Apple Patents 'Chameleon' Computer Case

Dave B writes "The Register has been fishing at the patent office again and found that Apple has a new patent for "a computing device [which] includes a housing having an illuminable portion. The computing device also includes a light device disposed inside the housing. The light device is configured to illuminate the illuminable portion". While this gives us the exciting prospect of an iMac that is all five fruit flavors at once surely the original iMac with its glowing power button, or indeed a-thousand-and-one other electronic gizmos represent prior art?" Update a couple of users noticed this Slashdot Story from 2002 which looks familiar.

Comments

Prior Art?

[Morgahastu]

What the poster failed to mention was that the patent also included that it was customizable via a software program. You could open the "case prefs" and sets your case to have stripes, polka dots, etc. I am sure it could probably be animated too.

I don't I've ever seen that.

Re:Prior Art?

[danamania]

What the poster failed to mention was that the patent also included that it was customizable via a software program. You could open the "case prefs" and sets your case to have stripes, polka dots, etc. I am sure it could probably be animated too.

Last time a discussion of this patent was raised, the iBook and eMac power light came up as fulfilling some what apple's described. The on-light is undetectable while the machine is off, lights up a small section of the case, and seems software controllable - it acts differently under OSX and OS9, depending on whether the machine is awake, the display is sleeping, or the entire machine is put to sleep. (it pulses in os9 when the machine's display is asleep, but not when the osx display sleeps, and pulses in a different manner when the whole machine is asleep). It looks like this when the emac is on

What it ends up being in reality is just a white LED behind the translucent casing.

Re:Prior Art?

[FinestLittleSpace]

it isnt a CRT

Re:Prior Art?

[caitsith01]

How about this? It may not do stripes but it pretty much does everything else we seem to be talking about - computing device, unlimited range of colours, programmable by software, entire outer surface changes, can be configured to represent various data sources...

At the very least, I would say this makes Apple's 'idea' a semi-obvious one, which might defeat its patent.

Re:Quite interesting

[mehtajr]

It's a reference to the original fruit flavored iMacs; Apple had trouble keeping the stock numbers right due to varied demand for the five colors; Blueberry sold much better than Tangerine for instance. This was a problem because Apple demanded their resellers stock equal amounts of all five colors.

This dispute led some resellers (notably Best Buy) to stop selling iMacs.

This isn't new.

[labratuk]

This (or a very similar Apple patent) cropped up about a year or two ago. It was discussed then. Some people freaked out, some people used it as an opportunity to give Apple a blowjob, some people didn't care. I guess nothing changes.

Re:This IS news!

[BasilBrush]

What OS are you using that is less toy like than UNIX?

Re:Well...

[BasilBrush]

Sticking a Freeplay logo on the front will be breaching his copyright. ITYM breach his trademark.

Not new

[loginx]

The register should probably read slashdot more often then...
This story was posted on slashdot two years ago

No, Apple does not have a patent

[the eric conspiracy]

Apple has a new patent for "a computing device...

LOL. Slashdot and obviously the Register don't seem to be able to determine what a patent is. THIS IS AN APPLICATION, not an actual patent.

It was filed in Feb 2004 and PUBLISHED, not GRANTED on Aug 12. 20040156192 is the application number, not the patent number. Patent numbers are serial and are in the 6 million range.

Talk about egg on face.

Re:Are patents stifling or restricting?

[kfg]

It's "Hear, hear."

An equivilent phrasing would be "Listen, listen."

While it has come to be a cheer of assent, it is really an admonition to others to pay attention to what someone is saying.

KFG

Re:THIS gets a patent?

[argent]

Water goes in, steam comes out, it's the submarine. That's obvious. But how do you prevent the hot steam from raising the ambient temperature of the sub and killing everybody inside? [...] This is why patents are for SPECIFIC implementations.

I think it's clear that you haven't read the book. It's really a great read, well worth the entrance fee, so even if you don't care about patent abuse I highly recommend it. Seriously: I think everyone should read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman at least once... it's one of those books I go back to over and over again.

Re:What's with the 11-digit (!) patent number?

[servoled]

It is not a patent! This is a published patent application which use the format YYYY#######. Thus this is the 156,192th patent application to be published in the year 2004. Granted patent numbers are (mostly) sequential and they are somewhere around 6,750,000 right now.

The register didn't bother to do any research before green lighting this story.

Design patents

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

This looks to me like it's going to be a design patent when it's approved (you can tell these at a glance by the prefix D on the number,) which is a very specific sort of patent and very different from what you may normally think of in terms of patents.

A design patent protects a particular aesthetic or functional design, not any process or underlying technology.

So, it's quite reasonable that Apple would get a design patent, I'm sure they have a great many of them already. Design patents are also not particularly strong- all you have to do to get around it is make a significant alteration and you're generally all right.