People don't get it, there are two kind of patents: design patents, and process patents. One protects the design of a product, the other the process to make it. A product as such is not patentable per se, unless that product is the process itself.
So yes, curved glass did exist before, others can continue to make curved glass and use it, but they can't use the more efficient and precise process to create curved glass that Apple invented. Other companies will have to either license the process from Apple, continue using older processes, or invent a new, even better process that does not infringe on the Apple process.
Flat glass is pretty easy. There are a number of techniques for doing so. Otherwise it would be I possible to have the very large plasma and LCD TV set out now.
But curved is very difficult. You're thinking of very low quality glassware. Low quality when compared to optical processes, that is. Doing very thin and optical quality is very difficult in curved. But it has been done.
I just don't see why anyone would want to. Anyone here remember old monitors and TV sets? No flat glass there. The CRT's were curved because of the problems with angular dispersion of the electron beam, which distorted the further it got from the center. When Zenith came out with the first true flat screen monitor, it looked concave, because we were so used to the convex monitors we used. Since flat is better than curved in a screen, why would we want curved? If the s Rees behind is flat, then we have the same problem of our finger being away from the front of the screen, but this time, the distance would vary. Not good and we would get more reflections again from going back to two inner surfaces. If the screen is curved, then we really need to ask; For what purpose?
Concept is an idea e.g. "let's make the MagicMouse scratch proof by using a glass instead of plastic touch surface" Process is a method of manufacturing e.g "we bend glass by putting it on top of a mouse and then let an elephant step on it, until it has the proper shape"
Apple's patent covers a specific way of permanently curving the glass in a way that requires less manufacturing steps and produces less waste, I.e. is more cost efficient, precise and environmentally friendly than methods hitherto used. It is that novel way of creating the same thing that is protected,, not the resulting curved glass, or the concept of curved glass, nor the use of curved glass for any particular purpose.
But curved is very difficult. You're thinking of very low quality glassware. Low quality when compared to optical processes, that is. Doing very thin and optical If the s Rees behind is flat, then we have the same problem of our finger being away from the front of the screen, but this time, the distance would vary. Not good and we would get more reflections again from going back to two inner surfaces. If the screen is curved, then we really need to ask; For what purpose?
Curved glass may be stronger than flat glass (think egg shells), it could be used to e.g. scratch-proof the MagicMouse, used for the back of a hand-held device where a rounded shape may feel more comfortable and affords extra space for batteries. Also glass that can be precisely curved can be impercetibly curved for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. In any case patenting a novel process is smart, even if there is no concrete product planned that uses the process at the time, it just means creating corporate capital in the form of IP.
e.g. Competitors being forced to use a less cost efficient process lowers their profit margins, which relatively speaking strengthens Apple's position. Business is a war fought on many fronts and in many small skirmishes, not just a few grand battles.
Concept is an idea e.g. "let's make the MagicMouse scratch proof by using a glass instead of plastic touch surface"
Process is a method of manufacturing e.g "we bend glass by putting it on top of a mouse and then let an elephant step on it, until it has the proper shape"
Apple's patent covers a specific way of permanently curving the glass in a way that requires less manufacturing steps and produces less waste, I.e. is more cost efficient, precise and environmentally friendly than methods hitherto used. It is that novel way of creating the same thing that is protected,, not the resulting curved glass, or the concept of curved glass, nor the use of curved glass for any particular purpose.
That sounds just like what I'm thinking, but is it right? Was this the original intent of patents that has just, in some cases, been forgone for an attempt at locking others out of an entire concept?
My, that's more childish than I thought you'd be. Normally I just let people take stuff out on me, and I think you've reached your quota here. Please don't further.
I accused someone of doing this for the same reason. You then deleted my post and left the original intact.
Since flat is better than curved in a screen, why would we want curved? If the s Rees behind is flat, then we have the same problem of our finger being away from the front of the screen, but this time, the distance would vary. Not good and we would get more reflections again from going back to two inner surfaces. If the screen is curved, then we really need to ask; For what purpose?
Well one excellent reason is it dramatically reduces the strength of reflections. Samsung have solved the two surface problem with their flexible OLED display. Wouldn't be surprised to see a product incorporating one fairly soon.
Hmm, that seems different from your earlier stance
I can see that but I'm talking about two different things and usages. In this forum I didn't really consider anything other than a handheld device although I think the article did state "up to 27 inches" or something like that.
In that post from 2010 I'm talking about the potential benefit of a much wider desktop display that would use your neck as the pivot point but allow for more screen real estate without moving from side-to-side to get the same relative display size. Still, i am unsure how good those would be for photography or video editing. Peripheral vision can work for some use aspects to detect changes but I can't image that there are too requirements that make it a viable market to shoot for. If it catches on it might just be because it's the fashion.
Also, the displays and glass being so thin but so wide in the images below might not require the same technologies to build. A 50" curved display that is only as tall as the current 27" display might be able to be able to naturally flex the materials into the proper curve without special tools required for a 4" display.
I can see that but I'm talking about two different things and usages.
In all honesty it was my lame way of trying to get your view on curved screens. And I get this great reply, including your doubt if it would work for photography (a hobby of mine), which was the actual reason for me to remember that 2 year old post.
I think flexible screens might be the way forward, not curved.
I think flexible screens might be the way forward, not curved.
Flexible displays also have to withstand repeated flexing which makes me think it's one of those ideas that are technology possible now but not feasible for real world use, like personal jet packs.
Perhaps I'm thinking too extreme with the flexing aspects. It doesn't have to be foldable, just have a slight give like a CC or driver's license, but then I wonder what benefit that would have for us.
Well one excellent reason is it dramatically reduces the strength of reflections. Samsung have solved the two surface problem with their flexible OLED display. Wouldn't be surprised to see a product incorporating one fairly soon.
Impossible. On this forum, which resides in a parallel world, Samsung and Google can't solve any problem. What you meant is "Samsung copied Apple's future solution for the two surface problem preemptively, which they should pay for dearly in (American) courts".
Flexing displays, unless used as a manufacturing aid for bent display behind something like glass, are only meaningful once cheap enough to be disposable, because they will scratch just as easily if not more so, than any other typical plastic surface.
So maybe some future disposable phones are made that way, but as prices are anywhere near current levels it's basically a technology demo when it comes to phone like devices.
For solving the two surface problem flexible screens are not per se required, since OLED can be printed and thus can potentially printed directly onto a rigid curved surface, without need for bending screens.
And all that said, except for special applications, bent screens are just as ridiculous as transparent screens or the hare-brained translucent menu bar: design over function. Visual clutter, distorted display geometry, etc. just to be "cool" and "novel".
Bent screens for certain public displays or VR applications make sense, just as transparent screens are meaningful for certain augmented reality applications, but that's about it.
Perhaps I'm thinking too extreme with the flexing aspects. It doesn't have to be foldable, just have a slight give like a CC or driver's license, but then I wonder what benefit that would have for us.
Could theoretically prevent all these broken iPhone screens I see from misuse of people sticking their iPhone in back pocket of tight blue jeans. Put the motherboard in the middle, like a spine, and since the battery is made out of compartments perhaps an iPhone could be designed for back pockets.
Share holders might not like the idea of Apple putting $ in this R&D. Oh well, they have a different thing to worry about with their stock.
Could theoretically prevent all these broken iPhone screens I see from misuse of people sticking their iPhone in back pocket of tight blue jeans. Put the motherboard in the middle, like a spine, and since the battery is made out of compartments perhaps an iPhone could be designed for back pockets.
Share holders might not like the idea of Apple putting $ in this R&D. Oh well, they have a different thing to worry about with their stock.
My thinking — which could be completely wrong as my understanding of physics may be above the mean average but well below the median average — is that we're still talking about Gorilla Glass, which does bend, but can still crack if enough is applied. I can't see Apple moving to a plastic unless it has the optical properties and is as scratch resistant as GG.
Perhaps we'll need to wait for GG3. I wonder if Corning (or a competitor) can take this tech so far that start talking about glass thickness in terms of microns. Imaging the glass glued atop the display being only a 65nm thick (about 130 to 1300 atoms wide). If the material is hard enough to resist a scratch then the thickness shouldn't really matter too much, right?
Comments
So yes, curved glass did exist before, others can continue to make curved glass and use it, but they can't use the more efficient and precise process to create curved glass that Apple invented. Other companies will have to either license the process from Apple, continue using older processes, or invent a new, even better process that does not infringe on the Apple process.
Originally Posted by rcfa
A product as such is not patentable per se, unless that product is the process itself.
I thought that a concept was not patentable? But rather that an implementation of said concept (the product) is.
Ahh gotcha. Thanks
Concept is an idea e.g. "let's make the MagicMouse scratch proof by using a glass instead of plastic touch surface"
Process is a method of manufacturing e.g "we bend glass by putting it on top of a mouse and then let an elephant step on it, until it has the proper shape"
Apple's patent covers a specific way of permanently curving the glass in a way that requires less manufacturing steps and produces less waste, I.e. is more cost efficient, precise and environmentally friendly than methods hitherto used. It is that novel way of creating the same thing that is protected,, not the resulting curved glass, or the concept of curved glass, nor the use of curved glass for any particular purpose.
Curved glass may be stronger than flat glass (think egg shells), it could be used to e.g. scratch-proof the MagicMouse, used for the back of a hand-held device where a rounded shape may feel more comfortable and affords extra space for batteries. Also glass that can be precisely curved can be impercetibly curved for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. In any case patenting a novel process is smart, even if there is no concrete product planned that uses the process at the time, it just means creating corporate capital in the form of IP.
e.g. Competitors being forced to use a less cost efficient process lowers their profit margins, which relatively speaking strengthens Apple's position. Business is a war fought on many fronts and in many small skirmishes, not just a few grand battles.
Originally Posted by rcfa
concept != process
Concept is an idea e.g. "let's make the MagicMouse scratch proof by using a glass instead of plastic touch surface"
Process is a method of manufacturing e.g "we bend glass by putting it on top of a mouse and then let an elephant step on it, until it has the proper shape"
Apple's patent covers a specific way of permanently curving the glass in a way that requires less manufacturing steps and produces less waste, I.e. is more cost efficient, precise and environmentally friendly than methods hitherto used. It is that novel way of creating the same thing that is protected,, not the resulting curved glass, or the concept of curved glass, nor the use of curved glass for any particular purpose.
That sounds just like what I'm thinking, but is it right? Was this the original intent of patents that has just, in some cases, been forgone for an attempt at locking others out of an entire concept?
Hmm, that seems different from your earlier stance
OT: Apple Store might be coming to my town, and this store just screams for curved glass:
http://www.ifoapplestore.com/2012/12/04/apple-signs-lease-for-future-netherlands-store/#comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
My, that's more childish than I thought you'd be. Normally I just let people take stuff out on me, and I think you've reached your quota here. Please don't further.
I accused someone of doing this for the same reason. You then deleted my post and left the original intact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Since flat is better than curved in a screen, why would we want curved? If the s Rees behind is flat, then we have the same problem of our finger being away from the front of the screen, but this time, the distance would vary. Not good and we would get more reflections again from going back to two inner surfaces. If the screen is curved, then we really need to ask; For what purpose?
Well one excellent reason is it dramatically reduces the strength of reflections. Samsung have solved the two surface problem with their flexible OLED display. Wouldn't be surprised to see a product incorporating one fairly soon.
I can see that but I'm talking about two different things and usages. In this forum I didn't really consider anything other than a handheld device although I think the article did state "up to 27 inches" or something like that.
In that post from 2010 I'm talking about the potential benefit of a much wider desktop display that would use your neck as the pivot point but allow for more screen real estate without moving from side-to-side to get the same relative display size. Still, i am unsure how good those would be for photography or video editing. Peripheral vision can work for some use aspects to detect changes but I can't image that there are too requirements that make it a viable market to shoot for. If it catches on it might just be because it's the fashion.
Also, the displays and glass being so thin but so wide in the images below might not require the same technologies to build. A 50" curved display that is only as tall as the current 27" display might be able to be able to naturally flex the materials into the proper curve without special tools required for a 4" display.
In all honesty it was my lame way of trying to get your view on curved screens. And I get this great reply, including your doubt if it would work for photography (a hobby of mine), which was the actual reason for me to remember that 2 year old post.
I think flexible screens might be the way forward, not curved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Eludes you sarcasm does.
"Elude".
Grammar-Nazi sorry is.
Flexible displays also have to withstand repeated flexing which makes me think it's one of those ideas that are technology possible now but not feasible for real world use, like personal jet packs.
Perhaps I'm thinking too extreme with the flexing aspects. It doesn't have to be foldable, just have a slight give like a CC or driver's license, but then I wonder what benefit that would have for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Well one excellent reason is it dramatically reduces the strength of reflections. Samsung have solved the two surface problem with their flexible OLED display. Wouldn't be surprised to see a product incorporating one fairly soon.
Impossible. On this forum, which resides in a parallel world, Samsung and Google can't solve any problem. What you meant is "Samsung copied Apple's future solution for the two surface problem preemptively, which they should pay for dearly in (American) courts".
Flexing displays, unless used as a manufacturing aid for bent display behind something like glass, are only meaningful once cheap enough to be disposable, because they will scratch just as easily if not more so, than any other typical plastic surface.
So maybe some future disposable phones are made that way, but as prices are anywhere near current levels it's basically a technology demo when it comes to phone like devices.
For solving the two surface problem flexible screens are not per se required, since OLED can be printed and thus can potentially printed directly onto a rigid curved surface, without need for bending screens.
And all that said, except for special applications, bent screens are just as ridiculous as transparent screens or the hare-brained translucent menu bar: design over function. Visual clutter, distorted display geometry, etc. just to be "cool" and "novel".
Bent screens for certain public displays or VR applications make sense, just as transparent screens are meaningful for certain augmented reality applications, but that's about it.
Could theoretically prevent all these broken iPhone screens I see from misuse of people sticking their iPhone in back pocket of tight blue jeans. Put the motherboard in the middle, like a spine, and since the battery is made out of compartments perhaps an iPhone could be designed for back pockets.
Share holders might not like the idea of Apple putting $ in this R&D. Oh well, they have a different thing to worry about with their stock.
My thinking — which could be completely wrong as my understanding of physics may be above the mean average but well below the median average — is that we're still talking about Gorilla Glass, which does bend, but can still crack if enough is applied. I can't see Apple moving to a plastic unless it has the optical properties and is as scratch resistant as GG.
Perhaps we'll need to wait for GG3. I wonder if Corning (or a competitor) can take this tech so far that start talking about glass thickness in terms of microns. Imaging the glass glued atop the display being only a 65nm thick (about 130 to 1300 atoms wide). If the material is hard enough to resist a scratch then the thickness shouldn't really matter too much, right?
Originally Posted by cnocbui
I accused someone of doing this for the same reason. You then deleted my post and left the original intact.
Did you report it? We're less likely to find it if you don't.
This truly has to be joke......
This technique has been around for centuries.....