backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by Fritzr.. on Aug 25 at 12:04 AM


  (Source: iClarified)
"In-cell" technology merges the LCD and touch panel into a single layer, providing some power and space savings

LG Electronics, Inc.'s (KSC:066570) own Android-based smartphone product line is finally seeing some legitimate global success, but the company's biggest success in the smartphone market actually comes from its display business. LG Display, the world's second largest display manufacturer, produces the "Retina" (IPS type) LCD displays found in all Apple, Inc. (AAPL) iPads and iPhones, as well as some Android smartphones.

With Apple planning a major product launch for Sept. 12, which everyone is assuming will be the announcement of the iPhone 5 (the sixth generation iPhone), LG just announced that its latest and greatest display technology had hit mass production.

LG Display's latest innovation is to bake the capacitive touch sensors directly into the LCD layer; eliminating the need for a dual-layer two part display.  In the short term this approach will allow for minor space savings and some power savings, as well.  The downside is that the complexity of merging the two layers into a single layer means higher costs and decreased output.

Han Sang-beom, chief executive of LG Display, is quoted by Reuters, "We just began mass production and we don't expect any disruption in supplies."

In-Cell display tech
A comparison of in-cell display tech versus standard disply tech. [Image Source: Digitimes]

One thing that may help LG Display from a supply perspective is that overall flat panel demand has been weak this year.  Despite that weak demand, LG Display managed to grow its revenue by 14 percent on a year-to-year basis in Q2.  But due largely to a $175M USD settlement in a U.S. price-fixing lawsuit, LG Display still was hit with a 112.3B won ($99.2M USD) loss in Q2 2012 versus a 21B won ($18.6M USD) profit a year ago.  The price fixing lawsuit is actually not the first time LG has been implicated in criminal collusion; LG executives were actually sentenced to prison time back in 2009 for a similar conspiracy.

It's critical for LG to continue to grow and execute in the wake of its latest legal setbacks.

There is a small degree of uncertainty whether the new display will be destined for the iPhone 5, or whether Apple will horde stock of the display for a later model.  That uncertainty large stems from the fact that rival display manufacturer Sharp Corp. (TYO:6753) said earlier this month that it would be shipping displays used in a next generation iPhone.  Sharp is smaller than LG Display and uses a slightly different technology named "Advanced Super V" displays.  Sharp's latest displays are also incorporating in-cell technology.

LG Display
The new display tech is likely destined for the new iPhone. [Image Source: LG Display]

LG Display's biggest rival is Samsung Display, the world's largest display manufacturer and one of the only companies to have solved the riddle of the expensive and difficult AMOLED-based display process.  Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) Galaxy S III smartphone showcases a gorgeous 4.8-inch diagonal display, a major selling point.

The iPhone, long stuck with a small 3.5-inch display, is reportedly headed for an upgrade to a 4-inch diagonal unit (30 percent more surface area), in Apple's bid to keep up with Samsung.

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And it begins
By Gio6518 on 8/23/2012 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 5
Now there will be a wave of lawsuits against LG, stating that LG copied their screen.




RE: And it begins
By StevoLincolnite on 8/23/2012 1:09:42 PM , Rating: 5
And it will be because the screens are rectangle in shape.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 1:10:50 PM , Rating: 4
You can thank last September's change to the US Patent law from a "first to invent" to "first to file" system for determining who owns IP. A lot of the insanity unleashed upon us has come from that. Not all of it, the system was already broken, but that change just broke it all that much more.

That said, I thought Synaptics was the actual owner of this in plane touch technology. Something is going to go down over this.


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 1:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea what you are talking about. First to file only affects applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. So it is impossible for first to file to affect any current patents or patent applications.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
The America Invents Act of 2011 was " signed into law by the president on Sept. 16, 2011". Read more about it here http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/24/48631.htm

quote:
Traditionally, the U.S. patent system has awarded patents to the first person to invent a new discovery. The AIA changes this long-settled approach. Although the AIA is labeled as a 'first-inventor-to-file' system, that label is a smokescreen. Under the AIA, the patent will be awarded to the person who is first to file a patent application, regardless of whether the applicant was the actual first inventor of the technology in question. In fact, the AIA removes from the 'conditions of patentability' of Section 102 of the Patent Act (and thereby from the conditions of patent validity) the requirement that the named inventor actually invented the claimed subject matter.


RE: And it begins
By daveinternets on 8/23/2012 2:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Great article. Not sure what it has to do with the comment you are replying to, but anyway, the law doesn't go into effect until March 16th, 2013...

quote:
(n) EFFECTIVE DATE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments made by this section shall take effect upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to...


http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia-effect...

Not like the US Patent and Trade Office has anything to do with patents anyway, right? I'm sure some random website named 'courthousenews' is right, not the actual governing body.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 1
See my reply below. And you did notice in your own link that many of the provisions of the act, changing several key sections of patent law, went into effect September 2011, right?


RE: And it begins
By DNAgent on 8/23/2012 3:43:05 PM , Rating: 4
Hi. I'm a patent attorney. While the AIA may have been signed in to law in 2011, the relevant provision discussed above (First Inventor to File) does NOT go into effect until the USPTO publishes the final rule implementing that law. That rule is slated for for Feb. 16, 2013, as you can see from this image on their website.

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/first-inve...

First Inventor to File is NOT responsible for any of the current legal fracas...and you, sir, are a troll.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 2:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was responding to your comment that
quote:
You can thank last September's change to the US Patent law from a "first to invent" to "first to file" system for determining who owns IP. A lot of the insanity unleashed upon us has come from that.

Now that you have somehow qualified your comment to actually not relate to first to file, you are still wrong, but perhaps less wrong. This should help you: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia-effect...

The parts of the act that were effective on enactment (9/16/2011) are very minor and definitely did not "unleash insanity" as you state. The prior user defense you point to is very narrow and is of very minor importance. You must have been using the claimed invention more than one year before the other party filed their patent application to be granted prior user rights. Not easy to do and I highly doubt a party has been sued for infringement and was granted prior user rights in the past year.

In any case, there is a big misconception that first to file opens the floodgates to the wrongful granting of a higher percentage of invalid patents. First to file actually allows for more prior art than a first to invent system because the filing date is necessarily after the invention date. So, theoretically, patents are less likely to be granted under the new system than the old one.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 2:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I was stated wrongly about that, as I thought that provision also went into effect with the majority in 2011. But I think your interpretation of the importance of the other provisions is wrong.

I also don't think your interpretation of "first to file" is right either. It should not make patents less likely to grant, as it gives IP ownership to whomever files the patent first, not who invents it or invents it first. The stringency of patent applications in a technical sense should not change though, only how easy it is to take "ownership" of an IP. This is what all readings I have done state, unless you have specifically something to back up your analysis?


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 2:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Please point to what you think are the key provisions which you think are capable of unleashing insanity and I will be happy to tell you why they do not. I'm really not sure which provision you could be basing your opinion on.

Your concerns about ownership in first to invent vs. first to file are valid. Many US patent attorneys have had the same concern and declared that this law would yield doomsday when it was still being debated in congress. However, I think the argument is naive given that the entire rest of the world has been operating on first to file for many years. Every nation outside the US has been getting along just fine with first to file, so I think it is unlikely to unleash any sort of insanity.

I'm not sure how I would back up my analysis of the amount of prior art other than point to common sense and perhaps this example: someone invents an application on January 1 and doesn't file it until January 30. In a first to invent system the prior art is everything before January 1. In a first to file system, the prior art is everything before January 30. Thus there is potentially 30 days more of prior art in a first to file system than in a first to invent system. If a key novelty-destroying reference is published in a journal on January 15, the first to invent patent would grant but the first to file patent would not.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 3:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please point to what you think are the key provisions which you think are capable of unleashing insanity and I will be happy to tell you why they do not.


I already told you, the "first to file", which allows a person to gain ownership of IP without actually being the inventor (if you see it, you can patent it now). As I've said -two times now-, I was mistaken in thinking it had already taken effect, as that is still to come. Shall we continue to beat that dead horse, or are we ready to move on?

quote:
Your concerns about ownership in first to invent vs. first to file are valid.


Then my point is already made and now you know which provisions I'm basing my opinion on, which has been stated since the first post.

Also, your common sense example is actually flawed, unfortunately. Prior art has not changed, it's still "if an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid"; it is not about when a patent application is filed. So, the time you are claiming to have described the invention on the patent (documents showing the date when you made the machine, or the machine was made by someone else) is what applies for determining prior art, not the filing date (that only determines ownership). Thus it's January 1st still in your example. This is exactly the same as the current system. The only change is the time of description that allows you to claim ownership; which allows a person to see someone invent something, and then beat them to the punch at filing, giving that person now the patent on that invention, not the inventor.

Similarly as before, information like trade secrets that are kept hidden do not count as prior art. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.

The whole purpose of the law was to make patenting easier, so keep that in mind.

Put this together with "prior use", and now we can change your example to make more sense. But that also allows a lot more confusion, and squabbling over patents.


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prior art has not changed, it's still "if an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid"; it is not about when a patent application is filed.


Wow, just wow. When the patent application is filed is everything for how we assess what is or is not prior art under the new system. I'll point to what the text of 35 USC 102 will be after the first to file provisions take effect to prove that your statement could not be more incorrect:

quote:
NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.--A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention...;

Emphasis added. In the old statute you assessed prior art based on the date of invention, new statue you asses based on the date of filing. It's really that simple. It has nothing to do with ownership.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 3:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow, so they ARE changing prior art, this is new. I thought that was going to be left untouched. Now we can have even more squabbling and confusion as companies can fight out in the court to determine if something is "prior art" status in time to contest based on the date of patent being filed.

On the other hand, you aren't paying attention to the rest of the statements: it has to be in public use, on sale, printed in a publication or previously patented (that is obvious), or otherwise available to the public. This means, no one is going to go announce their invention all over the world before filing now. Business like usual.

But you are conflating two points: First to File is everything about ownership. Prior art has nothing to do with that.


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 4:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But you are conflating two points: First to File is everything about ownership. Prior art has nothing to do with that.
I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Ownership didn't change. The name on the patent application is still the owner unless the rights were assigned. The difference is that if two applicants applied for the same invention in the old system, the patent would go to the first one to "invent" whereas in the new system it goes to whoever filed first. I'd like to help you, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say; you would need to point me to where you are getting this from.

If you're concerned that someone could "steal" someone else's invention and file it then this concern is unfounded. The AIA has something called a derivation proceeding under new 35 USC 135 that allows an inventor to prove that his idea was stolen:

quote:
Derivation proceedings a) INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDING.--An applicant for patent may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. The petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding that an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. Any such petition may be filed only within the 1–year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention, shall be made under oath, and shall be supported by substantial evidence...


RE: And it begins
By Etsp on 8/23/2012 4:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any such petition may be filed only within the 1–year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention
Does this mean that they have a time-frame of 1 year after the patent is filed to claim that the patent was copied? As in, if they didn't notice the copy within a year, they can no longer dispute it? Can this happen? (No experience with patents here, just curious)


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 5:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
Patent applications publish 18 months after they are filed. So the inventor will actually have 2.5 years to start a derivation proceeding from the time when the third-party filed their patent application claiming the inventor's invention. If you don't file the derivation proceeding within 1 year after publication, then it is waived and the first party to file would get a patent on the subject matter, regardless of who invented it first.


RE: And it begins
By BugblatterIII on 8/23/2012 2:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ok you were right, but did you really need to say "You have no idea what you are talking about"?

Why so aggressive? You'd have come across far better if you'd just left off that first sentence.


RE: And it begins
By Etsp on 8/23/2012 4:47:48 PM , Rating: 3
Because the commenter had no idea what they were talking about! They were spreading misinformation, acting as though they were an expert on the subject, and potentially misleading others.

One of the biggest problems with the internet is the misinformation spread by pseudo-experts, and I for one appreciate the aggressiveness used here to slap these falsehoods down.


RE: And it begins
By Fritzr on 8/25/2012 12:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
Also, in later responses when corrections were documented the "expert" commenter admitted ignorance of the law he was citing.


RE: And it begins
By Argon18 on 8/23/2012 2:52:15 PM , Rating: 4
Too true. It's a vile disgusting piece of legislation signed into law by Obama. It turned the already laughable patent system in a three ring circus.


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 3:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Please point to which provisions turned the patent system into a "three ring circus." The rest of the world has been on first-to-file forever, so I think their experience should prove that first-to-file won't turn the world upside down.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 3:38:12 PM , Rating: 3
We can look at Canada's experience when they switched in 1989 to FTF. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id... It was found to have a detrimental effect and none of the beneficial effects that were expected; skewing patent holding towards large corporations and away from inventors; according to this paper.

Nor is this the first time these issues have been discussed for the US http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cg...

If we really want to understand what goes on with the different patent systems, we'd have to look at the data for other countries http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/p... and cross that information with who is FTF vs FTI, and who applies for applications primarily in the US first before applying elsewhere. Realize, that applying for patents in the US first is currently a common strategy for securing ownership of patents that are to latter be applied for in other countries; due to the our FTI hybrid system we have previously enjoyed. Unfortunately, that also makes data mining this subject difficult.

Finally, the percentage of the number of patent litigation cases versus patents granted world wide has grown. Germany has doubled in ten years in the amount of cases, so that might be an interesting place to start.


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 3:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
From the first articles abstract:
quote:
A switch to a first-to-file patent regime from its first-to-invent system has become imminent for the U.S. To learn about probable effects of such a policy change, we examine a similar switch that occurred in Canada in 1989. We find that the switch failed to stimulate Canadian R&D efforts. Nor did it have any effects on overall patenting. However, the reforms had a small adverse effect on domestic-oriented industries and skewed the ownership structure of patented inventions towards large corporations, away from independent inventors and small businesses. These findings challenge the merits of adopting a first-to-file patent regime.


Failing to deliver on the promises of its proponents is not the same as creating a "three ring circus" or "unleashing insanity." I never said that it was perfect, my point is merely that the rest of the world has been just fine overall with first to file and the US will be too.


RE: And it begins
By geddarkstorm on 8/23/2012 3:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
"Three ring circus" or "unleashing insanity" are subjective statements, as is "just fine". Fine compared to what? Not compared to the being phased out US system; which wasn't even that "fine" to begin with.

You are free to contest subjective statements all you want. But objectively, FTF is inferior to FTI from what we've seen so far. Therefore, people have backing for their subjective statements as we watch all these patent cases ramping up more each year -- also an objective data point.

And again, companies like to file in the US first to take advantage of our old system, rather than file in "the rest of the world" first. So what does that tell you? When that is no longer available to them, then the effects of FTF in other countries will become more apparent as well. To what degree, is hard to say until we see it happen.


RE: And it begins
By Theoz on 8/23/2012 4:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And again, companies like to file in the US first to take advantage of our old system, rather than file in "the rest of the world" first. So what does that tell you? When that is no longer available to them, then the effects of FTF in other countries will become more apparent as well. To what degree, is hard to say until we see it happen.


This comment is ridiculous. Just because the US is first to invent doesn't mean that if you file first in the US and use that US application to enter into Europe that the European laws are suddenly now first to invent. Only the US application would be subject to first to invent. Prior art in your European application would be assessed based on the filing date of that first US application, not the invention date.


RE: And it begins
By inperfectdarkness on 8/24/2012 2:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
6

this was the very first thing i thought of when i saw the headline.


Resposible reporting out the window?
By GotThumbs on 8/23/2012 1:20:43 PM , Rating: 3
So where in this opinion piece does it verify that the screens are for Apple? The heading of this piece sends the message that its 100% going towards the next incarnation of the Iphone, yet no where has this actually been verified.

While its a trivial story....I find it very telling how lax many people are these days regarding verified facts and statements made in media and social media these days.

It would be nice if the story tried NOT to state facts that at this time have not been verified....all for the desire to be the first to announce this crumb of information.

I'm interested in the technology and NOT at all interested in the speculation of it being in the IPhone. A more important piece would be....what other phones can we expect to see this new technology in....unless Apple has wrestled exclusive rights for using this technology.

At this point....nothing has been verified in this story...so its really an OPINION piece.

Nice job of lazy journalism Bud.




By GotThumbs on 8/23/2012 1:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Trivial regarding the IPhone...not the new screen technology.


By retrospooty on 8/23/2012 1:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Relax man. It's pretty much out there all over the place that this is what will be used for the new iPhone. There is no "official" word on it, because Apple hasn't officially announced the iPhone 5, but all the sign's in the supply chain point to this being Apple's new screen.

This isn't a hardcore news site, its a tech site. I agree, maybe a phrase something like in the Reuters article (linked above) "Flat-screen maker LG Display has started mass production of a new and thinner display, widely speculated to be for use in Apple Inc's next iPhone"

It's kind of out there, so expectedd that people are aware.

Anyhow, about the tech. Looks like a great LCD. Apple does have a history of finding and purchasing good tech for their phones.


Misleading title
By B3an on 8/23/2012 1:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sharp have already said they will be making the iPhone 5 display. And this is even mentioned in the article. I dont think LG have mentioned Apple at all regarding this new tech on theirs. So whats with the title?

Oh yeah, page views.




RE: Misleading title
By retrospooty on 8/23/2012 1:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
Apple doesnt announce anything for their upcoming products... If history tell us anything, they will use multiple vendors. Most smartphone makers do this so they arent pigeon holed into one supply chain. We also know Apple is like and angry child and doesnt want to use Samsung, so they very likely will use LG and Sharp LCD's.


RE: Misleading title
By retrospooty on 8/23/2012 1:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
yup, and there you have it. All linked above.

"According to sources close to the matter, Apple's screen for its next iPhone will use in-cell technology developed by Sharp Corp., LG Display Co., and Japan Display Inc"

3 vendors making in-cell screens for Apple. Not officially announced, but this is how its done in the manufacturing supply chain.


Using the Better Display for Streaming Media
By movieman7990 on 8/23/2012 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
It’s hard to argue the retina display on current iOS devices’ has to be one of the best in the industry. The biggest disadvantage Apple has currently with its iPhone line is not the clarity of the screen but just the size. My coworkers at Dish and I were talking about it; those of us with Android devices do so because we want a larger screen than the iPhone has. Those with the iPhone don’t care about the now small screen or have demands for a smaller device. I use my Samsung Galaxy SIII everyday to stream a ton of free movies and TV shows from Dish Online. It works for Android and iOS and it makes the long train commute to work fly by. Hopefully the new iPhone will have a larger screen so apps like Dish Online can better take advantage of the hardware.




By retrospooty on 8/23/2012 2:26:12 PM , Rating: 4
"Hopefully the new iPhone will have a larger screen so apps like Dish Online can better take advantage of the hardware."

Yup... Nothing is better than watching an HD movie on my Galaxy S3. The iPhone 5 will have a 4 inch screen, but its still not enough. Coming from a Droid 3 with a 4 incher to the 4.8 incher is a huge improvement. It went from "just a bit too small to enjoy watching" to "SWEET". Makes me want a Note2 really bad ;)


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki