Slashdot Mirror
Another Garbage Patent
*no comment* writes "Literally "garbage patent" that is, Apple was rewarded a patent for the "Garbage" icon in Mac OS X. The patent documents can be found at the USPTO by clicking here. More on this and other Apple patents are in this article over at the macobserver."
Is I'm looking at a Slashdot ad of Xerox.
fp
their own company symbol for trash now.
For the whole garbage OS that was MS-DOS
Je t'aime Stéphanie
I guess that means I'll have to rethink selling the trash icon to Microsoft.
Not many posts yet. Will the crowd spew a diatribe against intellectual property in general, or will they fawn over one of their favorite companies? (After all, it's gotta be all right if Red Hat or Google do it...)
Patent the "Start" button!! QUICK QUICK before Jeff Bezos comes out of the woodwork!! :)
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
Does microsoft have a patent on the "Recycle Bin" icon??
Design patents aren't that big of a deal. If I designed a toaster, I'd get a design patent on *my* toaster so nobody else can call it their own. And no, I can't collect royalties or sue everyone that makes toast. It's different from a trademark, but IANAL so I'm not sure of the differences.
Ever see those infomercials where they start off with "our new, innovative, *patented* design..." Well, odds are they've got a design patent.
Why the hell is this front page news?
SIGFAULT
Linux, being garbage, is prior art. Sorry Apple!
Pics or it didn't happen. ...oh wait.
Download Opera 9 (in the BETA forum)
But hey, this *is* innovative as it now pops up from the bottom (or left, or right) side of the screen and annoyingly jumps around as you try and drag stuff to it... unlike that pesky "fixed on the dessktop" Trash of the pre-OS X era... which of course Microsoft ripped off. take something perfectly usable and change it to be less so.
yawn.
This was probably done in collusion with Children's Television Workshop (CTW) so that they can prevent someone from making an OS X version of "The Grouch", one of the greatest MacOS hacks ever.
It was great. Empty the trash, and Oscar the Grouch would come out of the trashcan singing. Then CTW sued the the muppety pants off the author and it pretty much disappeard.
Share and Enjoy!
There is this possibility: countless children twist it into a legal reason for not having to take the garbage out.
...
i wonder if they patented their garbage monopoly
For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
Copying articles from other sites is questionable to begin with, but at least you could do a better job disguising the title title.
/me drags patent to the trash
I can't believe the USPTO can be so ignorant considering all the prior art. This patent thing is getting really bad and spectacularly stupid.
Moves like these are only detrimental to society and nothing else. Instead of promoting development, they only foster stagnation and work against the common man which is simply spectacularly stupid.
All your icons are belong to us...
What I can't wait for is when Apple patents the space character in file names. Whew! Imagine the royalties on the "Program Files" (c:\Progra~1 to 8.3 folks out there) folder.
This just in: Apple patents the technique of "double-click launching" to launch applications visually.
I'm afraid of Apple lawsuits.
As a result, I've just been leaving my trash on the floor, just outside the garbage can.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
If not I'm making one right now!!!
Check my .sig soon to know when its available for download.
I would think it would make more sense to trademark the icon, not patent it. Wouldn't that give them a little more control over copies?
Although I hate hearing about google, red hat, apple, etc. owning some common detail such as Instant Messaging; one needs to keep in mind that these patents are often the only incentive-protecting mechanism that are available to companies.
If companies couldn't get a patent for something it would be much harder for them to profit and thus they wouldn't develop items/technology as quickly or at all.
To offset this "monopoly" that is legally created, patents have expiration dates. For example: Tylenol(acetaminophen) once cost 'too much' but once it's patent ran out other companies rushed in and the price dropped significantly.
Paying that higher price for some feature on a laptop sucks but would you rather not be able to buy a laptop because no one wanted to produce/invent it?
--Thei Antispamist A useless endevor that will cer
Hey kid, are you calling us names? Your reasoning sounds like a that of a Berlusconi's Forza Italia drone... cut it out thanks!
BTW we're much smarter than what your witty commentt implies... go get a clue, troll
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
I don't see a single post defending this obviously frivolous patent, or Apple for filing it. I do, however, see your post assuming that people will defend it.
Methinks this says more about you than about the Slashdot population in general.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I'm so lucky my surname isn't MacIntosh (McIntosh) or anything Mac :)
Apparently my appendage goes here
can someone explain me this? I'm too lazy to read the article... but the comments sound funny.
We'd just say they patented the wrong icon, as it should have been the Windows logo as the Recycle Bin.
I don't see how this utter idoicy. Apple has this trash can, and they don't want people just borrowing that icon for, say, a Linux system. If you don't use their icon, what's the big deal? If everyone just uses their own icons, then we don't have to worry about "confused customers" and such, which is (I'd assume) the intent or explanation for this patent. If you were an artist, you would like to have some control over how your art work gets reproduced, no?
Just my 2% of $1.00
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
The file of this patent contains at least one drawing executed in color. ...
Does this mean you can scan the image from the patent and use it as an icon?
I can hear the defence in court now..."No your honour I didn't copy their icon, I copied their patent".
tcpa SUX!!!!
Before everyone gets their panties bunched, the article says it is a "design patent". Design patents are an odd category of patents which really are awarded for things that should be under copyright in the first place. They also are very specific; for example, I knew someone who had a "design patent" on an underwater headphone, but of course, only if it was in a very specific shape as well. Besides the greater specificy and focus on "form" and "appearence" rather than function (which is why it really is something that copyright applies better to, but I guess the patent office wanted more money), they have shorter lives and generally are handled differently.
After reading the article, I got the impression that they were only doing this so that later, some idiot who convinced the USPTO to give them a similar patent could not sue them. Look at all the ridicilous patents and the inevitable lawsuits. Hey, I would also patents as much as I could to future proof myself agains frivalous lawsuits.
just my 2 cents.
later,
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
I think I love you.
Cooking an apple, though? Where the hell are you from, Australia? What does koala taste like?
While I'm sure expressing a basic fact like this may seem like devil's advocacy, I will do so anyway: Patents have played a huge role in medicine development. I don't agree with the notion that they're bad in general. Companies make a much greater profit on patented medicines, hence they have a much greater incentive to develop them. It's not any wonder that most pharmaceutical companies have based their operations in America. If a company could not hold intellectual property to a medicine, would there be as much drive for discovering new medicines when the invention would simply become public domain and sold generic? I don't think so.
I'm starting to agree with the people who say patents are bad in general. This is utter idiocy.
You're falling into the "Patents Are Bad" trap. It states that simply because a small handful of patents are bad (eg: Amazon One Click, Using Images in an Online Catalog, Swinging Sideways, etc), all patents are bad. That's like saying that because MS software is buggy, all closed-source software is buggy.
Keep this in mind before flaming anyone.
irb(main):001:0>
This is repeated every single time Apple behaves like a corporation (since that's what it is) instead of a lovable gang of fashionable geeks. Yet Microsoft is evil when they do things like these, but Apple is just... well, being Apple.
And BTW, why didn't the SNORT hole make it to the /. front page? Two serious vulnerabilities in one week too much for the frail ego? God forbid IE develops yet another hole that changes my wallpaper at the behest of evil hackers in Lithuania. I'd be reading about it for the next five weeks.
Flamebait and offtopic. We aim to please.
The article reminds us all that Apple once "lost" the UI battle by relying on copyright. These days, if you want to hold claim you need more powerful stuff, and they are now weilding the patent hammer.
So that begs the question; what do they intend to do now with their shiny new patents? Go after someone? Defend themselves against copyright attacks? They seeing something coming down the tracks that the rest of us have missed?
This is looking like a much more tough stance from a company that has sort of allowed themselves to be swept under the rug for 20 years. And I'm not sure it is about market share or even royalties. Maybe more about patent/IP swapping...but swapping with whom? Who has something that Apple wants for trade?
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
I just have to point out that BMW and Mercedes control less that 3% of the auto market, and on top of that car sales are down over 16% this year. Does this mean that they are going out of business too?
office seems to realize that Apple IS GARBAGE :)
We applaud Apple for using and helping open-source.
Now they Patent Cron??
That is going way too far. Apple isn't even a complete monopoly and they are pretending to be one.
Imagine what would have happened if apple was the one with the monopoly.
I say we boycot Apple and make our own windozless OSXless PCs like real men should.
Hey! You're just the fucker who posted the above O'day letter, arn't you? You sly devil!
But don't think they're going to take this lying down. They'll patent their recycle bin icon and call it "environmentally friendly waste disposal system icon" or whatever. (Get it? recycling)
...this is a Design Patent. This means that it offers protection to a very specific, usually decorative design. There are no text claims, just drawings. Design patents are often used for things like cellphone cases, as each manufacturer tries to lock up distinctive visual fefatures to differentiate otherwise similar items. They are also found in the food industry -- novelty shapes for pasta and breakfast cereal are often protected this way. So, realistically, this is not some huge, evil attempt to patent the very idea of a garbage can icon.
As I loaded the front page and saw the Apple patent (patents are bad, remember?) there was a plain-text ad at the top that linked to:
c omd ex.h tme q_se arch.asp
http://www.invention.com
http://www.litmanlaw.
http://www.gilmanresearch.com/pages/944483/in
http://www.isc-online.com/forms/inventorinfor
http://www.qualitypatent.com
How low can you go!
Steve Jobs: We need to file some more patents quickly. My stock options are dropping.
Terrified Employee: Well sir...umm...(looks around room) how about our round corners?
Jobs: Already in heavy use. You're fired
Employee 2: How about the idea of color coding computers to go with your decor?
Jobs: Nah, we already cornered the artist market. You're fired.
Employee 3: Well....how about this (picks up trash can)
Jobs: Brilliant! Get a picture of that to the Patent office as soon as possible.
Apple will license the Garbage Can to Microsoft in return for the Analogy, Metaphor, and Simili, all unique and proprietary Microsoft Technologies. The announcement was seen as a win for Apple.
Hey! You're the fucker who just posted the Apple comment to Mr. O'day below, aren't you? You sly devil!
Design patents are offered for those marks in which companies have proprietary rights. Because Apple won't be using the Garbage Icon as an indication of goodwill , it wouldn't qualify for Trademark status.
All in all this is much ado about nothing.
But all software is buggy. If you think it isn't buggy, then you haven't found the bugs yet.
It doesn't matter if Apple is a favorite company of mine. I love Apple like I love my iBook but thais patent business is ridiculouslly out of control. The worst case of how bad this patent business has gotten are the companies that search out for patents and sue people to add to their bottom line.
Pangea IP activelly seeks out ecommerce firms and sues them because PanIP has a vaguelly worded patent that is letting them settle with small ecommerce firms for thousands of dollars a year. Patents like PanIP means if you create a candy store online, you can potentially get sued. Check out the Anti PanIP Fight Back Crew to see how serious one patent can be.
What really needs to be stopped is the Patent Office from issuing another ridiculous patent. OS and interface patents are hurting human-machine interactions because people have to bend over backward now to avoid patents. As a webdesigner, I really hope I'm not liabel for some sort of design I implement sheerly because some idiot has a Patent application on my design. I hope congress can frigging pay attention to this problem and how serious it is.
Err yeah. But BMW and Mercedes don't suck.* ;)
http://www.happynowhere.net/extras.html
Click on "Apple Switch Parody" to download. (40mb or so)
*of course this is all a matter of personal opinion. . .
Furthermore, if you really want to piss & moan about how everyone would jump on MS for doing something this underhanded then you may want to check this one out: Utility (not Design) patent 5,757,371 Taskbar with start menu from (you guessed it) MS.
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
I like to suggest a more dramatic Slashdot icon for 'patents'...
the current does not look enough like "suppressing and bonding of the small programmer"! Thats how I, as a independend programmer, feel the effect of patents.
Mark
The USPTO defines "design patents" here.
For ADHD slashdotters:
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture...
In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171)...
Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute. Furthermore, subject matter that could be considered offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality is not proper subject matter for a design patent application (35 U.S.C. 171 and 37 CFR 1.3).
According to the PTO web site:
So, it doesn't cover any functionality. In fact, if the design relates closely to functionaly, then that weakens the patent. In this case, I'd say the design of the garbage can icon pretty precisely relates to the functionalty of throwing away files.
With this in mind, it seems that it's probably a pretty toothless patent. Don't lose any sleep over it.
Oh I love trash! I love it because it's trash!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Just wait until the Apple fans come out of the woodwork...
Seems like everybody's getting patents these days...
Don't save your orgasms for Heaven; Heaven knows we need them here.
Yeah and you know what assuming does, don't you?
It makes you look like a fucking retard!
Right-click on the dock (not on a dock icon - click on the divider) and you'll bring up a menu. Turn magnification off, and it won't jump around on you. ;)
Don't complain about the GUI if you don't know how to use it.
-T
Actually, they deserve it (assuming they thought it up.)
Remember that this was a time of command line goodness where you had to type in commands, and had no confirmation on things like "del *.*".
There were plenty of OSes where you had to "expunge" files that were merely deleted before they'd actually be erased, but to simply drag a file (or folder) into the trash, my goodness, how awesome that was.
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
At least we recycle at MS. ^_^
secured a US$150-million investment from MS...
For those that may mistakenly believe this tidbit of twisted history, the fact is MS was forced to pay Apple for copyright violations to settle a lawsuit. MS did not invest in Apple. Nice troll, otherwise, except it's a cut/paste from an older one.
i meant seriously buggy. Like Win98 and how the clock loses time the longer the machine goes between reboots.
Equally, you could substitute the word "insecure" and get the same general idea.
There will be a point when the whole system will have to be scrapped or totally overhauled. More such "garbage" patents will bring this day closer. I can't wait.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
it was micro$o~1 that stole the idea and look of the recycle bin directly from macos. apple sued them, but (in my oppinion: unrightfuly) lost
i think that apple are simply trying to make sure to the maximum possible extent that micro$~1 (or anyone else) doesn't steal that again.
the cool look of macos x is what sells a lot of apples, they paid a lot of money for the design, i doubt they want anyone copying it off for free.
Hostes alienigieni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
Thomson's brainless analysis was posted on February 20th in the Financial Post. As for the analysis itself:
1) Revenue fell from a year earlier. Making Apple the only computer company to have been hit by the sagging economy.
2) ... the same time Apple's sales were falling, PC sales rose. This tells us nothing about Apple's performance in comparison with competing companies. It only reveals Apple's performance vs. the aggregate of all competing companies. This includes not only Dell, Gateway, and HP, but also Bob's Cheep Komputer Shack. Such comparisons don't tell us whether the overal PC sales growth was fueled by one or two companies or was solid across the board (which it wasn't).
3) ... there aren't any new iMacs in Apple's future. I'll reread that statement and laugh when the next iMac (or the next consumer Mac, whatever it's called) ships. Does this crystal ball have a "reset" button?
4) ...has recently undergone a restructuring and is slowly fading into nothingness. I'm not sure what restructuring he's referring to here, but I'm also not sure how restructuring equals a slow fade to nothingness. Restructuring happens all the time in large organizations, and it can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how and why it is implemented. As to nothingness, why are there so many new O'Reilly books about OS X, so much interest in Apple on Slashdot (vs. 3 years ago), and so many positive reviews of Apple products in publications that include PC Magazine and InfoWorld?
As a final point, Apple, like any large company, engages in intellectual property development and protection as a matter of habit. It's not as if someone at Apple says, "Oh, shit! We'd better get off our asses and come up with a design patent on the trashcan!" The process can take *years* to implement, and at any given time, I'm sure Apple, like any other computer hardware/software company, is pursuing dozens of claims.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I don't see a single post defending this obviously frivolous patent, or Apple for filing it
Oh, for crying out loud..
It's a design patent, not a utility patent. Go learn the difference before you call it frivolous.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
shithead
Now wash your hands.
I'm starting to agree with the people who say patents are bad in general. This is utter idiocy.
In this particular case, though, I don't know what extra protection does a patent give them. That icon (as designed) is or can be already protected by copyright, I assume, which lasts, let me see, forever.
What's the point of getting these design patents? Or, even better, what is the point of awarding ornamental design patents, other than a source of funding for the USPTO?
*because thats what real men do*
Interesting commenting, all things considered. A GUI should be easy enough to use with very little concern or training. For a company that prides themselves on their GUI, and releases oodles of documents detailing the design process, and criticizing the interfaces of other OSes, you'd think they'd not make such a silly mistake. They compromised usability for flash, and the result is confusion and anger amongst new users.
Speaking of interface design, does anyone else think AutoCAD/Mechanical Desktop is the most poorly designed software ever?
The best part about this is that after the patent expires, EVERYONE can use their garbage can icon.
Heh.
Education is the silver bullet.
The real reason to patent the garbage can picture is to keep slashdot from choosing to use it to refer to macos in the future instead of the shiny silver apple.
The trash can in my room looks just like that, does that count as prior art?
Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
Right click on a Mac? I think you're lost. ;-) My Macs only have one idiot-proof button. I have to ctrl-click which is ooohhhh so much more intuitive than right-clicking. ;-)
The problem with software patents is lack of code disclosure. If the patent judges could compare line-by-line a MS .asp page feature with a php/apache page, they would laugh most of this stuff out of court. Unfortunately, they can't force them to include the patented code, because code is also protected under copyright and trade secret. The patent office is allowing a "black box" style patent--without even proof of a working system. They used to require detailed specs and proof of actual working devices. Now companies like Rambus can draw some pretty pictures and then prosecute the people who actually spend time and resources building the thing. This goes aginst 200 years of precedent!
That alone should be enough to get these thrown out, but patents don't work that way. They are assumed to be sacred, holy, creative genius by the courts until someone spends the time and money to strike each one down. Our wonderfull legal system doesn't allow the courts to "see" what goes on in the real world, only what comes into court--they can't even overturn bad Laws until someone's hanged for breaking it!
Am I the only one who thinks that dumping floppies into trash should REFORMAT instead of EJECTING?:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
The US Patent Office has a page on "What can be Patented"
Some interesting excerpts for those to lazy to click through:
"...any person who '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,' subject to the conditions and requirements of the law."
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful."
"... patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc..."
I dont think a trashcan icon fits that.
MS got where it is today for basically two reasons. Great timing and shrewd market decisions... and forcing out competition and thus the annoying need to spend money on design, implementation, Q&A, etc. Whether through lawyering or strong arm tactics with vendors and distributors they proved something right (once again). Not only are most people too stupid for their own good, but that a thinking and informed public is the enemy of innovation and productivity. When you support companies that would rather choke out competition rather than beat it out through superior quality and performance, you are adding to the problem.
It's a photograph, right? It's a photograph of a trash can that somebody else manufactured .
Can you patent pictures of stuff other people made?
Can't the guy who made the trash can being photographed sue for, um, prior art?
What about the guy who invented trash cans to begin with!? Where's his fat bucket of cash?
That said, it's a great metaphor for the USPTO.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
/.ers are contradicting themselves! what a bunch of loonies!
x4
that Apple doesn't check the Garbage file on the Gibson...
It would be SO easy....
Most people ive intoduced to OS X are completely capable of dragging to a magnified dock. It requires no more skill than should be required for a computer. Anyone who is anoyed by the dock's behavior is probably competent enough to have right/control/hold-clicked the dock, looked at the dock prefs in the system preferences, or looked at the apple menu for a solution.
Someone who hates the dock so much upon first using it for something as simple as that clearly has preconceived ideas about it.
It's a design patent, not a utility patent. Go learn the difference before you call it frivolous.
I am glad to catch your post!
Apparently I was wrong thinking that Patents were for processes, not for designs. Was under the impression that Copyright and Trademark were for designs.
Please enlighten?
Thanks in advance!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
please tell me where the bug is in the following software program:
-BEGIN-
#include <stdio.h>
int main (int argc, char** argv)
{
printf("Hello, world!\n");
return 0;
}
-END-
I recommend you go back to your cave.
In twenty years when this patent expires, Apple will probably replace the trash can icon with a turbo-fusion incinerator icon.
I love trash.... I love it because it's trash
- Oscar
Anyone remember that extension (think it was from system 6)
I haven't seen your stdio.h or libc ;)
On the bright side, Amazon can't make one-click trash anymore.
Table-ized A.I.
I was pretty excited about the Apple music service that was mentioned this morning... but this article indicates some patents on an AAC DRM technology. If they go that route, to hell with them. I don't have a single illegally acquired song on my laptop, desktop, or ipod. But if I they think I'll pay for a song if it won't work on all of my computers without any hassle whatsoever then they are terribly stupid.
I certainly hope they realize that the technology has to be _better_ than what's currently available. I can buy a used CD for $8, rip it, and never worry about compatibility. Any step backwards is going to fail.
People who are comfortable pirating are going to pirate anyways. They could care less about some stupid DRM. Those people are lost consumers as far as the record companies are concerned. Why they insist on designing safeguards into the systems that will be used exclusively by non-pirates is beyond me. It's such a waste. Their system is already more expensive than the pirate service - and they want to make it less functional too? There's a business model for you...
My prediction: if Apple uses meaningful DRM the service will fail. I can already beat their system in price performance with current tools. If they don't use DRM, they may have a hit.
We had to write a unix shell script that replaced the rm command with one that moved the files to a .garbage directory. We also had to write an 'erase' script that removed thise files from the .garbage. Everybody in my undergrad CIS course had to write this, and it is only a few lines long. That pretty much proves the 'obviousness' of this stupid patent.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Employeers will now keep my resume longer!
Table-ized A.I.
You seemed to miss the menu option for ejecting disks.
loved patents so much, he lost his genitalia in an unfortunate intellectual property incident.
The whole patent thing is a joke.p ://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6517026.WKU.&OS=PN/6517026&RS=PN/ 6517026 ..
http://www.invention.com/smith509.htm
htt
U.S. Patent : #6,517,026
Foreign Patents: Pending
As attorney for the inventor of the innovative Vertical Take-Off and Landing Vehicle.
Check it out, it's hilarious! That patent site is the funniest site on the net.
Come on folks. This is a stupid design patent. It isn't a functional patent at all.
See, the patent number starts with a D. It is like a super-copyright for a specific design. Bottles, cars, etc. tend to have design patents on them.
I know this is a design patent, but will i have to get rid of my metal mesh trashcan b/c it looks like the aqua one. I hope not, it really matches my desk.
I can actually see Apple using this. What better to stop the Windows users that have made and distributed programs that imitate OS X's Aqua interface than to begin by having another legal device to stop them with?
You'd think the Northern California latte liberals at Apple would care more about their environment than Microsoft folks do, but that isn't the case. While Apple's filling up our landfills with garbage bits, Microsoft recycles them so they can be used again.
Best Buy can have you arrested
SO, you are saying we should swallow this bitter pill because it will give Apple a shot in the arm?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Flamebait"? Some people just can't take a joke.
are you sure they didn't mean they wanted to have a patent on THROWING Macs in the garbage?? Now that would be interesting...
... Can we all get the stupid trash can off our desktops now? Honestly, does anyone leave it on and actually go rescue things from it? When I click delete, I want the file deleted, not moved somewhere to be found by a nosy roomate or something.
Just because something is cute doesn't mean it needs to be in gnome/kde/windows/apple/gem/whatever desktop.
When people first encounter lack of trash on a unix box, they come running to the sysadmin, who tells them "You cannot undelete files, there gone there gone."
Data isnt something to be hap-hazardly pushed about and retrieved from garbage cans. Back it up, keep track of it if its important. Trash cans encourage a lax attitude toward work habits on the computer.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell
These aren't "innovative devlopments that deserve to be protected", this is Look'n'Feel Wars round XIV. I figured that we were done with this shtuph a decade ago. I guess not. (Good thing I renamed the "trash can" to "toilet" on my Atari ST, I might just need to reboot it sooooon...)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Sorry, absolutely right. I've been using the Logitech optical wireless 4-button mouse for so long, I forgot that the right button is really a control-click.
-T
I can't believe this. Slashdot editors post these articles purporting to expose problems in the patent system, and they don't even know what a design patent is, or how it differs from a utility patent.
I cannot believe this site thinks it has ANY credibility whatsoever. It is a total farce.
Hems, Taco, crisd et al - GET A CLUE.
My brain nearly melted.
It's not like I'm walking in dog shit.
incredible. I wonder Xerox came up with it first. That powerbook......oooooooooooooooo.....amazing technology!!!!
Say I OWN a trash can that looks like the one Apple uses.
I take a digital photo of it in a similar position and use it as an icon in a theme I use for my new Linux distro.
Am I legally screwed, or does it have to be a perfect duplicate?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
This may be a design patent; however according to this, "a design which simulates a well known, or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute."
I think a trash can might be a well known object.
These are patents on ornamental designs. This is fairly typical, and is used to protect how thinks look.
Jewelery, etc, often has ornamental design patents on it.
As for laptop design patents,
"While a design patent may be issued for a utilitarian article, such a patent may be obtained only to the extent that the ornamental features dominate the functional features. To the extent to which a design is predominately utilitarian in nature, it is not protectable by a design patent in the United States. "
The only thing the patents prevent you from doing is making something that looks exactly like say, a powerbook g4, such that an ordinary observer might purchase the "fake" product thinking it was the patented product.
I wouldn't worry much about it, since the only protectable parts are the parts of say, the trash icon, not found in the prior art.
My guess is that a copyright only protects that particular set of pixels. Apple's (and other) desktops are rapidly gaining scaling and other functions, and the design patent probably allows them more flexibility with protecting the look of their trashcan. I mean, if MS were to implement an inverse vector algorithm or something they could probably argue that they didn't copy Apple's stuff, but they did copy the design. This protects that.
But hey, IANAL, so what do I know.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
That's just the thing: In my sight, Macs have always been lacking logic, even before my experience on other OSs.
:)
Want to remove the floppy? Gee, how about using the same method I had used to *insert* the darned thing? No, you have to do something completely different.
That is not logic. I'm sure it's convenient after some fashion, but I always found the Apple UI to be full of such illogical inconsistencies. That's why so many US based PC users liken old school Mac users to the French.
FWIW, I think OS X is grand!
Ok, um, can anyone tell me why exactly people are wasting their time debating about a *TRASH* icon for useless macs? Just wondering.
Jolan Tru. (If you know what this means, you're a tru geek)
I wonder if this actually couldn't be considered to diminish the copyright. Once the patent expires, the public absolutely CAN use whatever the patent covered. If it happens to be copyrighted as well, wouldn't the copyright wind up having to be ended to avoid a sort of illegal lengthening of the patent term?
I doubt anyone'll fight over it with this, but it's worth looking into, I guess.
As for the additional protection, considering the 106 right in derivatives, I don't see what was gained by this either.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I was there & drafted some of the documents...your sources are colored by the big lies that Redmund buys.
You are correct about private documents, however. Too bad you choose to believe an MS spun press release over sealed court documents...too bad MS pumps out their spin, but since no one can stop it, dupes such as yourself consider it gospel. Apple kept silent...MS, as is their practice, went on a propoganda blitz to paint themselves as heros....investors...rather than admit they had to pay Apple to avoid punishment.
How many more examples would you like to try and dispute? How about the time in 1993 when MS claimed to have the world's largest networked group of employees? Seems their 2k workstation net was dwarfed by such other common entities as GE, which had over 5k service techs on one worldwide network to support their Medical Systems Division alone.
You've been drinking the MS kool-aid, and most likely work for one of their marketing agencies as well. Dream on, sucker.
That's more the jurisdiction of copyright and tradmark, not Patent. Besides, my parents had a wastebasket that looks just like that in my old bedroom at their place. What would Apple do if I went and got it, took a picture of it, and created a windows icon from it that people could use however they want?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Clickity Click.
Scroll down a bit for the download link..
No kidding, every time I try to get rid of my microsoft junk, it just comes right back...
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Over time nobody will give a damn about patent laws because they will infringe something no matter what the hell they do.
In my humble opinion, I think that nobody would notice a difference if the Patent Office were reorganized. They should write up patents on everything and auction them off a few 100 at a time on eBay to the highest bidder. Patents on compressed air! Apple pie! Certain arrangements of empty soda cans! It would be a good way for them to raise money for their reorganization (dissolution?), and companies could still get their garbage patent fix.
And nobody would really notice anything different from the way things are today.
OK, does anyone remember when Apple came out with the garbage can? I'll give you a hint: It was part of the whole package which signalled an entirely new era in computing.
That's significant. A new era! The beginning of something other than EVERYTHING that had proceeded it. (Yeah, Xerox notwithstanding. That's another story.) The garbage can WAS a completely different, new, and innovative idea.
Do they deserve a patent for it? Hmm. Tough call. Would I be as fair to Microsoft if they'd invented it? Tougher call--I've tried to be fair to MS when they do something creative or right, but it's been such a rare event that I can't promise unbiased commentary.
But as long as a general patent like this is legally valid, I'd say that this specific patent is valid. At the time, it was creative enough to change computing, and that's impressive.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Thanks for copying and pasting that trollish post of yours directly from the article involved in the recent post concerning Apple going out of business - http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/02/22/152252.sh tml?tid=107
Utility patents are for useful inventions. Machines that do things, methods for doing things, etc.
Copyrights are for original artistic works. BUT with regards to pictoral, sculptural, or graphic works, they must be non-functional.
Trademarks are for designs that indicate the source of a good or service used in commerce. Since the Trash isn't being used to identify products in commerce, it wouldn't qualify. The Apple logo would, OTOH.
Thus, a typeface is not copyrightable, because the letter shapes are arguably not sufficiently original, and are certainly graphic and functional, said function being to convey to people a particular letter.
Design patents apply to how things look, as opposed to how they function. There's some additional requirements (one relevant here being that the design might not be original enough)
Thus a typeface could receive a design patent, and basically they exist to fill in that gap in copyrights.
Of course, if you had a Banana Jr. computer that closely resembled the original Macintoshes, and Apple had a design patent on the case, then a design patent could serve a similar role to trademarks.
Note also that the types of protection that the various approaches convey can be significantly different.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
As patents get sillier, the jokes almost write themselves. I withdraw my joke on the grounds that it's just too easy.
Do you have a cite to anywhere that talks about CTW getting grouchy over The Grouch? I know if I read it on the internet it's true, but if I read it in two places I'm sure of it!
I know they did get ticked off over Evil Bert, but not until Bert was paired with Osama by some third party. The "inventor" took down the site eventually on his own initiative.
I'm just interested how an ostensibly non-greedy group like CPB (the parent) goes about protecting its intellectual property. They have been under increasing pressure from certain conservatives to pay their own way my marketing Barney and the like, though the public contributes just 15% of their budget and they broadcast and sell an extraordinary amout of commercial crud as it is. Anyway, obviously as their dependence on these revenues increases their legal defense will become more rabid.
Yeah, I had a copy of Oscar. Was it ever sold? How about the rocker scientist who came up with the flushing toilet sound for emptying the trash.... The modern Mac OS X is just so sober and dignified.
After the Mac had it's trash can, NeXT had it's recycler (in the dock). So actually no, Microsoft did not take Apple's trash can and make it a recycle bin. Jobs's company NeXT did that long before Microsoft did.
For those who don't know, Mac OS X is essentially NextStep with a lot of the Apple stuff hacked into it.
Anyway.. as far as the patent goes, it seems it is just on that very specific design of a trash can which I do not have a problem with. Notice that they even cited prior art because the claim doesn't seem to be that they are the first trash can, the claim seems to be that they are the first trashcan with this particular design.
um no, it says more about the slashdot crowd. Usually, in the eyes of slashdot, Microsoft products are built from clubbed baby harp seals, and every other company can do no wrong.
Actually, we are already toting a rather large import/export deficit of nearly 203 billion last year and last month was the largest on record deficit for one month to the tune of 40 billion. Does that mean something bad? No.
.com or tech. firm? Open source works because there are coders getting paid enough that they can support two jobs from that one salary...because their company makes too much...because of patents... :)
Ross Perot kept squawking about NAFTA taking jobs out of the US as we exported more than we import. That was true...we lost nearly 350,000 jobs to Mexico. BUT, what he was too short sided to see was the fact that Mexicans/etc. bought so many VCRs, etc., etc. that more than 450,000 jobs were created!. Overall benefit was greater.
And to those of you who think (like I do) that open source is the answer. How many open source projects do you think there would be if the author's weren't working at some
--Thei Antispamist A useless endevor that will cer
Cool! Thank you again!
So, is this how Apple is able to sue the crap out of anybody that makes anything that resembles one of their designs, like those iMacs (I think)?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
In addition, 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design to be patentable must be "original." Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute. Furthermore, subject matter that could be considered offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality is not proper subject matter for a design patent application.
Anyone want to tell me that a trash can for things you want to get rid of is, O-rig-inal? Looks more like a well known object to me. If a trash can is orignial and non-obvious then a picture of my go-nads is uncommon and inoffensive. The patent office is insane and might actually consider a porno motif for design patent. I'll send them the pictures right away. I'm in the money, I'm in the money.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Fuckoff, you derivative piece of shit.
Thank you Dan,
Someone who lives in a world where people don't give your family food and shelter because they are just nice. You have to work for it.
I would like to see these people saying "profit is not a right" decide not to pick up their paycheck! Not your right to get your paycheck? You were giving(developing) your time under the assumption/contract that you were going to get paid, right? How about if your employer decides that you don't have a right(patent) to your check....I bet u wouldn't just say 'well, it would be best for the economy as the product would be cheaper.'
Again,
thanks Dan. You give me hope.
--Thei Antispamist A useless endevor that will cer
Originally, the ability to eject disks by trashing them was a "hack" only intended for use internally. The UI designers did decide that it didn't make any sense and that being able to trash a mounted disk to eject it was wrong. So this feature was removed. The resulting annoyance of people who had gotten used to trashing disks to unmount them resulted in this feature getting put back in.
You could very easily get by using floppies without ever knowing that you could eject by trashing, however. As others have mentioned, "Eject Disk" (Command-E) was under the Special menu. "Put Away" (Command-Y) also worked, although the idea there is that something should be put back to where it came from. Usually you used "Put Away" for files.
Strangely they reference Windows 3.1 and OS/2 in their patent....
quoting..
"""
Other References
"Microsoft Windows 3.1 Users Guide;" Microsoft Corporation; pp. 3, 10, 13, 14, 20, 22, 48, 215 and 221; 1992.
Moscowitz et al.; "OS/2 2.1 Unleashed;" pp. 152-157, 193 and 222-229; 1993.
Corel Gallery Clipart Catalog, Corel Corp., photos of people, pp. C19-C20, 1995.
"""
wonder why???
So many cartoons represent garbage with crumpled papers and apple cores. It figures that a half-eaten Apple would end up associating itself with the trash. This is funny. I'll try to remember this for the next time some Apple-whacker starts telling me, as if I were utterly unaware of its very existence, of the inarguable superiority of his preferred platform. "Yes," I'll say, "Apple is so innovative, they even patented garbage. . . . No, it's not that it's an innovative technique, but it's that no one else would have ever thought of it. That's what makes it art. It's like the guy who patented silence, except more audacious."
of the timeline for the trashcan in MacOS, but AmigaOS had a trashcan from abotu 84 or 85 on through to now.
If I recall correctly, didn't they either trademark, or patent the label on the icon already. Which is why windows says "recycle bin" instead, and why it is locked as recycle bin and to change it you need to edit the registry. I might be wrong on that one, since the source was my highschool computers teacher, but it seems plausible, especially now.
"I am the Flail of God!" -Genghis Kahn
I just downloaded the patent to my OS X desktop, and threw it in the garbage. It gave me a warm feeling.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
None, those are totally irrelevant to this topic.
...thought so.
Giving in so easy?
Next thing you know, someone will be trying to patent hyperlinks or something.
First of all, profit is not a right.
Yes it is: the Declaration of Independence lists "pursuit of happiness" as a right. You have the right to pursue profits (if you can do so without infringing anybody else's rights), and you have the right not to be prevented from attaining them. Also, once you make a profit, it's your property and you have a right to property, too.
On the other hand, if your plan for happiness consists of "I'll let them do all the work and then I'll take advantage of the results," that is hardly consistent with all men being created equal; it is a society of slaves and masters.
And second... profit is demonstrably not a necessary part of software development and innovation...
If I don't profit, I can't afford to do it, QED. Sure, ideas are a dime a dozen, and I trip over dozens of the little things when I get out of bed in the morning. But guess what: if you want to turn one of them into a physical product or a typed-in program, it takes work, and that eats up time and resources and money that could have gone to other things. Now, if two dozen people come up with the same idea, but only one of them puts forth the effort to make the thing real, then why should the other 23 do-nothings get to share equally in the results?
Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
Did they follow the process? They got the patent anyway! Go figure.
Is this thing on? Hello?
Red Hat went to the trouble to put an image of a hat on the taskbar on the latest RH that I have installed. Oh wait a minute, let's patent changing the icons on our taskbars.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Try this story on how MS talks about MS, in terms of history...and note how the 'investment' you so dearly love to believe in, is somehow missing...gee...me wonders why? ...not...
They released Window 95 into the public domain in August 1995 -- but only filed their patent December 14, 1995. If I'm not mistaken (patent lawyers please help out here) their own product, once in the public domain, constitutes prior art -- therefore the concept it is not longer patent-able.
Informative? Fuck. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this post at all, but what a waste of mod points. There (I'd like to hope) will be some intelligent conversation made sooner or later on the subject and some moron has blown a mod point on this! I propose a time limit for modding, ie; comments can't be modded until either 200 comments and/or 1 hour has passed since the story was posted. It's pretty annoying to see any comment even remotely on-topic getting modded up simply because it beats the rest of the "fR1st P05Ter5!!!1!!" and AC drivel, but then when you come back to read the story later and you see there are a hell of a lot of great comments which have been left alone, you start to question the practice of giving mod points to any Tom, Dick or Harriet. Maybe you need (I don't know, um...) 20+? 30+? Karma to be eligible to mod other posts.
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
The "start menu" is actually fairly MS-specific though, at least in image. Others have taskbar with Gnome-bar. Taskbar with RedHat bar...
And who bailed Apple out the last two times as they were going down in flames? Uh-huh. Yep, it's patented, which means absolutely nothing to MS.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Command + E works for me :)
Do I even need to say it?
;) j/k I like apple
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Um... if it's just a patent on the image of a trash can, how that is anything but a frivilous patent?
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
The sad thing is, MS has already copied OS X design elements in XP. I'm a full time mac user, so the few times i've used XP it really stands out to me. Next time you're using XP take a look at the Login screen... almost a clone of the OS X login screen. And the whole thing about the bubbly icons and more colorful rounded design elements didn't really exist on a large scale until OS X came out. Take a look at how derivative a lot of these elements are in XP. Maybe it's just cuz I'm an anal Mac using graphic designer though... :)
-Alex
I just changed my icon to a black hole.... oh wait, that a fat32 partition... my bad.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
That is it, isn't it? Ummmmm, wait a minute.
in early betas of Windows 95, the taskbar defaulted to being at the top of the screen just like that.
Mac sux!
Is why many of you are getting your panties in a bunch over something that, in the end, is very insignificant. I'm am a Apple user, and generally enjoy using their products very much, but they sometimes do things that make me cringe, such as pursue developers legally for fairly frivolous reasons. But this is a case of a patent that hurts no one, and simply protects Apple from being out and out copied by the likes of M$. And it looks as though these patents would do little to do that. So why the F are people getting all pissy with Apple? Guess I am missing it, or prefer to not get angry at every little thing that isn't freely given to me.
This is *exactly* why I will never trust Apple and never switch to using any of their products exclusively: they are *exactly* like Microsoft, only with less power.
just 3: Chaudhri; Imran A. (Santa Cruz, CA); Carrera; Cesar (Sunnyvale, CA); Coleman; Patricia J. (Montara, CA)
so, even if they have a patent it won't last too much longer. And linux doesn't use a trash can icon so we are all safe... But Windows does... so they are gonna be paying apple more money _again_.
Because according to a thread on the GNOME desktop-devel-list, they already have one!
One of our telecom operators tried to patent the *color* of it's logo a while ago. Can't remember if they succeeded. Look it up for yourself, the company 's called Belgacom, it's in Belgium. I just remember the press was all over it... seems like I wasn't the only one finding that somewhat ridiculous
Sure Apple could sue you, but one just has to arrange ones income & assets in such a way that one isn't worth suring & they always give up.
I know I've been sued twice & both times they gave up simply because I'm in the cash economy & officially on a disability pension while all my assets were in the names of relatives.
'n firearms etc?
Afterall compare the Lexus LS200 & a BMW 3 series, especially at 3/4 & profile angles, or compare the front of a Mitsubishi Magna from about 5 years ago & most BMW fronts.
Or any non rear engined airliners made after the 707
Or any 'auto' pistols made after the Colt 45
Wow, there have already been two versions told of why this happened. Now, let me tell you the version i heard while working at Taligent about 9 years ago. (Taligent was an Apple spin-off -- some serious old-school Apple developers were working there when I was. I even got to play the grand piano that was bought to entertain the original Mac developers when they were developing the first Mac...)
The story I heard from them is that originally, when you were done with a disk, you had to do two things. The first thing was, you had to select "eject disk". That would cause the disk to be physically ejected and the icon to be greyed out. If you didn't want the icon anymore, you could then drag it to the trash.
So the idea was that you were trashing the now-useless icon. (Useless assuming you didn't want to access the disk again, that is.) This makes sense and is at least logical if not 100% intuitive.
However, apparently when they did usability tests of the interface, people who used it complained that it was annoying that ejecting always took two steps.
So, they made it so it was OK if you skipped the first step, i.e. the combined the two into one step.
Now what I always found counterintuitive was that a confirmation dialog box pops up and asks "are you really sure" when you try to quit a program. But, when you select "Shut Down" from the "Special" menu, it doesn't ask for confirmation and just shuts the whole computer down. Even Unix, the operating system that NEVER asks you for confirmation, asks you for confirmation when you issue the "shutdown" command...
Goddam, I have to quickly patent my toilet seat-icon! Oh and of course the *wooosh* sound when I flush it!
So now that apple has the patent on the trashcan. does all the software developer companys have to pay royalties to apple now? HMMMMMMMMMMMM? Maybe they are looking for an influx of CASH!!! :)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
I don't know, but that looks more like a thimble to me. And wouldn't previously existing images which even resemble this "patented" icon invalidate the patent? Seems pretty flimsy to me.
How about these images I just googled (TM)?
Thimble
Thimble
Trash Can
Trash Can
Trash Can
What about cheezy software patents where the basic idea is patented but no implementation is supplied? Then on top of that, the patenting company does absolutely nothing whatsoever to market the idea or even make it practical. They just sit and wait for someone else to do all the hard work of marketing and implementation so they can surface the submarine and fire volleys of lawyer torpedoes?
h tm ld/desktop1.gif
I would say that patents can work but the current system for them is horridly broken. The current patent office would hand out patents on the wheel if the application used sufficiently large words and creatively tarted up diagrams. A working patent system would be wonderful. No patent system whatsoever would be be better than the corrupt and inept monstrosity we're dealing with now.
As for Microsoft's "innovation" here is screenie of a NEXTSTEP desktop that predates 95:
http://www120.pair.com/mccarthy/nextstep/intro.
I would say in a multitasking gui, the idea that you have to do SOMETHING to organize those tasks is pretty obvious.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most big companies try to reward employees for submitting patents on behalf of the company. This usualy involves some bonus to generate some interest at doing these sort of things. So the fact that the patent has been submitted for approval does not necessarily means Apple intends to use it OR that anyone in Apple actually thinks this is reasonable. This is just the behavior of a big and inefficient company where engineering time is not considered scarce. Similarly, the USPTO just "handles" the application without involving any real thinking. People get money for processing these patents -- not for sorting them out. Nimrod.
If you go for a year without "rebooting" (emptying) your trash bin I'll bet you could do a pretty good immitation of a Blue FACE of Death.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Deal with it. Get over it. Move on.
Interviewer: "So, tell us what prompted you to come up with the now infamous drag-to-trash as the way to eject a disk?"
Apple designer: "Well, we wanted to come up with a method that seemed to make sense, in the manner that you want to 'do away' with the disk, so... so that it would un-mount from the... okay, look. It's stupid. We did it a long time ago and now every Mac user out there knows this, and we can't very well change it now can we? No. So that's why it's like that. Doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry."
I wish I could find the original article, but I swear that's how it went. I laughed my ass off when I read that.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Maybe YOU would not have brought the idea to see the light of day, but there is a high probability that somebody else would have done it if you didn't
You could make this argument for any type of (non software) invention.
and it is very likely somebody else already has done it before you but didn't patent it. Tell us what your patent number is, and we'll almost certainly be able to find somebody who already has a fully functioning product that implements what your patent does, and they did it without owning or having knowledge of the patent.
So submit the prior art under usc 35 section 301 and then initiate an interparties reexamination if you don't like a particular patent. You don't have to be a lawyer to do this.
Don't penalize non obvious innovation (software or otherwise) because of other bad patents.
Over 99% of patented software would have been created anyway by the patent holder or somebody else if software patents didn't exist.
Again you could state this about inventions in any other (non software) field.
Also, over 99% of software accidentally implements somebody else's patent.
Oh, so if I go out and start manufacturing drugs or semiconductors I am not going infringe on another's patent?
99%, how did you arrive at this number?
Even the techniques that are advanced and original enough to possibly deserve the patent they received, like RSA encryption and MP3 compression, have had equivalent alternative unpatented implementations created by others.
I have never before seen an argument against patents because someone can easily avoid infringing one.
Plain and simple, there is almost no software out there that would not have been created by somebody if software patents didn't exist, but there is a lot that has been aborted or delayed because of the minefield of software patents that exists.
Specific examples?
Also, are you sure that truly innovative software startups would receive the funding necessary to develop technology if the investors new that their R&D could be easily ripped off?
Would not this lack of funding abort and/or delay software projects?
Also, your argument ignores the multitude of sw/hw combination inventions.
Should we set up a bright line then, say if an invention is more thatn 50% sw over hw then it should not be patentable? 60%? 90%?
How would such a determination be made? enforced? How many loopholes could be devised to get around such an onerous statute?
5x! You get the 5x b0n0s!
50,000 c0x0rs! in your ear!
haven't read entire thread (time) so sorry if this point's been made BUT: how is it that M$ source code (or anyone else's for that matter) isn't discoverable evidence in a civil case? generally speaking, parties in civil cases have tremendous latitude in discovery. if my neighbor sues me because my tree fell on his car he can pretty much demand to see my 4th grade report card and I'll be held in contempt if I don't hand it over. it seems like a slam-dunk that source would be relevant evidence in M$'s claim that IE is just "too integrated" to be separated from OS. the judge would probably seal the records but I have to believe someone involved would leak (especially M$ code). IANAL but I did take some law classes in school (though IO'll admit that's kind of like saying corporations should follow GAAP cause that's what they taught in accounting:) are there any slashdotters w/JDs who can shed some light on this?
Software patents are granted for the most stupid things, for tthe simple reason that if you take something already existing that is completely obvious, but do it in software, it is considered new (e.g. selling stuff in a store -> selling stuff via the Internet, keeping client records in a store -> keeping client records in an internet store
If RMS was as omnicient as everyone seems to portray him, then he would have known that the PTO has evolved their obviousness requirements to preclude the patenting of automations of known manual processes in business method processes.
Maybe you should apprise him of this the next time you see him.
if my neighbor sues me because my tree fell on his car he can pretty much demand to see my 4th grade report card and I'll be held in contempt if I don't hand it over
/. American legal System is bad/complete horseshit post
requisite
Why don't you at least attempt to read civil procedure law regarding discovery and relevancy requirements before posting obviously innane BS and pretending to know what the F--- you are talking about.
I don't know why (well I do - it is because /. is bias personified) you guys are all pointing fingers at Microsoft here. Companies borrow and improve/modify ideas all the time - and it cuts both ways. Microsoft have undoubtably taken ideas from Apple, however Apple have also done the exact same in reverse - a fact every post on this topic seems to have ignored.
It isn't even limited to software companies, or to the computing industry. Look at absolutely any product of any type in the market place, and then look at the competitors - everyones designs 'evolve' along similar lines: cars, fridges, phones, PDAs, shoes, clothes, and so on.
Get over your Microsoft complex, please!
If you don't have a newer Apple keyboard with an eject key, hammer on F12 instead. You have to hold it a moment, so you don't unmount and eject all your removables with a single misplaced finger.
Reminds me of this Doonesbury strip from 1995. The whole week is pretty funny.
Going back to the 'bad old days', look at Borland's Turbo Vision for DOS libraries - they had a little ASCII art trash-bin text widget. Also, MicroWare's OS9 could run (IIR-the name-C) MultiView, which also had a trash bin, back in the early '80s :-)
Did they manage to make their patent cover an image of a bitten apple falling into a wastebasket? If not, I know what icon I'm going to use from now on.
This is utterly ridiculous. Some things warrant patenting... but how can anyone argue that a picture of a bloody trashcan is worth even stealing? Or does Apple think its economic success relies on a monopoly over waste baskets?
It's also interesting to note that when I cliked on the 'Images' link within the patent page the result crashed IE 6. Coincidence? I think not!
Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
Say, doesn't that mean that the interface is modal? Saints preserve us.
(Alert readers will note that all but the most trivial of UIs pretty much has to have modes. But don't tell the pompous usability experts; especially don't tell the ones who are also Mac fans.)
Mind the Gap
Hey, I'm surprised to see that it got any upmods...
Great idea with the timelimits... maybe adjust to ban positive mods within the first 100 comments (to mark the trolls and so forth down).
just bomb the damn patent office and be done with it (fitting "fight club" ending for geeks)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While I agree with the above posts about the importance of civil disobedience, I think it would be a tough go to argue that abolition, sufferage, and war are on the same level as your "moral" imperative to steal mp3's. The previous issues are large issues that effect the suffering of a great many people. The ability to rip-off Nora Jones does not seem quite as critical to the well being of the world to me. my two cents, Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Then it should be a trademark. A competor can't use your trademark, or anything confusingly similar.
It's a design patent.
Protects the look of the trash can. Not the concept.
In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey . . .
My guess is that a copyright only protects that particular set of pixels.
But surely copyright isn't restricted to an exact duplication. For example, if I did a cover of some song and distributed it without permission, I'd be violating copyright even though the digital representation could look very different. The words and music (in the sense of the pattern of notes) can be copyrighted. So I don't see that being able to scale the image or otherwise perform simple processing functions means that copyright wouldn't protect their image.
So I'm confused as to what benefit there is in having Design Patents. It can't be to encourage Apple to share a novel idea with the rest of the world (since using a picture of a trashcan to represent a trachcan is neither unobvious, or original). It can't be to protect the consumer from being confused that an alternative OS might be OS X (since that would surely be a trademark issue). It can't be to encourage them to release a particular work (since OS X is already protected by copyright). So why do we have them? What is the great problem if someone else releases an OS with trashcan icons, and happens to use a similar looking trashcan?
(NT)
Ya, thaaaat's right, they don't like a design of Apple's, so that CAN'T be Apple's fault! It HAS to be that idiot user who hates Apple. There's no other explanation!!
You sir, are the epitome of the Apple user that everyone despises.
Anyone interested in software patents might want to listen to one of Richard Stallman`s lectures on the Linux Public Broadcasting Network - http://www.lpbn.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Do wnloads&file=index&req=viewsdownload&sid=10&orderb y=dateD .
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
because it's trash!!!
l &e ntry=78143406
I wonder if this is related to the "Junkyard" trademark that's registered by Apple.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=seria
I've already patented the process of symbolic visual representation with icons. I've got the Eastern Orthodox Church by the goolies, and I'm going after Apple next.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My point is that the particulars are not disclosed in the patent before it is granted.
Here's an example of a "software-style" patent:
Patent for a material transport device.
This device will transport a number of pieces or quantity of material beween two points in physical space.
The device or devices will consist of a number of wheels and/or other means of reducing of easing the motion of the device
The device or devices will consist of a container or containers of a various number of shapes and/or sizes in which to hold material.
The device would include attachments to one or more methods of powerment. This may include any combination of persons, animals, motors, or other material transport devices.
Devices may optionally be attached in a number of configurations including: Linear attachment and horizontal and/or vertical stacking.
anyway, you get the idea. These claims are the only thing attached to the patent! You can't see what I'm actually patenting to figure out how to get around it! My actual designs are protected by trade secret & copyright, so I don't have to submitt them.
If you haven't figured it out, I just patented pretty much every moving vehicle that carries stuff! wheelbarowws, wagons, ricshaw, dumptruck, train, pickup, ox drawn cart, etc... You have no recourse to prevent this from happening. You can't call up the PTO and tell 'um to stop. Once it's granted you cannot challange it or clarify it without paying huge court costs--quite often your own when I sue you! Common sense doesn't rule--the PTO refuses to take back poorly chosen patents, and the courts won't make them.
Yes this is ridiculous! but this is exactly what software patents are!