All about ergo keyboard

[hoggy]

Data desk - fair cop.

[kaltar]

Has anyone tried original Kinesis keycaps in the thumb clusters of ergoDox?

Of course they fit. They are standard keycaps. Both Kinesis contoured and ErgoDox have standard Cherry MX switches and standard key spacing.

Then that solves the problem of the thumb cluster!

[Oobly]

...
We want MOOOOOOOREEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Thread about it is up now: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=49721.0

[kaltar]

...
We want MOOOOOOOREEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Thread about it is up now: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=49721.0

Thanks Oobly!

[yasuo]

Maybe first
Burboa Type-writing machine

Show Image

Show Image

Then

Maltron

Show Image

My system

Show Image

Kinesis Advantange

Show Image

Ergo Dox

Show Image

[Oobly]

Wow! 1913!

Good to see some other designers who have thought about ergonomics. It's tented and angled with staggered vertical columns! Strange that the pinkie column isn't staggered, though. I have found it feels best moved down around 3/4 of the key pitch.

Nice find, Yasuo!

Looks like it was pneumatic, with the keys rotating selector discs to line up the correct holes and actuate the desired striker.

[Azteca]

FYI, the Kinesis-Advantage also “stole” the Maltron design (there are other discussions about this elsewhere). Furthermore to Kinesis, they didn’t design their “Maxim” either - they just rebranded the Fujitsu Siemens KBC-5600. Even worse, their last offering moves away from mechanical switches and matrix style key layout with their Freestyle2 - a copycat of the Goldtouch or ErgoFlex.

You should probably have all your facts straight before making such claims, Azteca.

We spent over two years designing the Kinesis Contoured keyboard.

The main point is that I find PATHETIC that either one person, a group of individuals (“the community”) or a Company claims a design as theirs when it is obviously not theirs as is only a copycat. Worst when the design is copied and then some elements are removed just to lower the cost of the device.

Kinesis-Advantage and ErgoDox are copycats of the Maltron, no matter how many false arguments or supposedly research they claim, no matter if supposedly based on a combination of other dozen designs, no matter even if they were conceived by a Goddess.

Making money of someone else's design is one dreadful and disappointing thing to do, claiming the design as theirs is just PATHETIC.

How to make a Kinesis Advantage(
Take the Maltron;
wait 20 years;
remove 28 center keys;
remove 2 center ‘Del’ keys;
replace Function keys with gummy bears;
);
//Hope nobody notices;

[Linkbane]

FYI, the Kinesis-Advantage also “stole” the Maltron design (there are other discussions about this elsewhere). Furthermore to Kinesis, they didn’t design their “Maxim” either - they just rebranded the Fujitsu Siemens KBC-5600. Even worse, their last offering moves away from mechanical switches and matrix style key layout with their Freestyle2 - a copycat of the Goldtouch or ErgoFlex.

You should probably have all your facts straight before making such claims, Azteca.

We spent over two years designing the Kinesis Contoured keyboard.

The main point is that I find PATHETIC that either one person, a group of individuals (“the community”) or a Company claims a design as theirs when it is obviously not theirs as is only a copycat. Worst when the design is copied and then some elements are removed just to lower the cost of the device.

Kinesis-Advantage and ErgoDox are copycats of the Maltron, no matter how many false arguments or supposedly research they claim, no matter if supposedly based on a combination of other dozen designs, no matter even if they were conceived by a Goddess.

Making money of someone else's design is one dreadful and disappointing thing to do, claiming the design as theirs is just PATHETIC.

How to make a Kinesis Advantage(
Take the Maltron;
wait 20 years;
remove 28 center keys;
remove 2 center ‘Del’ keys;
replace Function keys with gummy bears;
);
//Hope nobody notices;

Azteca, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. The only way in which the Maltron and Kinesis take after each other is that both are based off of keywells. The Maltron design is older and in my opinion the Kinesis did a much better job of making a usable keyboard (at a less ridiculous price). Just because two things resemble each other doesn't mean that they're copied. Because the iPhone is similar to the Galaxy, I should assume that they're copied, right?
Dead wrong. They use similar design features (touchscreen, lack of external buttons) but they're completely different designs. All of your posts are both uninformed and inflammatory, though, so I hardly doubt that this will give you any pause.

[yasuo]

type writer machine burboa
maltron
NEC Japan
kinesis advantange
ergo dox 

[Azteca]

Azteca, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. The only way in which the Maltron and Kinesis take after each other is that both are based off of keywells. The Maltron design is older and in my opinion the Kinesis did a much better job of making a usable keyboard (at a less ridiculous price). Just because two things resemble each other doesn't mean that they're copied.

Maltron is not taking from Kinesis, only the other way.

Maltron is made, and has always been made by hand - reason is expensive; ridiculous price only if you don't value your health. Get your facts. 

Kinesis removed above-mentioned keys and redesigned the Maltron reducing the keywells in a way to allow them to do less expensive-hand-work, in order to lower the overall cost (still $350 - "ridiculous high price" compared to $10 keyboards). The PCB inside the Kinesis cannot be bend anymore, reason why the keywells have shorter angles.

Kinesis will always be the younger brother (the one that copies everything the older brother does).

I'm a pragmatist (google it), deal with it. 

[Linkbane]

Azteca, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. The only way in which the Maltron and Kinesis take after each other is that both are based off of keywells. The Maltron design is older and in my opinion the Kinesis did a much better job of making a usable keyboard (at a less ridiculous price). Just because two things resemble each other doesn't mean that they're copied.

Maltron is not taking from Kinesis, only the other way.

Maltron is made, and has always been made by hand - reason is expensive; ridiculous price only if you don't value your health. Get your facts. 

Kinesis removed above-mentioned keys and redesigned the Maltron reducing the keywells in a way to allow them to do less expensive-hand-work, in order to lower the overall cost (still $350 - "ridiculous high price" compared to $10 keyboards). The PCB inside the Kinesis cannot be bend anymore, reason why the keywells have shorter angles.

Kinesis will always be the younger brother (the one that copies everything the older brother does).

I'm a pragmatist (google it), deal with it. 

Nobody deals with anything you say simply for the fact that nobody really cares. You're quite literally the only one who thinks that you're correct.

[Oobly]

FYI: Patents expire after a maximum of 20 years. Apple sued Samsung over the Galaxy designs.

Please stop arguing.

Let's keep this thread on topic, please. Maltron has very few compromises, Kinesis has more, but is more modern and affordable. ErgoDox has even more, but is a community design and covers a lot of the ergonomic faults of a normal board. ErgoGP (Nexus) addresses some of the ErgoDox compromises.

"So too we are dwarfs astride the shoulders of giants. We master their wisdom and move beyond it. Due to their wisdom we grow wise and are able to say all that we say, but not because we are greater than they." - Isaiah di Trani

[yasuo]

Oobly your kibord thumb clusters i think from this
http://deskthority.net/resources/3d-with-straight-rows/3110

[Linkbane]

Oobly your kibord thumb clusters i think from this
http://deskthority.net/resources/3d-with-straight-rows/3110

Is it just me, or does that not seem particularly ergonomic?

[Proword]

If you wish to determine who stole what from whom (if anything) then the proper way is to examine the academic paper trail.  If somebody is researching eg a new keyboard design and publishes refereed papers and articles as they progress, then it's very difficult to say they stole the work from somebody else. It establishes priority.  If somebody produces a "new" keyboard WITHOUT publishing academic papers to show their progress, then they will always be subject to claims of fraud, stealing etc.  This obviously gives rise to meaningless debates like this one, because almost everything is based purely on personal opinion, and not evidence. 

http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/academic-papers

Here are the academic papers which were produced firstly by Lilian Malt, then later by Stephen Hobday, starting in September 1977. 

Can anybody give a link to primary academic papers for other keyboards?  ("Primary" means papers by the researcher, not papers  by others examining the work of the researcher ("secondary"))

My understanding is that whilst the Malt key layout has been protected by law, the actual physical shape of the Maltron keyboard was not.  Which is probably why Maltron is the only keyboard which uses the Malt layout.

For me, no primary papers, no priority.  This doesn't mean anybody stole anything, rather it will be difficult to defend against such charges.

[Oobly]

I do like suka's designs, particularly his most recent ones, but based mine on my own thumb position and movement. Designed it from "first principles", not based on other designs, although having seen some other designs I knew some things to be careful of and what aspects of their designs worked and what didn't. This is how progress works, thus my quote about standing on shoulders of giants.

Just because a product is similar doesn't mean it was copied. If the same laws of physics apply and the same factors are taken into consideration, the end result will inevitably be very similar.

My design is still a compromise in that the alpha keys are mounted on a flat plate instead of a curved well, but it was a lot easier to make using what I had to hand, so that's how I did it.

You don't need to publish a paper when designing a product, especially nowadays. If you do so, you are inviting other companies to produce a product from your research, since published papers are public. I can't think of any manufacturer other than Maltron that has published papers regarding researching their keyboard design or layout. They were pioneers in the field and created their own market, so all "ergonomic" designs that have come after owe a nod of recognition to them.

Besides, the current scientific publications are really political and messed up: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=52125.0

IMHO, a mass market ergonomic keyboard needs to be very carefully designed. It needs to fit a wide range of physiologies (shoulder width, hand size, arm length, etc) and preferences (thumb keys, character layouts, etc), so there probably isn't a really good one size fits all design. To my mind it would have separate or hinged sections (for splay angle), be tentable up to 90 degrees, have angled thumb clusters with adjustable angle and distance, have vertically staggered columns with adjustable stagger and adjustable curve to each (and adjustable distance between keys) and palm rests with their own adjustments. This is not truly practical to build and especially hard to mass manufacture, considering the current size of the interested market.

There have to be some compromises unless you produce a VERY expensive, exclusive custom product and there isn't a market to support that, AFAIK.

[yasuo]

 ) Oobly your explanation so long,i just little ask
and actually your design different with suka.
Suka from front for thumb,while Oobly from besides
perhaps, carried away with the kinesis and Maltron

For Design how to Data hand?
Oobly,why waste two main fingers for just one key?
Like row 1 qwerty shifted be symbol.etc why not separate symbol with number?

[Proword]

You don't need to publish a paper when designing a product, especially nowadays. If you do so, you are inviting other companies to produce a product from your research, since published papers are public. I can't think of any manufacturer other than Maltron that has published papers regarding researching their keyboard design or layout. They were pioneers in the field and created their own market, so all "ergonomic" designs that have come after owe a nod of recognition to them

...

There have to be some compromises unless you produce a VERY expensive, exclusive custom product and there isn't a market to support that, AFAIK.

I think it's even more necessary than ever to publish, because as I said, establishing priority is very important.  In publishing one doesn't necessarily need to give all the fine details of research, but show how one's research is progressing in a particular direction.

Probably the most famous "priority" incident was Charles Darwin's acknowledgement of Alfred Russel Wallace's arriving independently at the theory of evolution by natural selection, and their joint publishing of some papers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

Had we had the internet at that time, then due to Darwin's reluctance to publish until he was completely satisfied, we may have had Wallace's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, rather than Darwin's.

Maltron has never compromised in its design of its product, I'd suggest simply because Stephen Hobday and his people have a very clear idea of what they want to do.  And in any case "expensive" is a relative term.  I bought my first Maltron in 1986 for (I think) about $500 Australian, and in 2013, it's still going although I can't use it on a computer which doesn't have a PS/2 plug, simply because my keyboard has a DIN plug and adding a PS/2 adapter to the DIN, then  USB adapter to the PS/2 is not reliable.   The cost, amortised over 27 years, is under $20 year, a remarkably inexpensive keyboard.  By looking firstly at price you can miss so much.

[Input Nirvana]

Without dissecting the very good points posted by long standing, qualified, respected community members (thanks guys, that's what makes this place great)….it seems Azteca has some anger and is making wildly accusatory claims that are over simplified, not well thought out, absolutely inaccurate, and definitely misplaced, all of this on multiple layers. Judging by his writing style I'm not sure a direct rebuttal is going to be effective, so the direction the thread is taking to counter and inform is probably the best.

Maybe if Azteca would choose to make a point and ask some questions, he may get some better information as opposed to the extrapolated "decision" he has arrived at and displayed here.

[Azteca]

Without dissecting the very good points posted by long standing, qualified, respected community members (thanks guys, that's what makes this place great)….it seems Azteca has some anger and is making wildly accusatory claims that are over simplified, not well thought out, absolutely inaccurate, and definitely misplaced, all of this on multiple layers. Judging by his writing style I'm not sure a direct rebuttal is going to be effective, so the direction the thread is taking to counter and inform is probably the best.

Maybe if Azteca would choose to make a point and ask some questions, he may get some better information as opposed to the extrapolated "decision" he has arrived at and displayed here.

Obviously some people only read what they want to read and reach imaginary conclusions by themselves. 

My initial and main point in this post is that I ‘dislike’ when either a company, group of people, or corporation, claims a design as theirs (for personal benefit or profit) when it is ‘observable’ they ‘mimic’ the ‘core’ of the design from someone else, more easily palpable as the Maltron design is unique.

It has escalated since I ‘observed’ that the ErgoDox’s ‘community’ claimed their design came from the ‘Key64’ - which supposedly came from what appears to be about 64 other designs, but it ended ‘looking’ ‘about’ the same as the flat Maltron without the center or function keys (equivalent as image presented earlier comparing Maltron and Kinesis-Advantage) and split in two pieces.

The ‘anger’ (simple observations) is for all the backfire a simple comment can generate in this forum when ‘the other people’ doesn’t like such observations.

Still, I’ll keep observing and posting comments when deem required to ‘shield’ my main observations. 


And if you prefer I ask questions like a parrot, disregarding I already ‘believe’ know the answers:
Why the Kinesis Advantage does look almost the same as the Maltron, considering Kinesis claims they spend two years in research?
Is it possible the Kinesis Advantage is really the 20 year lost younger brother of the Maltron?
Is it possible Kinesis and Maltron have a secret license deal, so secret that Maltron doesn’t know about it?
Why the ErgoDox does look almost the same as the Flat Maltron (minus a bunch of keys)?
Why so many GeekHacks claim the ErgoDox as perfect when ‘several’ (citation needed) have ‘observed’ that the thumb cluster is difficult to reach and not that ergonomic?
So many other questions, so little time.
 

[Oobly]

PM sent....

Right, back to designs and protection.

If you want to patent your design, you are restricted from publishing until the patent is applied for. Otherwise your idea becomes public domain, so publishing your progress is out of the question. Patents have a maximium lifetime of 20 years and are expensive to maintain, especially if you patent internationally. So you have to choose very carefully whether to patent and when to.

Keyboard research is not exactly finding the Higg's Boson or producing a Unified Theory or anything, and keyboards are products, not ideas. You don't sell more keyboards simply because you can prove you published your research data first.

I don't mean to offend anytone, but I find the idea of simply rearranging the keys into a more ergonomic layout being worthy of research paper publication OR a patent quite odd, almost ridiculous actually. I have done it myself for my own use and like the result, but it's not exactly rocket science. It's just "putting stuff where it works best".

I have to say that the Maltron IS compromised. You cannot adjust the keyboard width / splay angle for different width shoulders.

[tufty]

My previous, and rather combative, post has seemingly (and probably rightfully) disappeared into the aether of trollbait.  Here's something rather more reasoned.

It turns out that Hobday has, indeed, patented certain parts of the Maltron keyboard.  And quite rightfully so.  For example : https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003046938A1 which covers the flexible circuit board stuff.  This patent references one issued by Kinesis (https://www.google.com/patents/US5610602).

More interestingly, the Kinesis patent above, in turn, quite rightfully references Lilian Malt's 1977 patent, https://www.google.com/patents/US4244659

This, in its turn, references Einbinder's 1973 patents https://www.google.com/patents/US3929216 and https://www.google.com/patents/US3945482 as well as Ross' 1971 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US3805939 (which covers "anatomic" key layouts) and McNamara's 1917 (yes, 1917) patent, also referenced by Kinesis, https://www.google.com/patents/US1395049 which has separate thumb clusters. 

Kinesis also reference Tyberg's 1926 patent (split board with thumb cluster, again), Felton's 1974 patent that covers split keyboards, and so on. 

Other patents of interest might be Hall's 1923 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US1468566, Solon's 1943 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US2369807, which both cover non-planar keyboards, Heidner's 1914 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US1138474, Dodds' 1969 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US2369807 on split keyboards, and so on.

Or maybe Torrey's 1897 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US606903, which is a split symmetrical board with thumb keys.  Quentell, also 1897 covers a symmetrical board with thumb keys.  Vollberg's 1930 german patent on a split, curved board.  And so on.  It would be easy to spend hours, if not days, tracing the lineage of both the Maltron and Kinesis boards through their *patented* previous iterations, and that wouldn't even touch on the stuff that either wasn't patented or considered patentable.

What I'm trying to get at is that the Maltron keyboard didn't spring into existence out of nothing.  It builds on previous work over the better part of a century.  And the Kinesis board builds on that (and acknowledges the fact by referencing Malt's original patent).

It's not theft of Maltron's precious eye-pee.  It's incremental enhancement, and it works both ways (see Hobday's referencing of a Kinesis patent).  Incremental enhancement is the way science and technology advance.

[Proword]

Tutfy, a right scholarly and informative piece of research.

Congratulations and thanks for it.

Joe

[Input Nirvana]

Without dissecting the very good points posted by long standing, qualified, respected community members (thanks guys, that's what makes this place great)….it seems Azteca has some anger and is making wildly accusatory claims that are over simplified, not well thought out, absolutely inaccurate, and definitely misplaced, all of this on multiple layers. Judging by his writing style I'm not sure a direct rebuttal is going to be effective, so the direction the thread is taking to counter and inform is probably the best.

Maybe if Azteca would choose to make a point and ask some questions, he may get some better information as opposed to the extrapolated "decision" he has arrived at and displayed here.

Obviously some people only read what they want to read and reach imaginary conclusions by themselves. 

My initial and main point in this post is that I ‘dislike’ when either a company, group of people, or corporation, claims a design as theirs (for personal benefit or profit) when it is ‘observable’ they ‘mimic’ the ‘core’ of the design from someone else, more easily palpable as the Maltron design is unique.

It has escalated since I ‘observed’ that the ErgoDox’s ‘community’ claimed their design came from the ‘Key64’ - which supposedly came from what appears to be about 64 other designs, but it ended ‘looking’ ‘about’ the same as the flat Maltron without the center or function keys (equivalent as image presented earlier comparing Maltron and Kinesis-Advantage) and split in two pieces.

The ‘anger’ (simple observations) is for all the backfire a simple comment can generate in this forum when ‘the other people’ doesn’t like such observations.

Still, I’ll keep observing and posting comments when deem required to ‘shield’ my main observations. 


And if you prefer I ask questions like a parrot, disregarding I already ‘believe’ know the answers:
Why the Kinesis Advantage does look almost the same as the Maltron, considering Kinesis claims they spend two years in research?
Is it possible the Kinesis Advantage is really the 20 year lost younger brother of the Maltron?
Is it possible Kinesis and Maltron have a secret license deal, so secret that Maltron doesn’t know about it?
Why the ErgoDox does look almost the same as the Flat Maltron (minus a bunch of keys)?
Why so many GeekHacks claim the ErgoDox as perfect when ‘several’ (citation needed) have ‘observed’ that the thumb cluster is difficult to reach and not that ergonomic?
So many other questions, so little time.
 

<yawn> to Wall-O-Text responses.

Ok, parrot-boy, let's back off and start fresh...

- Just because something "looks" similar to another does not make it bad, a rip-off, etc. How different can keyboards be, other than a Datahand/Dodohand?
- Kinesis and Maltron had interactions back in the day. They know each other, no mysteries here.
- Almost every person on this forum is a passionate phreek about keyboards and are going to claim the particular one they use is superior. (That's what we do here, fight about keyboards all day and night).
- This list (rebuttal) could go on forever….but I won't let it.

In the end, I don't care what you thing about anything, nor should you concern yourself with my beliefs, but I do care if you are misinformed and making decisions based on erroneous information, that's just plain avoidable. Hence my suggestion you ask questions first as opposed to making sweeping blanket statements that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Your move.

[Azteca]

Ok, parrot-boy, let's back off and start fresh...
...
Your move.

I’m writing a book about hatred and trolling posts, thank you for your collaboration.

Read with me “I dislike when one claims a design as theirs when it is not.” It seems too many copy others, but at least they don’t claim as theirs.

ErgoDox claims “the community” created it, but it looks the same as the Maltron 2D minus some keys.

The “Kinesis patent” is only about how to manufacture a keyboard - how the PCB can be bend in order to achieve bowls, and not about the design itself (keys position); reason it was approved. Kinesis has claimed within this forum (in response to my 'honest' post) that they researched for over 2 years and conceived their design, but neglected to mention their research is not about the design/position of the keys, it’s only about how to manufacture more economically (compared to Maltron that is built by hand).

Funny that the patent shows big keys for the function keys instead of the gummy-bear keys used in the real product to lower the overall cost. Don’t be that defensive about the Kinesis-Advantage, it’s an old design and Kinesis is now focused on the Freestyle2 with rubber domes and a staggered layout.

In regard to a person or company (in this particular case Kinesis) making reference to other patents (Patent Citations), the person/company doesn’t make the references, the Patent officer reviewing the patent will bring up which other patents the officer researched to grant or deny the patent in question. In the Kinesis patent they only reference patent 07/683980 of a common keyboard, and make no other reference. So, although other patents are referenced within the Kinesis patent, was not Kinesis who bring them up, was the Patent officer.

“Your move”? This is not a chess game, this is not a legal battle about who is right and who is wrong, this forum is about chatting and providing opinions; if you don’t like mine just skip them. Stop posting you “don't care” about my posts while continue reading and replying.

[hoggy]

Azteca,

You talk about this forum as a place to chat and provide opinions...

So, respectfully, just chat, okay?  We're all friendly here.

[Input Nirvana]

Ok, parrot-boy, let's back off and start fresh...
...
Your move.

I’m writing a book about hatred and trolling posts, thank you for your collaboration.

Read with me “I dislike when one claims a design as theirs when it is not.” It seems too many copy others, but at least they don’t claim as theirs.

ErgoDox claims “the community” created it, but it looks the same as the Maltron 2D minus some keys.

The “Kinesis patent” is only about how to manufacture a keyboard - how the PCB can be bend in order to achieve bowls, and not about the design itself (keys position); reason it was approved. Kinesis has claimed within this forum (in response to my 'honest' post) that they researched for over 2 years and conceived their design, but neglected to mention their research is not about the design/position of the keys, it’s only about how to manufacture more economically (compared to Maltron that is built by hand).

Funny that the patent shows big keys for the function keys instead of the gummy-bear keys used in the real product to lower the overall cost. Don’t be that defensive about the Kinesis-Advantage, it’s an old design and Kinesis is now focused on the Freestyle2 with rubber domes and a staggered layout.

In regard to a person or company (in this particular case Kinesis) making reference to other patents (Patent Citations), the person/company doesn’t make the references, the Patent officer reviewing the patent will bring up which other patents the officer researched to grant or deny the patent in question. In the Kinesis patent they only reference patent 07/683980 of a common keyboard, and make no other reference. So, although other patents are referenced within the Kinesis patent, was not Kinesis who bring them up, was the Patent officer.

“Your move”? This is not a chess game, this is not a legal battle about who is right and who is wrong, this forum is about chatting and providing opinions; if you don’t like mine just skip them. Stop posting you “don't care” about my posts while continue reading and replying.

You're not writing a book about hatred and trolling posts…that's just a plain out troll lie. Use yourself as a citation if you ever decide to live up to your claim. And if you publish, PM me the ISBN# so I can get a copy (e-book of course)

Then there you go again with the Ergodox "looks the same" as the Maltron. As I stated earlier, there's more than looks and 99.99% of all keyboards all look the same, yet many are subtly different. I'm not defending Kinesis, they don't need defending, but you clearly seem to have a hard on for Kinesis? They are now focused on the Freestyle? Does that mean that they are no longer focused on the Advantage? How do you know this? Have you asked them what they are focused on? Very doubtful you have done this but if you have, please share….again I restate that you are coming to your own conclusions based on emotion and/or oversimplification. Kinesis has publicly shared they are introducing an updated Advantage in 2014, so it seems they are focused on all of their product line including rubber domes/staggered and mechanical/matrix. Maybe you should ask some questions so you have better info to spout off with. Or continue with your inaccurate slams, and picking apart a single generic statement made within the community as terrible global crime that you must correct. Really?

Maybe the problem here is the definition of design. How different does a design have to be for someone to claim it? What about claiming the incremental improvement? You'd be surprised how little needs to be changed legally with design patents.

Since this is what makes the forum tick, and in the real world I don't give a rats ass, I may read some of your posts and comment on your more outlandish material (it's great fodder and other members know it). But in good conscience I won't let the silly stuff go unchallenged lest some other newbi reads it and takes it for gospel.

Overall I love your posts and I love you. Hopefully you're an emotionally disturbed and extremely hot bad-girl with attitude and trashy clothes (18 or older) or I'm in serious trouble. PM me with pics for clarification.

[Input Nirvana]

I just posted this old pic in another thread of the Split Kinesis before assembly. I long to get her out of her lockbox and use her again. She liked it so much.

[yasuo]

Additional Patens:
Columnar staggared
Burboa Type-writing machine 1914
http://www.google.it/patents/US1089689
Symmetrical staggared
Bio-mechanical keyboard structure and method 1987
http://www.google.com/patents/US4669903

[yasuo]

IBM
http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=63415.0

[jacobolus]

Also see this thread:
http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=55099

[natas206]

The “Kinesis patent” is only about how to manufacture a keyboard - how the PCB can be bend in order to achieve bowls, and not about the design itself (keys position); reason it was approved. Kinesis has claimed within this forum (in response to my 'honest' post) that they researched for over 2 years and conceived their design, but neglected to mention their research is not about the design/position of the keys, it’s only about how to manufacture more economically (compared to Maltron that is built by hand).

Funny that the patent shows big keys for the function keys instead of the gummy-bear keys used in the real product to lower the overall cost. Don’t be that defensive about the Kinesis-Advantage, it’s an old design and Kinesis is now focused on the Freestyle2 with rubber domes and a staggered layout.

Dude, chill out. "Kinesis" hasn't claimed anything on here. The only person from the company that posts on this forum is myself. I was not around at the start of the company in 1992. I offer what I can to be part of this community. My primary role at Kinesis is Tech Support. All the legal mumbo jumbo and patents, etc., I honestly don't know about and don't care to discuss on this forum even if I did. The purpose of posting here is to interact with this great community and talk about our love for keyboards. I don't know what your motives are but you're entitled to whatever opinions you may have, as skewed as they may be. 

[Input Nirvana]

As a former practicing attorney, I can tell you from professional experience as well as specific business experience, many ideas are developed 100% independently of each others knowledge. In doing the research on infringements for purposes of assessing damages, we looked at the backup of how and when ideas were developed. Often there was little to indicate that the "copy" was in fact a copy, and the documentation would accurately show the process of origination to final product. This would reduce or eliminate damage claims since intent could not be proven.

Also, I challenge any of you to think of something, then do some patent research. You'll find there basically "computer patents" in the 1930's of products and other weird stuff. I've checked on half a dozen of my "original" ideas and found substantial patent info filed decades ago. It's really quite amazing.


The goal of patents/enforcing patents is to allow things to progress, not stifle innovation. To allow an innovator to develop the technology and profit, so more can be developed. And ultimately that's why patents expire into the public domain.

[davkol]

The goal of patents/enforcing patents is to allow things to progress, not stifle innovation.

lol

[jacobolus]

My previous, and rather combative, post has seemingly (and probably rightfully) disappeared into the aether of trollbait.  Here's something rather more reasoned.

It turns out that Hobday has, indeed, patented certain parts of the Maltron keyboard.  And quite rightfully so.  For example : https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003046938A1 which covers the flexible circuit board stuff.  This patent references one issued by Kinesis (https://www.google.com/patents/US5610602).

More interestingly, the Kinesis patent above, in turn, quite rightfully references Lilian Malt's 1977 patent, https://www.google.com/patents/US4244659

This, in its turn, references Einbinder's 1973 patents https://www.google.com/patents/US3929216 and https://www.google.com/patents/US3945482 as well as Ross' 1971 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US3805939 (which covers "anatomic" key layouts) and McNamara's 1917 (yes, 1917) patent, also referenced by Kinesis, https://www.google.com/patents/US1395049 which has separate thumb clusters. 

Kinesis also reference Tyberg's 1926 patent (split board with thumb cluster, again), Felton's 1974 patent that covers split keyboards, and so on. 

Other patents of interest might be Hall's 1923 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US1468566, Solon's 1943 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US2369807, which both cover non-planar keyboards, Heidner's 1914 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US1138474, Dodds' 1969 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US2369807 on split keyboards, and so on.

Or maybe Torrey's 1897 patent https://www.google.com/patents/US606903, which is a split symmetrical board with thumb keys.  Quentell, also 1897 covers a symmetrical board with thumb keys.  Vollberg's 1930 german patent on a split, curved board.  And so on.  It would be easy to spend hours, if not days, tracing the lineage of both the Maltron and Kinesis boards through their *patented* previous iterations, and that wouldn't even touch on the stuff that either wasn't patented or considered patentable.

What I'm trying to get at is that the Maltron keyboard didn't spring into existence out of nothing.  It builds on previous work over the better part of a century.  And the Kinesis board builds on that (and acknowledges the fact by referencing Malt's original patent).

It's not theft of Maltron's precious eye-pee.  It's incremental enhancement, and it works both ways (see Hobday's referencing of a Kinesis patent).  Incremental enhancement is the way science and technology advance.

And that 1966 British IBM patent http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=63415 (filed in 63/64) is most relevant of all, setting out a design for the finger sections in curved keywells very similar to what Maltron ended up with. Considering that Malt’s 1977 patent cites it, I can only assume they knew about the IBM patent (even if it was added as prior art by the patent examiner).





To Azteca: It’s pretty obvious to everyone looking that the Ergodox was inspired by the Kinesis Advantage, which was in turn inspired by the Maltron. So what? All the relevant patents about this shape are now expired. There’s no “ripoff” here, only as as tufty says, incremental enhancement (even if the later products aren’t always strictly better than the earlier ones).

[jacobolus]

Dude, chill out.

Do note that the post you’re replying to is now 10 months old. :-)

[natas206]

Dude, chill out.

Do note that the post you’re replying to is now 10 months old. :-)

I do, but I never saw his post before as this thread was just bumped yesterday. I felt I should respond even if it's old

[Input Nirvana]

Dude, chill out.

Do note that the post you’re replying to is now 10 months old. :-)

I do, but I never saw his post before as this thread was just bumped yesterday. I felt I should respond even if it's old

Agreed. Relevant.

[kurplop]

To Azteca: It’s pretty obvious to everyone looking that the Ergodox was inspired by the Kinesis Advantage, which was in turn inspired by the Maltron. So what? All the relevant patents about this shape are now expired. There’s no “ripoff” here, only as as tufty says, incremental enhancement (even if the later products aren’t always strictly better than the earlier ones).

Great investigative work Jacobolus. Keep at it and you will likely uncover convex vertical columns and thumb cluster cave wall paintings in some ancient neanderthal dwelling.

[tufty]

in some ancient neanderthal dwelling.

When did you come to my house?

[kurplop]

in some ancient neanderthal dwelling.

When did you come to my house?

I didn't know your dwelling was ancient?

[tufty]

I didn't know your dwelling was ancient?

Wanna know how ancient it is? It's older than I am!

Truth be told, it was built in 1936, but the wood came from a farmhouse that was derelict then, so my roof beams are probably 300 years or more old.

[Azteca]

Dude, chill out...

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=47590.msg1070369#msg1070369
“We spent over two years designing the Kinesis Contoured keyboard.”
 

I hold no grudge against Kinesis. The Kinesis patent discussion came as the “ErgoDox community” has always claimed they conceived the design, and I have always stated that they merely copied Kinesis, which copied Maltron. And with the new evidence, Maltron copied IBM, who knew.

Having said that, it would have been awesome if IBM had manufactured and forced us all to use that IBM1964 ergonomic keyboard and have used buckling springs. We all would have been typing more ergonomically with less pain, civilization might have advanced much faster and happier, and we all might have being using “Linux 10” for a long time, and have colonies in the moon and Mars with trips to Jupiter as Stanley Kubrick predicted around 1964. So from now on, one of my favorite years will be 1964.
 

[jacobolus]

“We spent over two years designing the Kinesis Contoured keyboard.”
 

Hardware development is just hard. Getting anything ready for mass production takes a lot of work and resources. Figuring out a new curved PCB construction method, figuring out a design that can actually be mass produced, making the tooling for injection molding, going back and forth with manufacturing partners on design tweaks for several iterations, setting up marketing and distribution, etc. all take a lot of time.

Two years really isn’t that long on hardware timescales, especially for a smallish company.

[yasuo]

Rheinmetall Portable Ergonomic


http://vintagetechobsessions.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-reveal-rheinmetall-portable.html

[hoggy]

I so want one of those.

[dusan]

Rheinmetall Portable Ergonomic

Interesting!

I always wonder why C. L. Sholes didn't reverse the left-hand side stagger in his mechanical typewriter, which would take no extra cost and make everybody happy.