I wonder how this is even patentable.

The excellent engineers at Samsung failed to crack this problem. A little while ago people were saying Motorola must just be showing advertising mock-ups, because how could they solve the hinge problem that a Real(tm) cell phone company could not, with all that engineering talent and R&D funding.

Maybe moving the hinges to the side and using sliding supporting plates is more complicated and less obvious than it looks? Problems do tend to look a lot simpler once someone else has solved them for you.

At a high level that’s literally the first idea that came to me for a creaseless design. The ultra thin hinge becomes a huge stress point, but flip phones prove it’s still reasonable.

However, the real issue is implementation. Trying to get the screen rigid over a void and fit all the components into a very confined space. IMO, this is what should be patentable not the idea of a void. Aka. Is it a viable phone or just a nifty demo.

PS: And looking at the patent that’s actually a big part of it. Their hinge design is has some very interesting tradeoffs, which might make this viable.

> Problems do tend to look a lot simpler once someone else has solved them for you

This is so true. I wonder if there's a law named for this phenomenon?

Off topic, but I find many managers fall into this trap. I.e. they don't recognize the difference between when someone exceptionally bright solving a problem very quickly and just moves on vs. a mediocre thinker who takes an inordinate amount of time to solve a problem, but then advertises their accomplishment like a metal of valor (and managers typically fall for it).

> This is so true. I wonder if there's a law named for this phenomenon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus

> An egg of Columbus or Columbus' egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact. The expression refers to an apocryphal story, dating from at least the 15th century, in which it is said that Christopher Columbus, having been told that discovering the Americas was inevitable and no great accomplishment, challenges his critics to make an egg stand on its tip. After his challengers give up, Columbus does it himself by tapping the egg on the table to flatten its tip.

Given the standard quality of innovation in patents granted, this is better than average. Check out this patent for instance article about a patent amazon filed for a photo-studio setup https://mashable.com/2014/06/07/photographers-shouldnt-be-to...

Easy. You show that Samsung spent a zillion dollars trying to make a folding phone and the display still creases. Best way to demonstrate novelty for patentability is to point to an expensive failure to solve the same problem.

Maybe because the option of not folding it so sharply is now under patent, so Samsung didn't have that option.

Moto filed in 2017. These phones have all been in development for longer than that.

This was filed in 2017-05-31, so wouldn't have been published until 2018-12-01 (18 months later). Samsung likely wouldn't have know about it until then.

Because everything is obvious in hindsight?

This is obvious in foresight. That picture shows literally the first image I had in my head of how they were going to have fixed the problem.

The shape that the screen must make to fold flat while avoiding a crease is quite obvious. The mechanics of a hinge that keeps the screen protected and supported as it folds between open and closed states is not so obvious. I expect when you say "the first image I had in my head" you are only talking about the screen folded position, not the hinge that accomplishes this!

To a certain degree, I agree. Once you've identified that there's a minimum radius you can safely take the screen through, the folded profile of the screen is obvious. That you then need a moving support structure behind it to be able to apply pressure to the screen is obvious too.

I don't want to denigrate the obviously detailed design work that went into producing the hinge itself, and those details will have been an absolute nightmare to get right, but I'm also not seeing anything immediately which makes it more than conventional mechanical design.

Have you read the whole patent, or are you assuming they just made that one drawing and sent one copy to the manufacturer and one to the patent office?

Did you to talk to Samsung about fixing their foldable screen issue?

I imagine Samsung had their own reasons for not doing this particular obvious thing. In particular, you need the body depth to get away with the screen curve, which they may have decided they couldn't get away with.

Because there is no clear definition of what is patentable and what is not.

At least they didn't try to patent "two screens with thin bezels next to each other"...

Hahaha that's gold.

I'm looking at you Microsoft.

Did you read all the claims?