4 ms·

Unfortunately, some optical key switch designs may be patent encumbered: https://aimpad.com/patents/ https://aimpad.com/patents/

by Sephr 6y ago

chrismorgan 6y ago
I wouldn’t worry about those ones at least. I read through the claims of the US patents, and they’re essentially describing “turn the arrow keys into a joystick”. US8717202B1 explicitly limits the mechanism to a light-and-mirror sort of arrangement (thus, optical switches). US8922399B2 is a broadening of the former patent, removing that limitation (which weakens it a lot because it’s not describing a concrete implementation but an abstract idea), and thus I think it would be claiming other forms of analogue switches (e.g. magnetic) too. Either way, there are a number of products on the market that, if would be infringing these patents (unless their manufacturers licensed the patents). Besides all this, I don’t believe individuals need to worry about patents if they’re doing things for themselves only. But beyond that, I would be quite happy to ignore the Aimpad patents because the concept was not novel, and prior art exists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEwDImE0DU4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEwDImE0DU4 was in 2012 and I haven’t gone searching any further. Taking the broader ’399: the project in that video is, I believe (I haven’t watched much of it, more just read a few comments about it and skimmed it), prior art for claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and maybe others. For the rest, claim 2 is a supremely obvious extension of claim 1. Claim 4 is obvious and shouldn’t be patentable anyway. Claim 7 is… “what? how else could you possibly do it?”, viz. obvious. Claim 8 is obvious (as in, if such noise is a problem, of course you’re going to do this, it’s been a standard technique on input devices for many, many years). Claim 9 is stupid (“slap the rest of the keyboard on it”). I think there’s a good chance you could get the patents cancelled (that is, without waiting to be sued and getting a court to rule) if you wanted. (Although I wrote a fair bit of detail here, I’m in no way expert on patents. I’ve just picked up a few things over the years from public news and reading, when related things have interested me. Do not trust my conclusions here to reflect how USPTO, courts, or any other relevant bodies will look on things.)
- Sephr 6y ago
  Thank you for the very detailed and thorough response! I should note that your prior art video uses hall effect sensors instead of an optical mechanism. I've also seen that method used by others on reddit, and remember hearing that it might not be as accurate as optical switches.

Unfortunately, some optical key switch designs may be patent encumbered: https://aimpad.com/patents/ https://aimpad.com/patents/

by Sephr 6y ago

Unfortunately, some optical key switch designs may be patent encumbered: https://aimpad.com/patents/ https://aimpad.com/patents/

chrismorgan 6y ago

I wouldn’t worry about those ones at least. I read through the claims of the US patents, and they’re essentially describing “turn the arrow keys into a joystick”. US8717202B1 explicitly limits the mechanism to a light-and-mirror sort of arrangement (thus, optical switches). US8922399B2 is a broadening of the former patent, removing that limitation (which weakens it a lot because it’s not describing a concrete implementation but an abstract idea), and thus I think it would be claiming other forms of analogue switches (e.g. magnetic) too. Either way, there are a number of products on the market that, if would be infringing these patents (unless their manufacturers licensed the patents). Besides all this, I don’t believe individuals need to worry about patents if they’re doing things for themselves only. But beyond that, I would be quite happy to ignore the Aimpad patents because the concept was not novel, and prior art exists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEwDImE0DU4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEwDImE0DU4 was in 2012 and I haven’t gone searching any further. Taking the broader ’399: the project in that video is, I believe (I haven’t watched much of it, more just read a few comments about it and skimmed it), prior art for claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and maybe others. For the rest, claim 2 is a supremely obvious extension of claim 1. Claim 4 is obvious and shouldn’t be patentable anyway. Claim 7 is… “what? how else could you possibly do it?”, viz. obvious. Claim 8 is obvious (as in, if such noise is a problem, of course you’re going to do this, it’s been a standard technique on input devices for many, many years). Claim 9 is stupid (“slap the rest of the keyboard on it”). I think there’s a good chance you could get the patents cancelled (that is, without waiting to be sued and getting a court to rule) if you wanted. (Although I wrote a fair bit of detail here, I’m in no way expert on patents. I’ve just picked up a few things over the years from public news and reading, when related things have interested me. Do not trust my conclusions here to reflect how USPTO, courts, or any other relevant bodies will look on things.)

Sephr 6y ago
Thank you for the very detailed and thorough response! I should note that your prior art video uses hall effect sensors instead of an optical mechanism. I've also seen that method used by others on reddit, and remember hearing that it might not be as accurate as optical switches.