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.

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.

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!

[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.