Slashdot Mirror
Apple Granted Broad Patent On Wedge-Shaped Laptops
Nick Fel writes "Apple has been granted a broad patent (PDF) on the wedge-shaped design of the MacBook Air. The design has been copied by most ultrabooks, and their manufacturers are likely starting to feel a little uneasy about the news."
...yet another thing granted to the rapacious by the incompetent.
surely this glorious miracle shall be attributed to His Holiness, St. Jobs !!!
In anticipation of a hundred posts screaming about the evil of Apple's patent, remember that the idiocy lies in a system that grants such patents. In the current litigious environment, Apple would be foolish not to acquire as many patents as possible. If they don't, someone else will.
The shape of a wedge has been around for thousands of years, maybe the egyptians or Greeks invented it.
http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/7032616626194684.JPG?0.3942647363857573
Enough said.
If this went through why not pantent cube and sphere then?
Pay no attention to the Sony Vaio X505 behind the curtain!
This is not a "broad" patent on any wedge shaped laptop but instead a relatively narrow patent on portions of the ornamental design of the Macbook air. Looking at the priority date, you'll see that the earliest filing date is 2010, which means that even the original Macbook Air models are prior art for this case.
Look at the listing of prior art and you'll see PLENTY of wedge-shaped notebooks that are already out there... because this patent is *not* covering all wedge-shaped notebooks, despite the intentionally hyped-up-so-we'll-make-ad-revnue summary & headline. (P.S. I run adblock to help do my part to have Slashdot lose money for posting this drivel).
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I thought it was determined in Apple v. Microsoft (windows) that you cannot patent or copyright the "look and feel" of software or hardware?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Clearly I need to patent, oh, a four wheeled vehicle. Or bread laid flat with toppings on it. Or a small piece of cardstock with personal information on it. Or a brimmed device to place on one's head keep the sun out of one's eyes. Or a device that can hold all manner of computer components in it. Oh wait, apparently Apple's already got that last one...
That and according to this Wikipedia article: "Design patents cover the ornamental nonfunctional design of an item. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear)." So let's figure out how to show "practical utility" for a wedge shape.
Wow, I just realized I don't understand anything about patents. The ornamental design for an electronic device? Ten pages of sketches full of gray and dotted lines. If TFS didn't say it was a MBA, I'd have no idea what I was looking at.
Pretty soon all useful physical designs will be patented and there will be no room to innovate without fear of A. Being sued into oblivion or B. Paying a significant portion of start-up costs to patent holders.
Way to keep the money at the top USPTO.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
A wedge shape for a laptop is just an idea. How can this be patented? Ideas are not supposed to be patentable. "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea." - Thomas Jefferson
"All these laptops are yours, except Macbook."
How is it even possible to patent "look" of a system? Is this not what copyrights and trademarks are for?
Just like one click is so obvious NOW but before Amazon every place had a long and retarded purchasing process. That's exactly the kind of stuff that patents are meant to protect. Stuff that everyone thinks "dude, I totally could've thought of that" but guess what, you didn't, Apple did.
That and according to this Wikipedia article: "Design patents cover the ornamental nonfunctional design of an item. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear)." So let's figure out how to show "practical utility" for a wedge shape.
It's a Mac... It's only functional use is as a door stop. The wedge shape has been standard for door stops for eons!!!!
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
That and according to this Wikipedia article: "Design patents cover the ornamental nonfunctional design of an item. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear)." So let's figure out how to show "practical utility" for a wedge shape.
The shape cuts down on size and weight. That should be utility enough.
Don't Panic!
This is a "design patent," not a "utility patent." "The difference between a design patent and a utility patent is that a design patent protects the ornamental design, configuration, improved decorative appearance, or shape of an invention, [while] a utility patent protects any new invention or functional improvements on existing inventions."
People get design patents so that they may have legal recourse when someone substantially copies the appearance of their product. Apple got a design patent on its particular ornamental design of wedge-shaped laptops, to keep people from making knockoffs off them, not "a broad patent on wedge-shaped laptops."
Unsolicited, unprofessional advice: Roll over. Go back to sleep.
Hardly anybody on here can even discuss this story from anything but a lay perspective. This isn't a technology story, it's a story better discussed on lawyers.com. I hate when people complain about what stories get voted on, but I just don't think many on here are qualified to discuss this intelligently, so in the end, a lot of otherwise smart people end up sounding like twits. You know, like when your mother explains what you do as "computer stuff"...that's how you all sound discussing intellectual property. This patent seems routine and meaningless, but I'm not an intellectual property attorney, I'm an engineer, Jim, so who knows.
hrrhrrhrrr applez stupit
Indeed, as soon as it is shown that the wedge shape is functional (provides a small tilt for the keyboard, makes it easier to carry) that part of a design patent is invalidated. The reason so many details are needed in the application, I suspect, is to prevent a Chinese company from producing an exact knockoff by acquiring the dies and CAD files as soon as this version ceases manufacturing. Nothing to see here etc.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Is this award as epic-ally absurd as it seems to me on the face of it?
So let's figure out how to show "practical utility" for a wedge shape.
It is a wedge shape because the hinge cannot be made as thin as the rest of the unit.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Page 2, "OTHER PUBLICATIONS":
Sony Viao X505, available at least as early as May 8, 2005
Apple cited the Viao in its application. Keep in mind that this is a design patent, not a utility patent.
between a wedge and an inclined plane? I guess Heron of Alexandria not having prior art on that simple machine makes it a more attractive patent target?
Most slashdotters will continue to be totally ignorant about anything related to patent law. This is a design patent. Design patents are generally very narrow. This is not a "broad" patent but a very narrow one, covering the very specific design of the macbook air. Everybody saying they got a "wedge" has got it all wrong.
Stupid.
Patents and copyrights are used only to protect past acompilishments not create new ones.
The entire purpose of patents and copyrights is to create incentives for new works. Patents and copyright attempt to address the free rider problem. Without some reasonable assurance of protection, a lot of beneficial works would never be created.
None of this is to say the laws for patents and copyrights aren't badly in need of updating. They very much are broken in their current form. But the idea of protecting inventive works against the free rider problem is demonstrably beneficial.
Stronger IP protections are only used to slow down growth. It is all but ignored by growing economies.
This is where your argument falls apart. Without relatively strong IP protections, there are fewer incentives to create new work because there are so many copycats. Those same growing economies grow largely by imitating established economies with established IP protections. They tend to create very few (not zero but few) new and innovative works. You can only grow to a limited extent by copying other people. Eventually you have to create your own works and sooner or later that requires some form of IP protection. The exact model can vary but for better or worse there is presently no better solution to the free rider problem out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_TR7
Seriously? Here is another wedge-shaped laptop that has been around since at least 1800.
Proverbs 21:19
My Sony Vaio R600 (R505 in the US I believe) had that same shape about eight years ago. Fantastic laptop, at that.
The claim seems sufficiently vague to encompass everything or nothing.
I'm sure they have great patent lawyers, but I doubt any manufacturers are shaking in their boots.
The sharp edge is easier to fit into a laptop bag and the blunt edge is easier to pull from a laptop bag.
It wouldn't matter. Apple didn't patent a wedge shape. They patented the ornamental appearance of the MacBook Air.
The scope of a patent is defined by its claims as read in light of the specification, but design patents only have one claim, which simply refers to the drawings in the patent specification. The figures in design patents are drawn in a very particular way. The most important thing to know is that only the solid lines matter. The dashed lines are only there to provide context and do not represent the claimed design. In this case, most of the laptop is drawn in dashed lines. It's a little hard to tell because of the relatively low-quality PDF, but it looks like only the lid is drawn in solid lines. Compare that to the parent design patent, D642172, which covers more of the case, the keyboard, etc.
Oh Baby Jesus Wept.
Design patents are NOT broad.
They cover ONLY the details of the particular ornamental design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Protections
Lets selectively misunderstand how patents work so we can find new reasons to enforce our preconceived notions!
The Motorola Razr -- both the original flip phone and the current smart phones -- have a design that is thicker where it needs to be and thin elsewhere to conserve weight and volume. Not really a wedge but similar. Perhaps non-Apple ultrabook makers could adopt that thin-with-a-bump design. It's easier to grip, too.
And I don't.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The compelling reason for an invention is not necessarily money. In fact I could argue the great inventions came from obsession rather than running for money. Letting aside the IP protection and the reason for it, many people are forgetting the real reason why iPad, iPhone are being so successful. It's not innovation, it's a well executed design with obsessive attention to the details, something the big companies nowadays are forgetting. Let's sell a half backed product, if it's sales well, we will support it further and maybe improve it as long it's not affect the sale of our new iteration of the same product with minimalist improvements.
Patents were intended to get inventors to publish "how to" information to further society. The limited term of exclusivity is a form of compensation for revealing what might otherwise be kept a trade secret. OTOH if you use that definition, anything that is obvious in hind-sight should not be patentable since introduction of a product would be disclosure of the idea - at least ideas like the shape of a laptop.
which means that even the original Macbook Air models are prior art for this case
Even if they were "patent pending"?
Lenovo Thinkpad X60, 2006.
Not as flat, but already the form of a wedge.
I hope someone creates a laptop shapped like an apple, patents it, installs Windows on it and sells millions of them. *snap* (back to reality) I'd never buy one! :P
More incompetence at the patent office.
doesn't mean it is valid. that is what the courts are for. Its like getting a license to drive. you get your license and take the car out for a spin. you get a DUI (lose your patent case) and you lose your license.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9007.html
This is bullshit. A reasoned argument could be made that it's anything but non-obvious, and even if such a patent has reason to exist it shouldn't belong to Apple, it should belong to the guy who crafted the first wedge shaped keyboard. The reason why any laptop is shaped like a wedge is the EXACT same reason that keyboards would be shaped like a wedge: typing ergonomics.
Setting aside the fact that a wedge shape doesn't sound non-obvious, I had an old DEC laptop with a 486-DX4, and IIRC it was wedge-shaped. It may have been the battery that gave it the wedge profile, but a wedge is a wedge. I wish I had some pictures of it. When I left Japan in 2002 I gave it to someone. It was so sleek looking even then that it would have looked perfectly at home on a shelf next to a brand new Vaio, which was far and away the sleekest looking notebook of the day. I ran Red Hat on it, and later Debian, with Window Maker.
Both the patent and the wedge shape are stupid. I hate the wedge shape, it looks stupid. I like simple and regular. I don't want the thing I carry to be fat on one side and skinny on the other. Macheads that need some kind of style identity can have that. I don't want it, and I don't want any part of a victory of style over substance. And by the way, it's geometrically stupid: a wedge has less internal volume for its surface area. And its stupid from the point of view of stability: the device should be heavy on the front, not on the back, if you don't want it to tip over when the screen is tilted back.
Anyway, I don't want any more clamshell devices at all, if they are not full blown desktop replacement devices. For on the road, I just want a nicer way to carry my bluetooth keyboard along with my tablet.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
My ancient Epson Equity (DOS, V20 processor) had that wedge shape! Prior art anyone?
You might wish to read up on the difference between patents and copyright. It could save you embarrassment next time.
Is this a shape that involved no ports on the back, and everything on the side? I'd love it if only Apple did that, because it really sucks!
Trying to use a mouse beside a laptop that has power cords and such sticking out the side is the shits.
I guess they are trying to sell simple machines now.
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
how in the hell did Apple get a patent on something that has been done before? the only reason I can think of is if they bribed the patentofficer...
They patented the ornamental appearance of the MacBook Air.
Other than the already trademarked Apple logo in the center of the lid and the arguably practical wedge shape, what ornamental appearance is left?
it's a toaster!
RE:: "Anything innovating enough to deserve a patent could be kept a trade secret instead."
How on earth do you keep a consumer product secret?
So does anyone have a patent on rounded corners on an electronic devices, because that would certainly affect Apple.
its like patenting a triangle....
The patent doesn't even mention wedge. There's a lot more to it than that. Of course maybe that's why PCs continue to generally look so ugly because most of their users completely lack any sense of style which is why video card box art looks like something you'd find on a monster truck.
I still don't want one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_IIe.jpg
Looks fairly "wedge-shaped" to me. Introduced in 1983.
Aside from the obvious similarity, I STILL think it ludicrous that someone can patent a SHAPE.
We have a LOT of geometrical shapes to wade through
Will USPTO deem a 1,000,000-sided polygon to be significantly different from a 999,999-sided one, and all the ones with fewer sides?
Apples lawyers will surely have job security for generations!
In my opinion a design is not an invention and as such a copyright could be granted, but not a patent.
If this was a copyright application and the de facto design to be copyrighted was an electronic device where the back is higher than the front there would be enough prior art to strike down the application right away.
Therefore granting this patent is patently absurd. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist the pun.)
First they patent the rectangle now they go after the triangle!
Just to reiterate, the problem with this patent is not design vs. utility, it is the functional nature of the design that should not be worthy of design patent protection.
Patents are exactly for protecting functional elements, as opposed to copyrights which protect the expressive form of the copy.
So no, being functional does rather speak for the patentability of a wedge-shaped computer.
What speaks against it is the blinding obviousness. And of course prior art. Saving space with wedge shapes likely can be traced back to the stone age or earlier. This is a totally ridiculous patent. That it covers functional elements is pretty much the only thing speaking for it.
The USPTO is both incompetent and completely out of control. What's next. "Spherical shape for object designed to be moved through a fluid experiencing equal drag from any direction" ??
Re: the postings below attacking this article, I agree that it's become increasingly apparent that no person with decision-making authority at Slashdot has a rudimentary understanding of how patent law works. Summaries just as inaccurate and misleading as this one have lately appeared on Slashdot at least weekly. Given the enormous size of the SD userbase, can't we find one person -- say, a patent practitioner -- with the slightest clue of how intellectual property law works -- to vet submissions related to patent law? Speaking as a patent attorney myself, I'm discouraged by how the SD community, which so consistently engages in intelligent discussion in other areas, sounds like a radio talkshow audience when the topic turns to IP. Do we really want to be part of the "anyone who knows what they're talking about cannot be trusted --> we should only trust those who don't know what they're talking about" mindset? Can anybody hear me?
I can see a copyright on the design, but how can you patent a non functional shape?
Its not like it actually does anything, its a case..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That is exactly what Kwik Lok Did with their plastic bag closing tabs, the flat white clips that keep potato and other produce bags closed. Their trade mark is the shape of the plastic tab. You can't buy substitute clips because anything that would fit their bag closer machine and actually keep a bag closed would look like their trademark.
Because even though Samsung's phone wasn't an EXACT copy (the ratio of width to height, for example, or the fraction of bevel, etc), it was deemed by APPLE that it was infringing.
So who here is to say that Apple would not consider this Android device infringing if it were, instead, produced in 2013 rather than 2010?
You don't know, do you.
As in so many other areas, Apple is way ahead of most of the pack when it comes to pursuing design patents. The design patent is part of the IP vanguard, and yet many companies still ignore the additional protection and leverage that it can provide. It's a tribute to Apple that it hasn't made that mistake.