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

Microsoft? HELLO?! :)

[BalkanBoy]

Patent the "Start" button!! QUICK QUICK before Jeff Bezos comes out of the woodwork!! :)

Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :)

[derubergeek]

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

Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :)

[Repton]

I liked this quote from the abstract of the start menu patent:

The taskbar may also be displayed in a mode where it is not displayed [...]

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.

Re:it's a design patent

[csnydermvpsoft]

How is this different than a copyright, then? Apple already had a copyright, since you get one automatically unless you declare something to be in the public domain.

Anti-grouch?

[wembley]

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.

Move over Microsoft

[SlowMovingTarget]

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.

necessary evil...

[antispamist]

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?

Re:Let's see how this turns out

[josh crawley]

ANd I still say we should boycott the idea of "Software Patents" in general.

Intellectual property, in limit, should be patentable. The original idea was to provide governmental protection for inventors given they FULLY PUBLISH the idea set forth in the patent if and only if that "object" is non-intuitive.

What's turned out is software patents patenting damn near everything in sight. Who cares if it's new or not. These days, making software is becoming a legal minefield, and the USPTO isnt helping (dump dump dump). Even the process of playing a DVD you own can violate 10's of patents. That's why MPlayer is off the US shore.

So, I'm not against intelluctal property, but am against software patents until the UPSTO starts heavily regulating those types. Until then, I say we should violate EVERY software patent we can find until the rules are changed.

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.

Good

[MSBob]

This is actually good. The more such patents are approved the more meaningless the concept of a patent will become. Over time nobody will give a damn about patent laws because they will infringe something no matter what the hell they do.

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.

real reason..

[Suppafly]

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.

ambiguity is the problem! Re:it's a design patent

[mabhatter654]

In meatspace, patents are black and white. Judges interput physical patent very strictly. Even slight modifications can get around someone's patent. Best part is, you have access to the patented parts of the design. They are included in the grant.

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!

Trash Can Absurdity

[LPetrazickis]

Am I the only one who thinks that dumping floppies into trash should REFORMAT instead of EJECTING?:)

Microsoft has a leg up here!

[callipygian-showsyst]

Unlike wasteful Apple, the folks at Microsoft furnish Windows XP with a recycle bin!

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.

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:I guess MS can just use

[shellbeach]

I guess MS can just use their own company symbol for trash now

Well, I know I do:

I pulled one of those "designed for Windows98" stickers off a box years ago and stuck it on my kitchen bin ...

Only it's not a very fair comparison - my bin has never crashed in over three years of continuous operation, which is more than I can say for Win98 :)

Re:Let's see how this turns out

[Mr. Firewall]

Quoth Josh Crawley:

Until then, I say we should violate EVERY software patent we can find until the rules are changed.

ahknight responded:

Not a popular opinion on this site but it's against the law and breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how wrong you feel the law is.

Except that Josh Crawley is advocating something called "civil disobedience" -- something that is a time-honored tradition for getting unjust laws changed.

Burning one's draft cards was also "breaking the law" thirty-five years ago but there were enough of us who were willing to go to jail rather than participate in a war we considered unjust-- that we made a point that is still being heard today.

Taking in a runaway "Negro" slave was "breaking the law" a hundred and forty years ago but enough people believed strongly enough in their principles to do it anyway.

Dumping a shipload of tea into a harbor was "breaking the law" two hundred and thirty years ago, but... well, you get my point.