Amazon Kindle dual-screen e-reader patent granted, Nook potentially in Trouble

[kjk]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/06/a...rnes-and-nobl/

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.

Amazon agreed not to file for any corresponding foreign patents during the four-year approval process and thus wasn't required to publish the patent application -- meaning this is likely a complete surprise to the entire industry.

Weird.

[Worldwalker]

We need patent reform now.

The entire purpose and function of the patent system has been subverted.

[Dan de V]

Yeah, I just saw this on engadget and thought FIGHT!!!

B&N Nook's and Spring Design Alex could all be under threat. The only legal cases more amusing at the moment are Apple against the world i.e. HTC and Noika

Hope it doesn't damage the ebook industry having these industry heavyweights fight it out in the law courts.

On the positive note if Amazon have this patent maybe a Kindle design is on the way with a touch screen that isn't so ugly )

[fishface]

Silly Amazon and its overactive legal department. It's a pretty weak case, and it doesn't really mean anything unless Amazon actually tries to use it, and any tech company targetted by this will have another stack of patents to countersue Amazon with, and then everybody would lose out. Won't happen.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by fishface

Silly Amazon and its overactive legal department. It's a pretty weak case, and it doesn't really mean anything unless Amazon actually tries to use it, and any tech company targetted by this will have another stack of patents to countersue Amazon with, and then everybody would lose out. Won't happen.

I wonder though. Amazon, B&N, and Spring are all relatively new to the hardware business-how many patents/cross patents do you really think they have to threaten to sue/countersue with? (Unlike the more mature cellphone/PC markets-which have tons of previous art/patent stocking)

[fjtorres]

What's wrong with a company patenting a product they designed?
We're not looking at an over-broad or obvious design and the patent is clearly for the ideas embodied in the Kindle 1 which means it passes all reasonable tests of what an invention is. It's actually a pretty clean and very specific patent for an ebook reader that uses a *small* LCD panel to supplement a larger eink display. So, the Entourage Edge is clearly beyond its scope. Nook and Alex? Not so much.

Amazon got lucky with their phrasing.
Odds are B&N will be hearing from Amazon fairly soon.

[guyanonymous]

Lucky with wording? Silly systems? Up hear in Canada, we still can't get the Chumby (an electronic device) because a company owns the rights to CHUM TV (a dead entity) and CHUM radio, and threatened to sue them. Fortunately we can still talk about chum salmon.

People are talking about the predicted reductions in law enforcement costs and legal costs due to the changes/elimination of marijuana laws etc...might it be reasonable to also start considering the legal and end-consumer cost savings that would result if changes in the copyright and patent laws resulted in greatly simplified and readily understood laws, reduced terms, with processes made transparent and tech-savvy?

[wallcraft]

I don't think B&N has much to be worried about for the Nook. The Hanlin V8 appears to be prior art for a Nook-like (not really Kindle 1 like) dual screen ebook reader.

[Kali Yuga]

I could'a sworn I did an earlier post on this, but....

The patent is far more specific than the article implies. In fact, it's pretty much a patent on the Kindle 1 and that's about it.

The article only quotes the summary; it's followed up by numerous illustrations of the Kindle 1, and pages of specific details. The patent specifically cites a "vertical" secondary screen that is parallel to the main display and uses a cursor, an asymmetrical design, etc etc.

No one is likely to get sued over this patent.

The US patent system may not be perfect, but this is not an example the problems of that system. If anything, it's an indication of sloppy blogging that is more interested in pageviews than in accuracy.

[corona]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

We need patent reform now.

The entire purpose and function of the patent system has been subverted.

That's the interesting part of this story!

[Dulin's Books]

reading the text of the patent its pretty obvious that its just a patent on the design of the original kindle. the 2nd display is the display to the right of the e-ink display of k1 which shows the cursor in relation to the content on the e-ink screen. its also very specific about the display being located to the side and being of equal height as the e-ink etc etc

here

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The US patent system may not be perfect, but this is not an example the problems of that system. If anything, it's an indication of sloppy blogging that is more interested in pageviews than in accuracy.

Or that some people are mortally offended that anything ever gets patented/copyrighted at all.

[pboss]

Patents were supposed to encourage innovation. But as things stand today, they do have the opposite effect. Patent lawsuits are being used to get monopolistic advantages as a substitute for innovation.

BTW an ebook reader with 2 screens is hardly an original design.

[BenLee]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I could'a sworn I did an earlier post on this, but....

The patent is far more specific than the article implies. In fact, it's pretty much a patent on the Kindle 1 and that's about it.

The article only quotes the summary; it's followed up by numerous illustrations of the Kindle 1, and pages of specific details. The patent specifically cites a "vertical" secondary screen that is parallel to the main display and uses a cursor, an asymmetrical design, etc etc.

No one is likely to get sued over this patent.

The US patent system may not be perfect, but this is not an example the problems of that system. If anything, it's an indication of sloppy blogging that is more interested in pageviews than in accuracy.

This is funny. Just shows how everyone is looking to sensationalize ANY news about eReaders due to everyone declaring these recent business maneuvers as officially a "war"

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

What's wrong with a company patenting a product they designed?

Nothing.

But a company keeping a stealth patent for a very trivial "design" hidden until a competitor independently designs and markets such a product, then springing it as a weapon to stifle competition, is very, very wrong.

The purpose -- the original purpose -- of patents is to keep trade secrets from being lost, and knowledge from being hidden, by offering a limited monopoly in exchange for publishing the details of an invention, so that it is public record forever and so that other inventors can study it and learn from it. They were never intended to be weapons to use against another company instead of competing fairly with it in the marketplace. The one-click patent, to pick on a previous Amazon demonstration of their preference for litigation over competition, is a perfect example of what patents are not meant for.

One of the major changes to the law needs to be that if you've kept your patent application secret -- as Amazon did, in this case -- then you have no recourse against someone who produced an "infringing" product before your patent was known or could be known. It does not "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" when the rights to anything you invent, and anything you earn from it, could be ripped from you because of a secret patent that you had no way of knowing about when you marketed your invention. How can you run a business if you can't even be sure that your inventions will be yours tomorrow morning, through no fault of your own and nothing you could possibly foresee?