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

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

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…

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

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

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 

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.

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?

 

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?

 

 

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.

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.

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.  

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

 

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

 

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

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.

It's time for the pyramid.

 

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:

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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... 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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. 

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".


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.

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?

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 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.

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.

One thing to say, haha.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.