

Amazon Kindle dual-screen e-reader patent granted, Nook potentially in trouble - CrazedGeek
http://engadget.com/2010/07/06/amazon-kindle-dual-screen-e-reader-patent-granted-barnes-and-nobl/

======
bdr
Who cares about the Nook? There's only one competing product on Amazon's mind
at this point (I'm guessing).

~~~
klocksib
I care about the nook, it's a great eReader, and I use it daily. I suppose
you're referring to the iPad, which isn't an eReader.

~~~
sjs
It's not an e-reader but you sure can read on it. And when you're done reading
you can watch something. Or listen to music. Or play a game.

If you only want to read then the Kindle and Nook are great devices. As always
it's entirely subjective and depends on what you personally want from the
device (and how much you want to spend).

------
thefool
How does this effect the kno? <http://www.kno.com/>

~~~
sjs
Not at all I imagine. Doesn't seem to use e-ink / electronic paper, just dual
LCDs. Not available yet either, looks like they just have prototypes so far.

Cool device though. If/when it ships it looks like it would satisfy most who
were interested in Microsoft Courier.

------
Groxx
The portion seen as potentially threatening to the Nook:

> _A handheld electronic device comprising: a housing; an electronic paper
> display disposed in the housing and having a first surface area; and a
> liquid crystal display (LCD) disposed in the housing proximate the
> electronic paper display, the LCD having a second surface area that is
> smaller than the first surface area of the electronic paper display._

Except that, if that quote _accurately_ describes the patent, the Nook has
prior art given that this patent was granted June 6, 2010. If anything, this
is potential trouble for Amazon, as they could stand to be sued.

That said, it's a single quote from a _patent_. Things are never what they
seem; patent trolling wouldn't be profitable if they were.

~~~
asolove
IANAL, but in the US the relavant date is the invention of the patented item
and not the date the patent was granted, so B&N would have to show prior art
from many years ago.

~~~
Groxx
But... the Nook existed prior to this patent by >6 months, implying at least a
couple years of development prior to the patent. Amazon hasn't made anything
with an Eink+LCD. Effectively, Amazon is trying to patent something currently
selling. It'd be like my getting a patent, right now, for some major feature
of the iPhone 4.

~~~
colonelxc
As msg points out, the patent was _submitted_ in 2006. That's the date that
matters for determining "who was first?".

Also, you don't have to actually create the product to receive the patent for
it. The idea is that the patent protects your right to build said product,
without worrying about a faster competitor beating you to the punch.

I'm not saying I agree with how the patent system works, but how I understand
it, Amazon's patent isn't affected by any product released after they
_submitted_ the patent request.

~~~
kelnos
Actually, in the US, the "who was first?" date is the date of invention, not
the date of patent application submission. Of course, it's not always easy to
prove that you invented something on a particular date, say, a date before
your competitor submitted their patent application. It's especially difficult
if you've been developing an idea in secret for some time before applying for
the patent (though I believe there's an 18 month grace period before the USPTO
will publish your patent application filing).

Or so a patent lawyer told me, anyway. It's possible I misunderstood
something.

~~~
blacksmythe
The accepted method is to log it into a patent notebook (bound book with
numbered pages), and get it co-signed by someone knowledgeable enough to
testify in court about the content. Signature should say 'read and
understood'. This book makes good reading: Laser: The Inventor, the Nobel
Laureate, and the Thirty-Year Patent War

A much better way to establish priority is to file a provisional patent, good
for a year.

The book "Patent it yourself" makes good reading - not as good as working with
a patent attorney, but a lot cheaper.

~~~
Groxx
I suspect that'd be vulnerable to a smear attack from rich, interested
opponents. It's your (two) word(s) against their patent. Better, certainly,
but not iron-clad.

Sans getting it _notarized_ , of course. But that costs time and money too.

