or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple MacBook Air design patent could disrupt Ultrabook rollouts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple MacBook Air design patent could disrupt Ultrabook rollouts - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Please actually read the Design Patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D661296.pdf

It specifically cites the Sony VAIO.

It also references the Olidata Altro which seems much closer to something that could have come from Apple.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #42 of 85

So, Apple has patented a rectangle.  Maybe they will sue the maker of my tile floor.

post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbsteph View Post
So, Apple has patented a rectangle.  Maybe they will sue the maker of my tile floor.

 

I've never understood why people enjoy parading around the fact that they're utterly ignorant of a situation…

post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbsteph View Post

So, Apple has patented a rectangle.  Maybe they will sue the maker of my tile floor.

That's what I'm talking about! Thank you for keeping the world in balance... even if that balance is severely lopsided.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A broad patent issued to Apple on Tuesday...

There is no such thing as a broad design patent. Design patents cover the ornamental design of specific item.

post #46 of 85

So many people perpetuating ignorance (including whoever wrote the AI and original articles.)

As has been pointed out by several posters correctly and ad nausium:

 

• This patent has nothing to do with the "wedge" or "teardrop" shape.

• You can patent a design (hence, the vast host of design patents, as opposed to utility patents.)

• Design patents very specifically protect the ornamental design of the object and are always narrow (never broad.)

• Think of design patents as being less closely related to utility patents, and more closely related to other forms of trade dress (Logos, colors, trade marks, etc.)

 

And one more pointer:

• Drop the authoritative and whining tone when posting about subjects for which you have no KSA's 

post #47 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

This is the problem. Everyone seems to think that you can patent a nice design. You can't. If you invent something like the iPod click wheel you can patent that.

 

If you design something completely new, a new product never seen before you can patent that.

 

But if you take a standard laptop and modify it's styling to give it a wedge/teardrop design what have you invented? Nothing - you have merely modified an existing design (the laptop) in the same way that Samsung has it's own styling and HP, etc.

 

You can probably patent some of the components within the design if they are genuinely new such as a new composite material like liquid metal or the technology contained in the product such as Thunderbolt.

You know, you really should just stop.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you just come off as a laughable know-nothing.

Just give it up.

post #48 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Please learn the difference between a *design patent* and a utility patent. It's not about the root primitive (like your wedge), it's about the styling. A Coke bottle is covered by design patent - not because they made a bottle that does things that couldn't be done before, but a design patent covers the styling aspects of the bottle.

How do they test the validity of a design patent or infringement anyway? As far as I'm concerned, it's a troll article, as it's written with an agenda. Someone is now speculating on future litigation against an entire product category. I mean would this be infringing?

U300s-8L.jpg

 

How do they test validity. As was mentioned, tapered laptops aren't new, so does it come down to points of similarity or difference, or a more abstract comparison?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) I'm astonished Apple hasn't tried to stop them yet from ripping off their ideas.
2) Can't wait to read to the weak arguments about how Apple didn't invent the wedge or the teardrop.

 

I just want to know why these articles have sunk so low and what it takes to constitute infringement. Tapered shouldn't be too much of a surprise because they're making machines that are essentially restricted only by the height required for their ports and possibly internal fans. I'd like to know what constitutes infringing or not infringing rather than fuzzy copy and paste journalism. You can argue that it should be obvious, but a method of determining validity is a natural requirement. I've looked at a few of these. Dell made one. It was called an MBA clone too, but they had a similar netbook design with similar styling that preceded it. At that point how do you determine if they have a case? Asus used a similar angle in an advertisement where it's balanced along the hinge when sony did that years ago. In case you're wondering, I'm trying to make it more interesting. I find the mock lawyer arguments that come up in these threads to be annoying, but it could be interesting if anyone knows a lot about design patent law.

post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

See my earlier post about the scope of claims in a design patent.  This patent covers the screen casing, not the wedge. Does the Sony laptop have a curvature and thickness that is the same as the MBA?  If you have a picture, it would be interesting to see the design.

Perhaps you should look a little closer.  The lines at the bottom of the article are not in phantom.  Thus, the relationship between the angle of the screen casing and the bottom of the laptop is definitely part of the design. This, of course, is why people are referring to the wedge-shaped design.  I agree with you, though, that the screen casing is also a big part of the design.

post #50 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

First of all, this patent doesn't cover a wedge.  The patent covers the design of the screen casing.  FYI, dotted lines in a design application do not form part of the claim.  The only thing being claimed here is the solid lines, which is the design of the screen casing. Design patents are a lot different than utility patents.  The drawings in a design patent are the claims.  Design patents by definition do not cover function and therefore do not have claims that recite the elements of a device. 

 

And your comment about "certainly there is prior art..." is entirely unsupported. Have you looked at the prior art? Talk is cheap.  Show us the prior art.  The patent office (which is in the business of searching prior art) didn't find a computer casing with this design.  Until someone produces some prior art, this patent is valid as a matter of law.  

First of all, your expertise about design patents and your attention to detail is obviously lacking (see my previous post about the wedge shape, which you seem to contend is not a limitation of the patent).  Now, with respect to Gazobee's statement, he didn't say there was invalidating prior art, he merely said that there certainly is prior art showing a wedge shape.  I don't know whether that statement has any merit or not.  But it seems like his point wasn't that the design patent was invalid, but rather that the scope of the claim must be narrow (and there is always a written claim, even in design patents, it merely refers to the drawings) because the prior art must be close.  And since you seem to know so much about design patents, you should know that in Egyptian Goddess the Fed Circuit held that the scope of a design patent would be partially based on a consideration of what the prior art shows.  Thus, I think his point was simply: There are other similar designs and, therefore, the scope of this patent will be narrow, and slight modifications will avoid infringement.  

post #51 of 85

micturate on this article and all the comments, including this one.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #52 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

SNIP

 

I have never heard of Ford suing GM coz one car looks like another.

 

Ridiculous.

 

You obviously get around on a "fixie" bike, like me... and therefore think because all cars have four wheels they look the same!

post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo View Post

Man, I am so sick of these endless patent-related legal actions both originating from, and going against, Apple. I don't know the details of this particular one, but the vast majority of them seem to center around thiings that seem like they shouldn't be patent-able.

 

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo View Post

Man, I am so sick of these endless patent-related legal actions both originating from, and going against, Apple. I don't know the details of this particular one, but the vast majority of them seem to center around thiings that seem like they shouldn't be patent-able.

Well it's not like Apple is actually doing this. The article is just making legal predictions, which I find silly. They're also being incredibly vague suggesting that Apple owns the rights to thin laptops and wedges. Note that the design patent doesn't say this. The way the article is written implies it, and I hate that.

post #55 of 85

It's time for the pyramid.

 

The-Office-The-Pyramid-Tablet-550x307.png

Always remember..wherever you go, there you are.
Reply
Always remember..wherever you go, there you are.
Reply
post #56 of 85

The ultrabooks are very similar to the MBA, more than they need to be solely based on convergence, IMO. I still don't think there's a big chance of them getting sued solely based on things like the "wedge design". Here are two pictures from around 2004 to illustrate my point:

 

Sony_Vaio_Wedge_505.pngibookg4.jpg

post #57 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

"But these are the natural evolution of what a light notebook computer looks like. We can't possibly make it look like anything else because this is natural progression, so these patents are frivolous at best. It's like patenting the design for a circle," says yet another lawyer representing yet another taker of design cues from Apple. 

 

Ridiculous analogy. I've owned teardropshaped machines before the Macbook Air. Even the 300$ EEEPC "clam" is teardrop-shaped.

I hope this patent is more substantive than reported here, or the patent system is worthless... I'm going to patent the fact of using paper bags to put food in and sue McDonalds :D

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #58 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


Sony_Vaio_Wedge_505.png

 

Precisely. Apple should sue Sony for preemptively copying their future products.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Well it's not like Apple is actually doing this. The article is just making legal predictions, which I find silly. They're also being incredibly vague suggesting that Apple owns the rights to thin laptops and wedges. Note that the design patent doesn't say this. The way the article is written implies it, and I hate that.

Happy to see several people agree with me on this :D

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

I have never heard of Ford suing GM coz one car looks like another.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Ford sued Ferrari because they called the 2011 F1 car "F150"... and Ferrari had to change the name. 

 

And we are talking about a F1 car and a pick-up... 

post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

You know, you really should just stop.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you just come off as a laughable know-nothing.

Just give it up.


If you're so clever maybe you should enlighten us all with your wisdom on this topic.

 

Go on. Tell us something we don't know as you clearly know it all.

 

Personally I try to comment on the topic rather than post simply to insult people.

post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

 

You obviously get around on a "fixie" bike, like me... and therefore think because all cars have four wheels they look the same!

 

I read the motoring press every week and I often see one car company clearly copying the overall general design of another with their new models.

 

It's a fact of life. There simply aren't that many unique designs in the world so I think product designers often try and copy or take inspiration from other designs.

 

Even Sir Jony Ive admits that he takes inspiration from other product designs.

post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

And your comment about "certainly there is prior art..." is entirely unsupported. Have you looked at the prior art? Talk is cheap.  Show us the prior art.  The patent office (which is in the business of searching prior art) didn't find a computer casing with this design.  Until someone produces some prior art, this patent is valid as a matter of law.  

 

Having worked through some patent applications, defenses and some challenges, the patent office is not actually that good at searching for any prior art.

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #64 of 85

I really wonder what the world would be like if non-Apple products didn't look like Apple products. Malkovich, Malkovich?

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

I read the motoring press every week and I often see one car company clearly copying the overall general design of another with their new models.

 

It's a fact of life. There simply aren't that many unique designs in the world so I think product designers often try and copy or take inspiration from other designs.

 

Even Sir Jony Ive admits that he takes inspiration from other product designs.

 

Rather than repeat it all here, see: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150427/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-uses-identical-sony-made-camera-seen-in-iphone-4s#post_2119969

 

The bottom line is that your thinking demonstrates an inability to distinguish between mindless imitation and inspiration.

post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

The ultrabooks are very similar to the MBA, more than they need to be solely based on convergence, IMO. I still don't think there's a big chance of them getting sued solely based on things like the "wedge design". Here are two pictures from around 2004 to illustrate my point:

Sony_Vaio_Wedge_505.png

But that machine has its own set of lines and curves unique to Sony's styling, and of course, the center pivot is way different. It's not about a wedge design, wedge computers go back to at least as far back as the Apple ][. No one goes to the Coke bottle patents and say "it's just a bottle like everything else" because it's not about the basic bottle structure but the styling that makes the bottle specific to one brand.
post #67 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


But that machine has its own set of lines and curves unique to Sony's styling, and of course, the center pivot is way different. It's not about a wedge design...

 

Yeah, that what I said as well. They won't be sued solely based on wedge design. If there are enough other similarities, those could be the reason. Of course, one could just as well emphasize on the differences, since design patents are necessarily very narrow. I don't know which argument would prevail.

 

A good way to decide if the designs are too similar is to hold up an ultrabook and a MBA in the air, and to ask the lawyers if they can tell the difference. If the lawyers refuse to play, Apple wins. Or, the CEOs could wrestle each other.

post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I have never heard of Ford suing GM coz one car looks like another.

 

Ridiculous.

You need a broader range of knowledge; just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

Jeep sued Hummer over the distinctive "barred" design of the Jeep grille. Jeep lost, because they didn't take legal action soon enough.

 

Apple have no intention of falling into this trap.

post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlant View Post

You need a broader range of knowledge; just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

Jeep sued Hummer over the distinctive "barred" design of the Jeep grille. Jeep lost, because they didn't take legal action soon enough.

 

Apple have no intention of falling into this trap.

Yes, what he should have is it's very VERY rare. Almost unheard-of actually. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Intel claims that ultrabooks not only offer better performance than the iPad but represent a better value than current laptop offerings from Apple, a comment directed at the Mac-maker's thin-and-light.

I wonder if Intel is making too much money and they are intentionally trying to make Apple switch to AMD.

"better performance?" Nonsense. The ultra books are using the same CPUs and GPUs as Apple. Performance of high end ultra books is roughly identical to the MBA. And at the low end, some ultra books are using platter hard disks, so will be much slower.

Value? Also nonsense. The ultra books that are comparable to the MBA are roughly the same price or higher. Sure, there are crapware products that cost less, but that's not value. it's simply a matter of "we can sell you a POS for a few dollars less than you're paying for a premium product".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Yes. It's just a bottle. It's not an invention. As long as it doesn't have the words Coke on it so nobody could mistake it for a bottle of coke then I don't see the problem.

Patents have 2 purposes: to protect an invention and/or to stop fake products (like a fake iPhone in China or shirts with the Nike logo that are knock offs).

You're really confused. Patents are not generally designed to protect against fake products which contain the Nike or iPhone logo. That is normally handled by copyrights and trademarks.

And you're also confused about the nature of Coke's design patent (or design patents in general). If your design is distinctive enough and recognizable enough (such as Coke's bottle), it represents your product in the consumer's mind and you have the right to prevent others from copying.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #71 of 85
This is not the first patent Apple received for the MacBook Air. Why is this one making do much noise? And if Apple really waned to go after Ultrabook makers wouldn't they have done so already?
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Rather than repeat it all here, see: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150427/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-uses-identical-sony-made-camera-seen-in-iphone-4s#post_2119969

The bottom line is that your thinking demonstrates an inability to distinguish between mindless imitation and inspiration.

That's a horrible example:

1. It's not an identical camera. The Samsung SIII contains a newer version of the sensor than Apple uses while the optics and memory are different. So, it's essentially saying that one component of Samsung's phone is a newer version of the same component that Apple used.

2. You're ignoring the probability for that to happen simply because of lack of alternatives. Let's say Samsung decides that they want an 8 MP camera. They send their engineers and/or buyers around to see what's available - and only have 2 or 3 to choose from. Sony offers the best balance of price, product, and availability out of all the options. If they offered Apple the best balance, it's likely that their product would be the best choice for Samsung, as well.

Complaining about Samsung using this sensor is like saying "Apple is using an ARM processor so Samsung must be copying because Samsung is using an ARM processor, too" - or perhaps complaining that Dell is copying Apple because they both use Micron RAM in their desktop machines.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's a horrible example:
1. It's not an identical camera. ...

 

I think perhaps you didn't read the post linked to, but just looked at what thread it was in. The post really had nothing to do with the camera, but was a more general criticism of copycat apologists. In fact, the post had more to do specifically with skirts than phones and computers.

post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's a horrible example:
1. It's not an identical camera. The Samsung SIII contains a newer version of the sensor than Apple uses while the optics and memory are different. So, it's essentially saying that one component of Samsung's phone is a newer version of the same component that Apple used.
2. You're ignoring the probability for that to happen simply because of lack of alternatives. Let's say Samsung decides that they want an 8 MP camera. They send their engineers and/or buyers around to see what's available - and only have 2 or 3 to choose from. Sony offers the best balance of price, product, and availability out of all the options. If they offered Apple the best balance, it's likely that their product would be the best choice for Samsung, as well.
 

You're right, especially considering that Sony is a huge vendor in this area. They're extremely well known for cameras at all levels and cmos sensors. Beyond that people are splitting hairs comparing the use of similar commodity parts. These things are cost effective because they are supplied for multiple products in high volume.

post #75 of 85

One thing to say, haha.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

A good article on the topic:

www . dailytech . com/ article24886.htm

The design is too broad and the patent will likely get invalidated. The reason the teardrop shape exists for ultrabooks is because of the ports in the rear. Also, prior art appears to exist.
BTW anything that Jason Mick blogs/writes, about apple, is rabidly hating on Apple
you have been warned... LOL
and he also like to rip off others articles by just listing the source at the bottom of the link. (uses the bloggers privilege)
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

seems like a clear situation where copyright is more appropriate than a patent

You are clearly mistaken.  Copyrights are for works of art (books, movies, etc).  Design patents cover the design features of products.  The reason you can't get your mind around this being a patent is because you are only thinking of patents as "utility patents."  This is not a utility patent.  It is a design patent.

post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

 

Having worked through some patent applications, defenses and some challenges, the patent office is not actually that good at searching for any prior art.

I certainly trust the patent office more than naked allegation on a blog.  Show us the prior art and let us see if it infringes the claim.

post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

The ultrabooks are very similar to the MBA, more than they need to be solely based on convergence, IMO. I still don't think there's a big chance of them getting sued solely based on things like the "wedge design". Here are two pictures from around 2004 to illustrate my point:

 

Sony_Vaio_Wedge_505.pngibookg4.jpg

You all need to go talk to a patent attorney (oh wait, I am a patent attorney).  I'm telling you, THIS PATENT DOESN'T COVER A TEAR DROP OR WEDGE SHAPE.  Look at the drawings (which constitute the claim in a design application).  The wedge aspect is dotted out.  That means the wedge isn't part of the claim.  The claim covers the design of the screen casing.  As I look at the design on the sony screen casing it is really apparent to me that it is not the same design as the MBA.

post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

 

Precisely. Apple should sue Sony for preemptively copying their future products.

Before dishing out so much sarcasm, you might want to talk to a patent attorney and ask them how to interpret the claims of a design application.  You and everyone else on this blog are DEAD WRONG about the claims of the patent, interpretation of the prior art, and the patent office.  First of all, no one on this site seems to understand what a design patent is or how to interpret the claims of a design patent.  The claim of this patent does not cover the wedge shape.  It covers the screen casing.  And no Apple wouldn't sue Sony for infringement because as I see it the Sony laptop doesn't even come close to infringing...which is also why it doesn't anticipate the claim.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple MacBook Air design patent could disrupt Ultrabook rollouts