Slashdot Mirror

And then they'd have the same problem.

And even if the Supreme Court hears the case and decides in favor of the patent holder, it could decide that a refund of fees paid to the USPTO for granting an invalid patent constitutes "just compensation" pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.

Samuel Clemens never invented anything

Wrong. He received three patents for three inventions.

so what would he know about it?

More than you.

The only discussion of this case that I can find is the one on the SFC website, linked in the summary. The petition itself is a bland claim of likelihood of confusion.

By publicly protesting their victimhood the SFC is asking for us to support them, but there just isn't anything to go on here.

Now, they're making the claim that this is completely out of the blue, so maybe that's the point? Is the idea that they don't know anything about this either?

It's not just a patent that says "a colorful grid of icons." For example, one of Apple's patents is 364 pages with 293 illustrations. Scroll through this puppy a bit. The trial was also detail focused to this same degree. So it's not "we have a grid of icons". It's "let's take several weeks to show you how specifically we were copied." There is a fairly high bar to show patent infringement, imho. IANAL. http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?P...

1) Anyone talking about the validity of a patent without using the word "claim" even once is a dumbass.

2) Why would you submit a patent story to Slashdot without including a link to the patent? I had to go three articles deep just to find the patent number. Here's an actual link to the actual patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

3) Why does "freepatentsonline" even exist when you can already read patents online for free at the actual Patent Office website? USPTO even gives them to you in HTML.

"Granting" in patent field means you attempt to get a patent whether the application is approved.

That is not what grant means in the patent process. The patent grant is when the government (or other body) officially recognizes the inventor(s) as holding exclusive rights to the invention. That happens after the applicant files a patent application, after the government reviews the claimed invention and existing art, and after the government approves the issuance of the patent.

If what you say were true, then there would be no sense in complaining that "the USPTO is funded by charging fees for granting patents (and not just applying for them)", because "granting patents" would include applying for them.

My point was that the USPTO is funded mostly by things besides the fees that drinkypoo complained about. According to the USPTO's most recent annual report, issue fees provide less than 10% of their income from fees (see the figure on page 40). Given that there are substantial expenses related specifically to the publication of a patent -- for example, costs to archive the patent essentially for the life of the USA -- it seems particularly frivolous to complain about the USPTO charging fees to issue a patent.

"Granting" in patent field means you attempt to get a patent whether the application is approved.

That is not what grant means in the patent process. The patent grant is when the government (or other body) officially recognizes the inventor(s) as holding exclusive rights to the invention. That happens after the applicant files a patent application, after the government reviews the claimed invention and existing art, and after the government approves the issuance of the patent.

If what you say were true, then there would be no sense in complaining that "the USPTO is funded by charging fees for granting patents (and not just applying for them)", because "granting patents" would include applying for them.

My point was that the USPTO is funded mostly by things besides the fees that drinkypoo complained about. According to the USPTO's most recent annual report, issue fees provide less than 10% of their income from fees (see the figure on page 40). Given that there are substantial expenses related specifically to the publication of a patent -- for example, costs to archive the patent essentially for the life of the USA -- it seems particularly frivolous to complain about the USPTO charging fees to issue a patent.

Patent examiners are not the USPTO. They are employees of the USPTO, and the USPTO is -- contrary to drinkypoo's assertion -- not "funded by charging fees for granting patents". There are extensive fees for applying for a patent, but no fees are due upon grant of a patent.

To me, the word "granting" means "patenting process" regardless an application is granted. The overall cost to apply and get a patent is not cheap. And yes, USPTO is funded by itself from their own revenue. They have their own budget which comes from their own revenue (fee collections).

Where on the USPTO's fee schedule (https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule) do you see a fee for issuing a patent? There are fees for applying, fees for very large applications, fees to maintain an issued patent, but I see none for issuing a patent.

Try here, where it says "issue fee".

Patent examiners are not the USPTO. They are employees of the USPTO, and the USPTO is -- contrary to drinkypoo's assertion -- not "funded by charging fees for granting patents". There are extensive fees for applying for a patent, but no fees are due upon grant of a patent.

That's not true. The issue fees are not very high compared to the overall cost of prosecution, but they do exist. The issue fee is currently $960 for a large entity.

Patent examiners are not the USPTO. They are employees of the USPTO, and the USPTO is -- contrary to drinkypoo's assertion -- not "funded by charging fees for granting patents". There are extensive fees for applying for a patent, but no fees are due upon grant of a patent.

That's not true. The issue fees are not very high compared to the overall cost of prosecution, but they do exist. The issue fee is currently $960 for a large entity.

http://virtuosolegal.com/news-...

"Use of the two logos (the âoeBMWâ logo, and the âoeMâ logo) would confuse the public as to who is actually behind the services coming from Technosport. It gives the impression that Technosport are official partners of BMW AG, and considering they are not, takes unfair advantage of BMWâ(TM)s reputation."

https://www.uspto.gov/page/abo...

"the defendant's mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services offered under the parties' marks [...] In addition to claiming likelihood of confusion, a trademark owner may claim trademark "dilution," asserting that it owns a famous mark and the use of your mark diminishes the strength or value of the trademark owner's mark by "blurring" the mark's distinctiveness or "tarnishing" the mark's image"

Only a RX7 fan would go this route.

Mazda new wankel engine patent (Mar 16)
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?P...

Story on patent
http://blog.caranddriver.com/n...

Animation of Wankel engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I was afraid of this kind of nonsense when the America Invents Act switched the US from "First to Invent" to "First to File" on March 16, 2013.

I guess if no one filed for a patent, *some* USPTO officers are interpreting applications preemptively as "the First to File". I'm hoping it's just a snafu, perhaps caused by the application bridging the transition between FtI to FtF.

No, first-to-file has nothing whatsoever to do with that, nor are Examiners "interpreting applications preemptively as the 'first to file'. First to file does away with a practice called an interference, where two inventors separately file applications on the same exact invention, and there's a mini-trial held to determine which one really invented it first. Even slight differences in the invention, and there's no interference proceeding: as a result, they typically only occur when two inventors work together, have a falling out, and then file identical applications. Out of half a million applications filed each year, there were 20 interference proceedings on average. And they were hideously expensive and time consuming. The change to first to file simply means that whichever of them filed first wins. It affects only those 20 applications a year.

And while I haven't done a prior art search or even reviewed the claims of this application, the file history is public on the USPTO's PAIR system. It was not only not automatically accepted, it was rejected twice by the Examiner, and then went to appeal before a board of three judges, who reversed the Examiner. There was no simple rubber stamping here.

You are all missing the forest. Patents originally only covered manufacturing processes. The intent being that superior processes become public information instead of trade secrets.

Love to see the citation on that one, because the USPTO says "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent". And it's been that way as long as I can remember. In fact, the first 10 patents all cover at least a machine, or a machine and associated process. Seems to me you're 100% backwards.

IANAPL, but I do have 18 issued patents to my name, and another dozen still pending...

> However that was done by marketing, not by innovation.

That's not entirely true. The Apple's 381th Patent for inertial scrolling was a game changer. Adding physics to UI was absolutely brilliant.

Inertial scrolling was invented by Bas Ording. He has worked at Apple since 1998 as an User Interface Designer.

Reference:

* The Apple patent Steve Jobs fought hard to protect
* Who invented inertial scrolling on iOS

I wonder if Logitech forgot about the patent on this

Why would it matter? That isn't a patent, it's a patent application. The application was rejected in 2005 (because of prior art) and abandoned by the PTO when the lawyers didn't respond for 6 months.

You can see the complete history by going to USPTO PAIR, searching for application 10/737483, and going to the Image File Wrapper tab.

A) The Nexus 4 didn't have a curved display. It had curved glass covering a flat display. Not even close to the same thing.

B) Even if the Nexus 4 was a valid example, however, it still wouldn't matter, because Apple's application is technically a continuation of an earlier patent for which they've claimed priority. As such, while this one was filed in 2014, the effective filing date is September 2011, when the earlier patent application was filed.

patentlyapple only links to one of the patents, but at least included the patent numbers for all three patents that they discuss. The other 53 patent numbers are in an image.

9to5mac can't even be bothered to print any patent numbers.

For reference

Reducing the border area of a device: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... device including finger biometric sensor including transparent conductive blocking areas carried by a touch display and related methods: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
Scanning depth engine: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

This is on top of the breathless bullshit cries that Apple has patented all bezel-less displays (hint: the patent does not claim all bezel-less displays).

patentlyapple only links to one of the patents, but at least included the patent numbers for all three patents that they discuss. The other 53 patent numbers are in an image.

9to5mac can't even be bothered to print any patent numbers.

For reference

Reducing the border area of a device: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... device including finger biometric sensor including transparent conductive blocking areas carried by a touch display and related methods: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
Scanning depth engine: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

This is on top of the breathless bullshit cries that Apple has patented all bezel-less displays (hint: the patent does not claim all bezel-less displays).

patentlyapple only links to one of the patents, but at least included the patent numbers for all three patents that they discuss. The other 53 patent numbers are in an image.

9to5mac can't even be bothered to print any patent numbers.

For reference

Reducing the border area of a device: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... device including finger biometric sensor including transparent conductive blocking areas carried by a touch display and related methods: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
Scanning depth engine: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

This is on top of the breathless bullshit cries that Apple has patented all bezel-less displays (hint: the patent does not claim all bezel-less displays).

Unfortunately, that actually doesn't change the situation.

I didn't mention this earlier since it seemed irrelevant and (I thought) would merely complicate the conversation unnecessarily, but the bezel patent was filed as a continuation of an earlier patent Apple applied for in September 2011 (i.e. they "claimed priority"). As such, the effective filing date for the bezel application also goes back to September 2011, meaning that a 2013 demo would still be too late to qualify as prior art.

Yay for patent law. *eyeroll*

P.S. Just to be clear, while I don't have any reason to think that Samsung's products or the CES demo count as prior art, I don't think Apple should have been granted this patent either. I think it's ridiculous that they were granted a patent over something so obvious.

so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)

Well, if it is written in a tangible medium, then yes it can be copyrighted. If it is just a tell-tell, then I am afraid it is not. Though, if one copyrights a joke, then it is against its purpose and it won't be a joke anymore...

From here...

Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to the authors of "original works of authorship" fixed in any tangible medium of expression. The manner and medium of fixation are virtually unlimited. Creative expression may be captured in words, numbers, notes, sounds, pictures, or any other graphic or symbolic media. The subject matter of copyright is extremely broad, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and architectural works. Copyright protection is available to both published and unpublished works.

If you're going to ding Apple over patenting this sort of thing (and you should!), do it for the fact that they're patenting something that's obvious. If you're going to make an argument about the timing of things, at least check your dates before spouting off with wrong information, because so far as I can tell, the facts don't back you up.

The bezel patent was filed in July 2014. To the best of my recollection (and I'll admit I may be mistaken, so I'd welcome correction if anyone has better information), Samsung's "Edge" devices were the first to feature this sort of display, but the first of those was the Galaxy Note Edge, which wasn't unveiled until September 2014, two months after the patent had been filed. The S6 Edge and subsequent devices weren't even announced until the following year, meaning that the patent was filed well before any of those products had gone public. If there were any other rivals doing this sort of thing 4 years ago as you claimed, I can't find any evidence of it.

Again, feel free to take Apple to task for patenting things that should never have been allowed to get through the system, but check the relevant dates before you make factually incorrect claims about the timing of events.

In terms of the fingerprint sensor in the screen, I'm not aware that anyone else has done that yet. There were rumors that Samsung tried to do that with the Galaxy 8 but could not make it work reliably.

Basically I don't care about Apple. I just think that the patent application process should include the question "could a 3 year old come up with the idea?" and if the answer is yes, throw it out on principle.

I don't think they are patenting the general idea of a bezel free display which would be kind of dumb since there are already bezel free displays, or are you are assuming that creating a bezel free display is a trivial undertaking? ... because I'm pretty sure the underlying engineering is beyond a 3 year old. The same goes for developing a method of scanning fingerprints in three dimensions, either through a display which is what they'd have to do if the display covers the entire frontal real-estate of the device or by integrating a 3D sensor into the display. But don't take my word for it, feast your eyes: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... Or better yet, borrow a three year old and see if the toddler can explain that document to you.

It has human-readable instructions on the medium, along with the digital data.

It is exactly this that is described in US Patent 8,163,403.

CORRECTION: My link is accurate, but the US Patent is 8,085,304.

It has human-readable instructions on the medium, along with the digital data.

It is exactly this that is described in US Patent 8,163,403.

Storing digital on film negatives makes sense. At a bare minimum, it is equivalent ounce-for-ounce to a CD-ROM. That's if each pixel is binary. This is film we're talking about, with a huge dynamic range, so storing the digital with grayscale pixels to represent, say, hexadecimal values, increases the storage capacity by leaps and bounds without changing the weight of the medium.

And, with a human-readable portion, instructions for interpretation of the pixels (digital data) are written on the media itself.

All of this is covered by US Patent 8,085,304. Link to Patent, describing it clearly.

Just as I predicted, it has a desktop-like interface which users interact with via a docking accessory. This has been kicked around since before the Ubuntu phone R&D, but now that Android has better support for multiple windows, it's becoming a practical reality.

The real question is whether this patent will be granted to Apple (they filed it 5 years after Ubuntu Phones began development). Android O already added features specifically for this kind of interaction, we have the Andromium products and Dex, etc. Will all of that be stolen away by patent shenanigans?

Seriously though, how can a golf ball have 11 patents on it?

Read Costco's reply to the court, in which each patent is listed along with Acushnet's claims and Costco's rebuttal. You can look the patents up online at the USPTO web site. Let's look at a few, shall we?

Patent# 6,994,638 - Golf balls comprising highly-neutralized acid polymers.
Abstract
A golf ball comprising a core comprised of a polymer containing an acid group fully-neutralized by an organic acid or a salt, a cation source, or a suitable base thereof, the core having a first Shore D hardness, a compression of no greater than about 90, and a diameter of between about 1.00 inches and about 1.64 inches; and a cover layer comprising ionomeric copolymers and terpolymers, ionomer precursors, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, polybutadiene rubber, balata, grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, non-grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, single-site polymers, high-crystalline acid polymers and their ionomers, or cationic ionomers.

What is claimed is:

1. A golf ball comprising: a core comprising a center and an outer core layer, the center comprising a thermoset polybutadiene rubber composition having a first hardness; and the outer core layer comprising a polymer comprised of an acid group fully-neutralized by an organic acid or a salt of the organic acid, and a cation source or a suitable base of the cation source; and having a second hardness; and an inner cover layer and an outer cover layer comprising ionomeric copolymers and terpolymers, ionomer precursors, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, polybutadiene rubber, balata, grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, non-grafted metallocene-catalyzed polymers, single-site polymers, high-crystalline acid polymers and their ionomers, polyurethnnes, polyureas, polyurethane-ureas; polyurea-urethanes; or cationic ionomers; wherein the first hardness is from about 50 Shore A to about 55 Shore D and first hardness is less than the second Shore D hardness by at least about 10 points.

Here's Costco's rebuttal:

11. Costco is not infringing any valid claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,994,638 (“the ’638patent”). Acushnet has accused Costco of infringing claim 1 of the 638 patent. Costco’s sales of the KS golf ball do not constitute infringement of claim 1 of the 638 patent, however, because, among other things, the Shore D hardness of the center core of the KS ball is not “at least about 10 points” less than the Shore D hardness of the outer core.
12. The 638 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 and/or 112. The claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, for example, in light of U.S. Patent No. 6,468,169 and other prior art publications and activities

Clearly, a lot of chemistry work went into this patent to make the balls have a certain elasticity. Costco says that their balls do not have the same properties, therefore they did not infringe upon this claim.

Here's another:

Patent# 8,123,632 - Multi-layer golf ball
Abstract
Golf balls consisting of a dual core and a dual cover are disclosed. The dual core consists of an inner core layer formed from a rubber composition and an outer core layer formed from a highly neutralized polymer composition.

Here's the claim in question:

"17. A golf ball consisting essentially of: an inner core layer formed from a rubber composition and having a diameter of from 1.100 inches to 1.400 inches, a center hardness (H.sub.center) of 50 Shore C or greater, and an outer surface hardness of 65 Shore C or greater; an outer core layer formed from a highly neutralized polymer composition and having an outer surface hardness (H.sub.outer core) of 75 Shore C or greater; an inner cover layer formed from a thermoplastic composition and having a material hardness (H.

What do you mean by "public usage"? Usage of a technique is not in itself prior art, but if the usage is public in the sense that someone has documented it publicly in some way, then that documentation could be prior art.

Some detail about USPTO's criteria for deciding what "publication" qualifies: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offi...

This appears to be one(?) of them... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... ...And if you can read and fully comprehend all that without, (A) Being a patent attorney, (B) Hiring a patent attorney, or (C) Having waaaaay more time on your hands than you probably should, you're doing better than I am. -Sigmon

It was filed on November 21, 2000, though it looks like it was approved February 6, 2007.

It seems to me that online services have nothing to worry about here.

The patent has two independent claims. Claim 1 includes "command output device to transfer [data] onto blank media". (The patent envisions burning and mailing custom disks).

Claim 8 includes "command a printer to print a mailing label".

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

The patent can be found here. As some other have mentioned this cold be used for anything such as in manufacturing.

For pretty much anything but an e-cig. It's a container standing right up. Now maybe an e-pipe...

Apple just invented the floating wick candle

The Patent claim:

A chamber body [check]
is to receive therein a substance that is to be vaporized or sublimated into a vapor. [check]
A plate whose bottom face rests on the substance inside the chamber body [check]
is temperature regulated, e.g., using a heater therein, [check]
which releases heat directly above the substance that lies below. [check]
The plate slides downward as the substance is consumed [check]
by vaporization or sublimation. [check]
Other embodiments are also described and claimed.[others better check]

The patent can be found here. As some other have mentioned this cold be used for anything such as in manufacturing.

My sincerest apologies for the previous text only link.

Science reporting sucks balls these days - how about a link to the actual patent.

My jaw would drop to the floor every time the "AYDS diet candy" commercial came on the radio. There was no secret that we were in the middle of a devastating AIDS epidemic, but apparently a whole bunch of people didn't quite hear it.

The name had been trademarked since 1946. The term AIDS was first publicly used Sept 24, 1982, the same year as the commercial you linked to.

I've always had an issue with the idea that software patents are magically different.

In theory, a patent doesn't block an idea, but an implementation. In practice, patents are written as broad as possible to cover as much implementations as possible. In all fields, you are trying to patent an idea that you think is novel.

I like to point to actual 'physical' patents because people tend to idealize them as opposed to software patents.
Let's take something simple, yet very innovative. The coffee cup sleeve... meant to make hot cups easier to hold.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

It's best to look at the claims section. Give it a read. It's written very generally and for good reason. If you could bypass the patent by adding a groove to the cardboard or something like that or just using a different material, the patent would be useless. And the coffee cup sleeve is simple, yet definitely novel because we've had cups for a very long time and yet this device did solve a real world problem.

Software patents aren't any different.

Have a look at a 'software' patent. Amazon's one-click patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Again read the claims sections. Written just as generally to encompass as much as possible.
If you want to talk about it within a specific implementation. It talks about buttons and shopping cart model... in a similar way that the coffee cup sleeve talks about cups and bands...

I think it's legit to have an issue with our patent system in general.
What I don't understand is the idea that software patents are somehow special. If people think software patents protect ideas instead of implementations, then I think hardware patents do the same in practice.

I've filed a few software patents before and what do you think a person would file a patent for in the case of detecting someone is driving. You probably listed the main ways in a comment on slashdot. You don't think a patent lawyer is going to list all those way in the claims of a patent they're filing? They're going to list all those way in the claims as broadly as possible, so any 'practical' implementation will be patented. No different from a hardware patent.

Just for fun, I found the Apple patent and look at the claims.
https://www.google.com/patents...
Yeop, they patent the major practical motion detection (GPS, celluar, accelorometer...)

I've always had an issue with the idea that software patents are magically different.

In theory, a patent doesn't block an idea, but an implementation. In practice, patents are written as broad as possible to cover as much implementations as possible. In all fields, you are trying to patent an idea that you think is novel.

I like to point to actual 'physical' patents because people tend to idealize them as opposed to software patents.
Let's take something simple, yet very innovative. The coffee cup sleeve... meant to make hot cups easier to hold.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

It's best to look at the claims section. Give it a read. It's written very generally and for good reason. If you could bypass the patent by adding a groove to the cardboard or something like that or just using a different material, the patent would be useless. And the coffee cup sleeve is simple, yet definitely novel because we've had cups for a very long time and yet this device did solve a real world problem.

Software patents aren't any different.

Have a look at a 'software' patent. Amazon's one-click patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

Again read the claims sections. Written just as generally to encompass as much as possible.
If you want to talk about it within a specific implementation. It talks about buttons and shopping cart model... in a similar way that the coffee cup sleeve talks about cups and bands...

I think it's legit to have an issue with our patent system in general.
What I don't understand is the idea that software patents are somehow special. If people think software patents protect ideas instead of implementations, then I think hardware patents do the same in practice.

I've filed a few software patents before and what do you think a person would file a patent for in the case of detecting someone is driving. You probably listed the main ways in a comment on slashdot. You don't think a patent lawyer is going to list all those way in the claims of a patent they're filing? They're going to list all those way in the claims as broadly as possible, so any 'practical' implementation will be patented. No different from a hardware patent.

Just for fun, I found the Apple patent and look at the claims.
https://www.google.com/patents...
Yeop, they patent the major practical motion detection (GPS, celluar, accelorometer...)

Tell them about it - http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacg...

its the dual radio antennas that are being patented. Because adding more than one Antenna is considered "innovation" these days.

The patent they are referring to simply combines multiple antennas (2 or more) with multiple SIMs (2 or more). That's what Apple claimed as 'innovation'. It could be a new idea because it is not exactly dual antennas or dual SIMs. The innovation should be able to scale more than just 2 antennas and 2 SIMs at the same time. Thus, it is possible that the way to deal with these multiple antennas and SIMs could be different from dealing with dual.

Anyway, I still think that the patent technology is a bit too vague because Apple wants to cover every possible ways of innovation in this type now...

Sorry, I meant to add a hyperlink to an example of such research but mangled the HTML.

To be fair though, RFCs aren't software. If I write an RFC defining how software to teleport beer should work that is one thing, but actually writing the software and making it work is another matter.

I look at RFCs kind of like patents. They formally describe methods, behaviors, research, or innovations of something related to the internet. They let everyone know of an idea so that everyone implementing that idea has a basis for things to work together. And they allow people to build upon those ideas in creating derivative works.

If you look at RFC561 there is even a sample email message. Shiva Ayyadurai might have created the first full and complete email system as we know it today, but he didn't create the concept of email. Even the Smithsonian National Museum of American History says as much:

Exchanging messages through computer systems, what most people call âoeemail,â predates the work of Ayyadurai. However, the museum found that Ayyaduraiâ(TM)s materials served as signposts to several stories about the American experience.

But there's a difference between having an idea and actually building something.

The USPTO would differ with you on that idea.

That was my thought, but the document has a Kind Code of 'A1', Patent Application Publication. A design patent has a Kind Code of 'S'.

Except...it IS worth mockery.

http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?D...

They're trying to patent a paper bag with handles.

Please, if I'm missing some stunning new Apple magic here, let me know.