
Apple Patents Wraparound Edge-Mounted iPhone Displays With Virtual Buttons - antoniojd
http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/13/apple-patents-wraparound-edge-mounted-iphone-displays-with-virtual-buttons/
======
madeofpalk
Haha cool. They patended a Dribbble trend!

See the 'infinity screen' that was a bit of a thing on Dribbble a while back:

[https://dribbble.com/shots/1190633-iPhone-6-Infinity](https://dribbble.com/shots/1190633-iPhone-6-Infinity)

[https://dribbble.com/shots/1188123-Adventurous-Reader-
Mobile...](https://dribbble.com/shots/1188123-Adventurous-Reader-Mobile-Site-
WIP)

[https://dribbble.com/shots/1191226-Iphone-6-Wrap-Around-
scre...](https://dribbble.com/shots/1191226-Iphone-6-Wrap-Around-screen)

[https://dribbble.com/shots/1190796-Side-
Screen](https://dribbble.com/shots/1190796-Side-Screen)

[https://dribbble.com/shots/1192384-Iphone-6-infinity-
screen-...](https://dribbble.com/shots/1192384-Iphone-6-infinity-screen-
Social-App)

[https://dribbble.com/shots/1191824-Translucent-Infinity-
scre...](https://dribbble.com/shots/1191824-Translucent-Infinity-screen)

~~~
loceng
And yet they can do this because it's first to file now in the U.S., not first
to invent.

~~~
MCRed
A picture of an idea or feature is not an invention. This is why the move 2001
is not "prior art".

The methods to bring an idea to fruition are an invention and are patentable.

They're quite different.

Unfortunately, most people here on HN seem think that patents are on ideas,
not inventions.

~~~
WildUtah
_Unfortunately, most people here on HN seem think that patents are on ideas,
not inventions._

Unfortunately, the Patent Office and the Court Of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (the patent court) agree with the people who think patents are on
ideas, not inventions.

The PTO and courts actually prefer nothing but an idea in software,
semiconductor, and user interface patents. “As a general rule, where software
constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of
such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the
software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within
the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions
have been disclosed. * * * Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a
requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.” [0]

But that's the state of patent practice in most subject areas now. And plenty
of videos like 2001 have been used as prior art against user experience
patents, since the patents usually include little or no technological content.
Apple's billion dollar slide-to-unlock, rubber band, and various other patents
don't describe even the kinetics of behavior in the patents much less the
implementation.

[0] [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-
circuit/1229938.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-
circuit/1229938.html)

~~~
throwawaykf05
Let's be honest now: how often do you see a patent and think to yourself,
"Gosh, this patent is really complicated and the text is just not explanatory
enough, I really wish I had some code or flowcharts to make it clearer!"

Most patents (software or otherwise) are of a complexity where a person of
ordinary skill in the art can re-implement it from scratch with a fair level
of fidelity by reading _just the abstract_. Triviality of implementation is
not the same as obviousness. And just because software makes it very easy to
go from idea to implementation does not mean it's not an invention.

~~~
WildUtah
_how often do you see a patent and think to yourself, "Gosh, this patent is
really complicated_

Never. Software patents are almost always intended to monopolize some trivial
and obvious function in such a way as to make the established users of that
function pay a grifter who juked the Patent Office. There's no reason to
patent anything complicated in software because you could just work around it.

 _Triviality of implementation is not the same as obviousness._

No, triviality of implementation is a superset of obviousness. There are
obvious things that are nontrivial to implement, but there are no non-obvious
things that are trivial to implement.

~~~
throwawaykf05
_> There are obvious things that are nontrivial to implement, but there are no
non-obvious things that are trivial to implement_

Diffie Hellman key exchange

RSA

They both have 1 or 2 liners in various languages, google them.

------
higherpurpose
Like this?

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Samsung_Youm_C...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Samsung_Youm_Concept_Device.jpg)

~~~
MCRed
The difference between features and inventions should be easy to grasp- there
are different ways to implement a feature.

For instance, there are more than one type of internal combustion engine, and
each type has been (quite legitimately) patented:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine)

~~~
higherpurpose
Just like there are different ways to implement slide to unlock. Yet, I think
Apple was claiming ownership over all the ways to do it (finger moving from
one point to another to unlock the device, or something like that).

------
throwawaykf05
Again: read the claims. From a quick glance, it seems a single flexible screen
is used _within_ a case, and the same screen presents the main display as well
as the side display through a window in the side of the case (presumably the
flexible display is bent at the sides.) That seems like an interesting
approach I have not seen discussed before, and I can see some advantages
(fewer components at the cost of potentially wasted screen real estate.)

Also, that should make moot the discussions so far on this thread about
fragility of the design and validity of this patent.

------
djloche
Maybe they have something more specific... but haven't we seen stuff like this
every January for the past few years or more? I recall at least two major
manufacturers demoing this.

------
leviathan
And now you can break your screen whichever way you drop your phone.

------
meepmorp
So, basically, any phone case can't be used.

Hopefully the unobtanium glass screens will be in production by then so it
won't matter so much.

~~~
k-mcgrady
When people _need_ a case to protect your product from breaking you have a
problem. Until the iPhone 5s I never had a case I rarely dropped my phone. The
5s is like a bar of soap. If I were to use it without the case I doubt I'd get
more than a few weeks without a smashed screen. It's a major usability issue
imo.

~~~
dpcx
Isn't that essentially what bumpers on cars are for? To prevent the product
from breaking?

~~~
mikepurvis
Yeah, but they come with it.

It's not something you have to remember to pick up and install yourself on the
way home from the dealership.

------
bruceb
Wrap around screens have been speculated about for a long time, how is putting
buttons on it non obvious?

~~~
user24
It may be obvious, but the thinking is, surely, that if they don't patent it
someone else will.

~~~
noonespecial
And so the circle is complete. From patenting something because it's not
obvious to so things being so obvious we'd better patent them.

~~~
user24
I'm not defending the practice, just explaining.

