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

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.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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