

[j.applewood]

Maybe they can now get rid of the stupid home button that's prone to failure because of dirt getting in-between the case and the button?

Could free up the space for bigger screens. I'm in.

 

[PracticalMac]

Capacitive pressure sensitive.

Splitting hairs IMHO.


Case designers will have a fit.

 

[Rogifan]

That is the whole point of the patent system! That it gives the inventor exclusive rights to an idea for a fixed period of time. It amazes me that people don't grasp this.

The patent system is directly responsible for innovation as it compels competitors to come up with new or unique solutions to a problem. In a nut shell it is one of the tools that government has to drive innovation and frankly is directly responsible for the success of the US economy and its technology leadership role.

I'd be curious to know what all this innovation is that hasn't come to market because of patents held by Apple that they either haven't used or have sued someone over.

 

[econgeek]

That is the whole point of the patent system! That it gives the inventor exclusive rights to an idea for a fixed period of time.

Invention, not idea. May sound subtle but it's an important point. The anti-patent people think that you just have an idea in the shower and you can get a patent on it and that other people have the same idea and they lose out.

The reality is, it takes a lot to create a patentable invention, it's not protecting the idea, but a specific implementaion.... and if my experience is representative, original inventions are very rare.

One of my patents is about to run out, and despite the industry needing to solve this very problem for the past 20 years, and several other methods of solving it that I can think of (that are pretty obvious) ... people don't even try.

The patent (which nobody is aware of) doesn't prevent them from solving it in any number of ways.

But what the industry does is simply ignore the problem.

The patent was ahead of its time, obviously, but I am surprised that nobody has taken a crack at the problem at all in teh time period.

Hell, a patent violating implementation from somebody who came up with the same solution would have been great (not because the patent would be enforced against them, it wouldn't) ... but because it would show someone actually was thinking about the problem!

Nobody has even had the same idea in the past 20 years, despite a billion dollar industry which would benefit greatly from it....and if someone did have the idea, their implementation would likely be vastly different due to the advances in technology over the past 20 years, and thus not violating the patent.

The reason: people simply aren't that inventive.

Patents are protecting hard work, and something that is actually quite rare.

 

[iGrip]

It's sad that people have been mislead to the point where they think it is Apple who is abusing the patent system .

It's sad that people are that ignorant to begin with, and its sad that googles desperation to pretend like they aren't incompetent ripoff artists, and instead are somehow "innovative" has resulted in an anti-patent campaign that has people thinking Apple's the bad guy.

Sad and pathetic.

Most of the people I've debated patents with who were opposed to them (And most of the commentaries in this thread on that position) clearly didn't even understand what patents ARE.

Woo hoo. It must be sad to know that you are one of the few, the proud, the understanders! There are so many others out there - the ignorant misunderstanders. It must rally throw off your game!

Why don't you try to explain to your inferiors what's what, instead of just lamenting the sad state of other people's knowledge?

Tell me something I don't know about patent law.

I dare you.

 

[wizard]

It really is sad and pathetic.

I know that there are a lot of idiots in the Apple fan club but this thread highlights just how badly ignorant many are here. For one many don't seem to grasp that patents are fixed time rights to an invention, they don't last forever! Not grasping that little nut is pathetic!

Further people don't seem to grasp the concept of property rights. What many suggest here is the equivalent of saying you should be forced to share your car because it isn't really yours. If not pathetic or idiotic these people are at best silly in their opposition to the patent system as they frankly don't grasp how important the patent system is when it comes to driving innovation in the USA.

It's sad that people have been mislead to the point where they think it is Apple who is abusing the patent system .

It's sad that people are that ignorant to begin with, and its sad that googles desperation to pretend like they aren't incompetent ripoff artists, and instead are somehow "innovative" has resulted in an anti-patent campaign that has people thinking Apple's the bad guy.

Sad and pathetic.

Most of the people I've debated patents with who were opposed to them (And most of the commentaries in this thread on that position) clearly didn't even understand what patents ARE.

 

[iGrip]

The lesson here is, Apple gets shafted in the courts (once again) due to politics.

Please tell us all about the politics of the decisions. Who was involved? Who pressured the judge? Who was trying to gain political advantage? Who did a favor for who, and why?

Do tell!

 

[Stella]

That is the whole point of the patent system! That it gives the inventor exclusive rights to an idea for a fixed period of time. It amazes me that people don't grasp this.

The patent system is directly responsible for innovation as it compels competitors to come up with new or unique solutions to a problem. In a nut shell it is one of the tools that government has to drive innovation and frankly is directly responsible for the success of the US economy and its technology leadership role.

Except patents are misused and abused. Like I said, companies will patent something purely to stop others from using the same method.. even if they have no intention of implementing themselves.

 

[justperry]

Splitting hairs IMHO.


Case designers will have a fit.

Oh I agree, in my 1st post I said.

Have to agree here, I think this is nothing more than what is already out there.

 

[Robin4]

I think this patent can directly apply to the iWatch.

Someone posted this link http://asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/ where they explained how Apple was exploring ways to protect the iWatch in case of burglary. If someone snatched it, the iWatch would automatically disable itself. The owner could reprogram the watch if needed.

This was just one of the possibilities mentioned in that article.

 

[wizard]

Invention, not idea. May sound subtle but it's an important point. The anti-patent people think that you just have an idea in the shower and you can get a patent on it and that other people have the same idea and they lose out.

Well actually some very interesting patents have started with an idea in the shower, a hike in the woods or other odd places. Frankly you will never get a patent without first starting with an idea.

The reality is, it takes a lot to create a patentable invention, it's not protecting the idea, but a specific implementaion.... and if my experience is representative, original inventions are very rare.

I tend to disagree, there is much that comes through the patent system that is original. Frankly I'm not clued in on the details of this patent but it actually doesn't sound all that original at first glance.

However this split between an idea and an implementation can be at times very fine. Ideas directly lead to implementations.

One of my patents is about to run out, and despite the industry needing to solve this very problem for the past 20 years, and several other methods of solving it that I can think of (that are pretty obvious) ... people don't even try.

Sometimes there isn't a strong economic drive to solve problems.

The patent (which nobody is aware of) doesn't prevent them from solving it in any number of ways.

Exactly! This is what people don't seem to grasp, patents by their nature drive innovation. They don't prevent you from competing at all, all they do is to force you to solve a problem in a different way.

But what the industry does is simply ignore the problem.

The patent was ahead of its time, obviously, but I am surprised that nobody has taken a crack at the problem at all in teh time period.

Hell, a patent violating implementation from somebody who came up with the same solution would have been great (not because the patent would be enforced against them, it wouldn't) ... but because it would show someone actually was thinking about the problem!

Nobody has even had the same idea in the past 20 years, despite a billion dollar industry which would benefit greatly from it....and if someone did have the idea, their implementation would likely be vastly different due to the advances in technology over the past 20 years, and thus not violating the patent.

Industry at times can be extremely conservative. That is they will often stick with what they have until the competition has them up against the ropes. Often they won't change even after that.

The reason: people simply aren't that inventive.

Patents are protecting hard work, and something that is actually quite rare.

The idea that people aren't inventive I have to take issue with. It is pretty obvious here that many in these forums couldn't invent something if they had too. The idea that patents protect hard work though is very important, it can be extremely difficult to bring some of these ideas to the point of a patentable device. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to find that many here rallying against patents go home to their welfare mamas after a night of drinking having done nothing constructive all day long. It is sad but yet a reality that work ethic and valuing the work of others has really disappeared as a value in this country.

----------

Except patents are misused and abused. Like I said, companies will patent something purely to stop others from using the same method.. even if they have no intention of implementing themselves.

That isn't abuse, it is exactly what the patent system is all about. It keeps others from using your invention. Really I don't understand why people can't grasp this.

 

[Brian Y]

If you invent something it is yours for a fixed time defined by the patent system. That is the whole point of the patent system!!! You are free to do what you want with that invention for the period of time the patent remains active.

In a sense what you want already exists, patents on inventions don't last forever. Now you could argue about the length of time for a patent but that becomes a very combative discussion. Frankly though the patent system is more rational than the copyright system which grants you exclusivity after you are dead. If you look carefully at the two systems it is pretty obvious that the patent system is less screwed up than the copyright system.

This patent was filed in 2009.

I'm pretty sure resistive touch screens were available way before 2009, and as far as I know, Apple hasn't made a device that uses a pressure sensitive area since the newton?

The current system of "You don't have to use it, but you do have to defend it" is complete nonsense. If I patent something arbitrary that I have no intention of ever using, that I invented solely to stop my competitors doing the same thing, then why the heck should I own that patent. It should be shown that either you actively use what you've patented, or lose it.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

Nonsense!, there are plenty ways of scolding a cat!

Generalizing here: A lot of these patents are used for anti-competitive reasons - stop competitors from doing the same thing. I agree - a patent should become invalid if not implemented within a given time.

A patent is a method among plenty.
One patent does not erode the need for a better method. Witch the market will decide on.
… And it is not the best that wins always, but the affordable.

Please stop this nonsense.


A patent protects those who have small pockets but big ideas, those who accept or act in accordance with the law against the crooks.

 

[charlituna]

This is bs. Why does Apple get to have ideas that Samsung doesn't? This should belong to Samsung.

And if they had thought of it, written it out and submitted it first, it would.

----------

Maybe they can now get rid of the stupid home button that's prone to failure because of dirt getting in-between the case and the button?

That's already done. Haven't you heard about the fingerprint chip in the new 5s, iPad 5 etc. folks think that it's for security it but really its just to detect when a finger is flat on the bevel area. When it detects your finger, if the device is locked it will give you the unlock screen, if open and you hold it for more than a second it takes you home etc. And you can do it anywhere. Not just that one home button spot. Just have to remember to lay your finger flat.

The screenshot etc stuff is being remapped to a combo of the sleep button and volume buttons which will, in the near future, be this squeeze trick

 

[grimmace]

the iWatch

This whole pressure sensitive idea placed on the case itself is very cool. I can bet that they will use this in the iWatch. Apple dislikes having any buttons protrude from the outer case as much as possible. I can see them using this on the watch, along with other mobile devices so there are no more external buttons on a device...even the home button.