This is a discussion thread for the "Apple Granted 'In-Cell' Touchscreen Display Patent" story posted on the front page.
Though it may seem a bit random, I want to make a point here. In the future, and in the past, as Apple makes/has made more and more patents on technologies or ideas that it invents, there will undoubtedly be people to will continue to make the claim that Apple's patents are resticting the growth of technology in it's advances. This patent will work as an example. Since Apple claimed this idea, they will most likely be using it for a number of years to come. Now, other companies won't be able to use this method to slim their devices and the LCDs that are built in to them. Many may be quick to push the "Apple is Hindering Innovation!" button, but hold on. Because now that other companies can't use this method, and since they still have to compete with Apple, they will come up with new methods of thinning displays and phones. So what started as a patent will lead to new advances in technology and increased competition. My point is this: stop criticizing companies (mainly Apple, since no other companies seem to take any heat on this matter) for patenting ideas that may seem petty. I've heard time and time again that Apple is disallowing innovation on other companies' parts by going to war over patents. This statement has no logic to it. By patenting inventions, it only causes other companies to invent new ways of doing things. Yes, even if the patent is concerning a scroll bar. So next time we hear about a new patent, or a new patent war, lets take a minute to think how it will realistically affect competition and innovation as a whole.
I honestly won't be surprised if one day, Apple just patents everything from the hardware to having icons on the screen to pressing buttons.
To be fair, AMOLED manufacturers (prediminently Samsung) has already taken a similar route in every device shipping with a Super AMOLED screen. The "Super" part refers to an AMOLED screen that has the digitizer integrated into the screen (more info). It was available in the market at least as far back as the Samsung Galaxy S (released June 2010 according to wikipedia). I agree that as long as the patent is specific enough to only cover their specific implementation of it this patent is not necessarily a bad thing. If it generally covers any way to make a digitizer part of the screen, then that's bad. The issue is that companies in general now days get patents approved that are way too broad. Hardware is usually a bit better though as then you have a physical invention and can usually prove that you have actually made it work. It becomes more fuzzy in the area of software patents since those patents end up more like ideas rather than concrete implementations. I'm all with you on this one. I only wish companies would cross-license more (assuming the patents are valid inventions). Allowing others to build on your work and vice versa has lead a much faster pace of innovation in the past. The history of the development and rapid improvement of the semi-conductor is a great example. Apple however seems less willing to cross-license patents compared to other companies. I think that's what's bugging people about them.
