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."
(1) What "icon" is KingBenny talking about? I don't see any.
(2) Excellent point. The Constitution provides for "limited exclusive rights" for inventors/authors to promote production, but history is now showing that it has the opposite effect of stagnating creativity (and locking-up control in a few megacorps) for 20 or 100+ years. Thomas Jefferson was right to propose amending the constitution to insert a time limit on copyrights/patents.
"Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding -- years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose."
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Without some sane form of protection (current system != sane), you run the risk of the copycats making most of the money, leaving true innovators struggling to fund future innovations. Say you owned a company and spent several years developing the best widget since sliced bread, then some Chinese company immediately cloned it and sold it for half what you could sell it for, would you still be railing against IP protections? I think not.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to get a patent on some painfully obvious idea, but that's an issue with implementation, not with the actual concept of IP protections.
The summary is complete bullshit, this patent is a design patent, a very narrow patent on the exact look of the macbook air, not a broad patent on a "wedge shaped laptops".
I think you're arguing that Apple shouldn't be allowed to patent their designs because they are too simple, right? Their 'efficiency' is the problem. I can't imagine how you'd decide whose designs are 'complex enough' to be worthy of protection.
I've looked at this patent 3 times and I don't see how you decided that Apple are doing what you say they are: it's honestly just a set of pictures of their product. There's no 'claims'. In the text they describe it as "an ornamental design". I think you're saying that it's not ornamental because it's too simple, but what can be done about that? Disallow simple design from any protection? Force Apple to add curlicues?
At the end of the day, the decisions on infringement are made by a court based on whether it would cause confusion with customers. On the issue of wedge-shaped computers, there is plenty of prior art (passim) that means this is not a 'wedge-shaped' land-grab, and wouldn't work if it was. Design patents do not include prior art searches, AFAIK.
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore