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.
This comes up occasionally and this is not a traditional patent, but a design patent. You can still build a wedge-shaped laptop, you just can't have it look exactly like a MacBook Air. There are lots of ways of designing around it. You could make it almost the same, but with a different finish, for example.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
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 design patent. It's closer to trademark protection than patent protection in how its used. It protects the look of an item. A particularly famous example is the design of the Coke bottle.
You can't get a design patent for basic functional details. The fact that it's made of two parts, that the front is thinner than the back, and it's hinged are purely functional. The specifics - the curves and contours that only serve an aesthetic purpose - can be protected.
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.--
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.
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."
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.
It has to do with their funding model.
A few years ago I remember reading how congress lived up to their name and decided to cut back on funding at the USPTO (or even make it a profit centre)
Next thing you know they are willing to patent anything from though processes to math equations.
If challenges to patents meant the USPTO would share even 10% of the court costs when the patent is invalidated, this shit would get fixed quickly.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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.
Yes indeed, but it seems Apple *did* pay attention, since they referenced that very thing in the patent itself.
Oh wait, you didn't read it! My mistake! Carry on!
Pay no attention to the Sony Vaio X505 behind the curtain!
Which is cited as prior art in this design patent.
Which means, in order to infringe on this design patent you have to make something which looks much more like a MacBook Air than a Sony Vaio X505. It says nothing at all about building something which works the same as an Air let alone weighs the same.
Which is clearly a limitation on freedom of expression; one which is nowhere as onerous as a normal patent and which isn't that much of a big deal. Let's worry about the fact that poor people in medium income countries are dying because of drugs patents first please. And before that let's worry about the fact that random independent software companies can get destroyed by patents they never even knew existed, let alone benefitted from in their software development process. Design patents are a very minor issue.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
This is a design patent. It does not need to be inventive. The slashdot summary that said it was a "broad" patent is completely false.
This prevents other companies from making knock-offs of this particular design. If the ornamentation on a knockoff is changed, for example, so that it no longer looks exactly like this Mac Book Air, then the knockoff is ok. It's only if it matches exactly what is in this design that it would be infringing.
The slashdot summary makes it sound as if wedge-shaped laptops are now all covered by this patent. Whether it's just written poorly or intentionally designed to cause FUD is anyone's guess. Maybe the submitter will respond.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
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.
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.
A wedge shape for a laptop is just an idea. How can this be patented?
It can't, the summary is complete bullshit. The 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".
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".
The problem is, this covers ANY laptop that is thinner on one edge, which is purely an evolutionary change as some parts (like the HD) get smaller, while other parts (like the battery) don't. Are they supposed to artificially thicken the front edge to the same height as the battery, just to avoid this patent?
No it doesn't. If you read the patent, they even cite that people had done laptops thinner on the front than the rear before (sony), and that it's not what the patent covers.