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.
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.
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.
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."
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.