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."

Comments

it's a design patent

[brer_rabbit]

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.

Re:it's a design patent

[angle_slam]

Here is an About.com article about design patents. Key quote:

In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works, while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks.

The concept of a trash can isn't being protected, only a trash can that looks like the one in the design patent application.

RTFA (as usual)

[transient]

This is a design patent, not a utility patent (which is the type of patent often lambasted 'round these parts). This protects the image that is Apple's trash can, not the function of a trash can on a computer. From the USPTO:

n 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). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.

Keep this in mind before flaming anyone.

Re:RTFA (as usual)

[Jeremy Erwin]

If I took the icon from Apple's system and distributed it with a rival system, Apple would be able to claim copyright infringement. However, if I included a picture of a generic trash can in my operating sytem, Apple would have a tough time proving that that element was in fact derived from Apple code, and was not in fact, derived from a generic trash can.

However, a design patent would protect this element. Presumably this will expire in twenty years.

In All Fairness...

[InfraredEyes]

...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.

Re:Wonderful!

[derubergeek]

It's a design patent. This prevents MS (well, actually anyone, but given past history, MS is the most likely culprit) from making a clone of Apple's OS X GUI and calling it Windows XT (or whatever). This doesn't prevent anyone from using trash can icons, the concept of the trash can icons, etc., in a GUI. It prevents someone from using Apple's specific icon in their GUI.

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.

It helps to understand what a "design" patent is

[lspd]

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).

It's only a design patent.

[nuzoo]

Don't worry. This is only a design patent, which is fundamentally different than a "utility" patent.

According to the PTO web site:

• In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works, while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks...A design for an article of manufacture that is dictated primarily by the function of the article lacks ornamentality and is not proper statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. Specifically, if at the time the design was created, there was no unique or distinctive shape or appearance to the article not dictated by the function that it performs, the design lacks ornamentality and is not proper subject matter. 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.

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.

Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :)

[derubergeek]

They already have...5,757,371 Taskbar with start menu

Re:Wonderful!

[jcr]

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

Re:Info on 'What can be patented?'

[cpt kangarooski]

You're basically talking about a utility patent, which is indeed the dominant kind. This is a design patent, there's a difference.

Re:Wonderful!

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Let's see how this turns out

[Halo1]

Why is the fact that its a patent on software make it evil?

I happened to have gone to a speech by RMS about software patents quite recently and he explained it very well (no, I'm not a stallman junkie nor a GNU addict in any way).

Some reasons software patents are evil are:

• regular patents protect one specific thing, software patents protect one tiny piece of a large puzzel. So a single program most of the time infringes on a large number of patents, making licensing not feasible (if you have to pay 5% of your revenue for every patent you use, you'll probably have to pay for each copy you sell).
• they don't protect small-time developers at all (except maybe against other small-time developers). If you find out that IBM or Microsoft violates your patent and you demand some retribution for that, they'll have a look at your program and probably find that you violate 30 patents of theirs. Of course, because they are such nice guys, they will probably allow you to keep using their patented stuff if they can use your 1 patent. So the protection you get is zero, and if they're not nice guy's you'll have to pay extra. The advantage of a small software developer is the speed at which he can follow changes of the market and do things, compared to the big, slow megacorporations.
• Programming not very unlike composing a symphony: just like you can't just take a couple of "musical techniques", throw them together and get something that sounds good, you can't take just a couple of (patented) cool software techniques, throw them together and get a killer app. It's the way you make those things work/sound together, the hours of debugging/refining that makes/breaks the result.

  In the same spirit: Beethoven is considered a great composer that was very progressive for his time, i.e. he introduced a lot of "new" things in his music. Nevertheless, should there have been music patents in his time, he would have been unable to make any of his compositions, since although he was smart, he wasn't smart/good enough to reinvent the music from zero and still get something that sounds good. It's similar in software development: you may be a superprogrammer with great ideas, but no one is that good that he can reinvent software development from scratch. You're just bound to reuse ideas that others have had before (and lots of people have the same ideas at the same time, without knowing anything about eachother).

• 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, ...)
• there are so many software patents that pretty much every program in existence probably violates several patents. If you want to develop a program, sell it and make sure you don't violate any patent, you'll probably spend more time on lawyers to look at all available software patents than you'll ever make selling your program.

The bottom line is that software patents do not promote progress and inventions (which is the original goal of the patent system), but in fact retard it (since you should be scared to do something, knowing that you're probably violating at least one patent or another and that when someone who has such a patent finds you annoying enough, he'll either sue you to hell or force you to give him all "intellectual property" you got). See also this article.