Too much of a generalization - not all ideas can be patented.
Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.
Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?
6. If a first person furnishes all of the ideas to make an invention and a second person employs the first person or furnishes the money for building and testing the invention, should the patent application be filed by the first and second persons jointly?
A. No. The application must be signed by the true inventor, and filed in the USPTO, in the inventor?s name. This is the person who furnishes the ideas (e.g. the first person in the above fact pattern), not the employer or the person who furnishes the money.
Not a definitive "You can patent ideas" but it does show that in order to get a patent for the design, you need to be the person who came up with the idea, and not just the employer or finance guy. You can't patent JUST an idea, but when something get's to a "prop" stage, or when a writer develops a new interface for a computer in his book, they're not "just" ideas anymore.
But the idea itself is NOT patentable. I think we agree on that. The implementation is patented, and not the idea itself.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".
Name the stakes and the odds. I'll take your offer for any amount of money you are willing to put up.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.
So Apple copied the idea of a tablet newspaper to come up with their tablet computer. It's even worse than that. Both Apple and the newspaper researchers stole the idea from the "slates" that kids used instead of notebooks several decades ago. Thieves, everyone!
I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".
It can be considered infringing if the average consumer is confused into thinking it is the same product. For example, there was a "Freedom Stick" game controller that was ruled to be a confusingly similar design as the NES Advantage joystick.
But this is clearly not, for one, the ST communicator has a mesh that flips open, no phone I remember has that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek
I'd say only if the word "Pad" didn't exist before Star Trek.
Quote:
and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.
That is closer, it would be interesting to see if it qualifies as prior art. However, the top face has a rolled edge, and the side has a stylus pocket, and the bottom edge width is a different size than the sides and top. I'm not even sure a design patent can have prior art problems like a utility patent.
Apple is making a higher profit margin on their products than anyone else in their field, and they are by far the market leader when it comes to sales Volume for the ipad. I'd say they're doing quite fine with people "stealing"
That's ridiculous. So in your view, it's OK if I steal 10% of your possessions as long as you're wealthy enough to have lots of stuff left over?
Stealing hurts Apple a great deal - even though they're strong enough to do well anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Interesting link {1994 media reader}. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.
Might be relevant - if Apple were trying to patent the concept of a media consuming device. But they're not. It's a design patent and since the 1994 'product' looks nothing like the iPad, it's irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2
Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.
Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?
None that I know of. Patents are rewarded for inventions:
"The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application"
HOWEVER, we're talking about a DESIGN PATENT, which is a different matter (http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/design.html). It is conceivable that a design patent could cover just an idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".
Nonsense. No one owns the right to the Giza pyramid's design.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek...
Seems much more likely that the idea of "iPad" derived from Apples own earlier product, the MessagePad.
People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.
Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.
Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?
I suspect that we are really only disagreeing semantically here on the definition of "idea". My point is that you do not actually have to build a functional device to obtain patent protection - the patent just needs to include a sufficiently complete description of how you would build it. At that point it is still just an idea in my view, but I'm guessing that by "idea" you are thinking more of just the concept of what it would do (e.g. a time machine, rather than the technical plans to build a time machine).
Don't be so sure of yourselves. I know for a fact that if want to use an image of the Golden Gate Bridge for commercial purpose, you must ask for permission from San Francisco and maybe pay for a license to do so.
People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.
This is a nice summary, although reality adds complexity. There is a genuinely difficult problem embedded in this disagreement. Apple clearly created a new market with both the iPhone and the iPad, both of which were extensively dismissed as doomed to fail when released. But they succeeded beyond all expectations. So other companies now want to get a share of that market, as they should, and also as we, the consumers should want them to.
So in terms of design, how much protection should Apple be given? It would not be fair to say that no one else can build a tablet computer. Is it reasonable to call foul if other companies deliberately try to imitate the appearance of, say, the iPad in order to confuse potential customers? Most reasonable people would probably say yes. Are Samsung doing that? Much harder to determine.
Are they following the same basic design that Apple demonstrated to be so popular? I would say clearly they are. Is that wrong? I don't know, but they would be foolish not to follow the successful recipe as closely as they can get away with - unless they can improve on it, which doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Seems much more likely that the idea of "iPad" derived from Apples own earlier product, the MessagePad.
People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.
If you watch 'tablet newspaper (1994)' in YouTube, you would see that they are the innovator. It does pretty much what my Ipad2 does. It is quite lengthy video clip, but really worth have a look.
I don't know what Samsung copied still and what Apple is exactly moaning about. I only see similarities in images manipulated by Apple. If you look at the default home screen with size comparison, they are different. Some says icons, but they are different. Also, Samsung has their own design, have you seen Samsung digital photo frame(2006)?
I think Apple is a striking copycat and even worse they claim original. See what they are doing now. Making great products should not be an excuse for being a copycat.
If you watch 'tablet newspaper (1994)' in YouTube, you would see that they are the innovator. It does pretty much what my Ipad2 does. It is quite lengthy video clip, but really worth have a look.
Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.
Are they following the same basic design that Apple demonstrated to be so popular? I would say clearly they are. Is that wrong? I don't know, but they would be foolish not to follow the successful recipe as closely as they can get away with - unless they can improve on it, which doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Samsung does have their own basic design, search for 'Samsung digital photo frame (2006). It is basically same design for their GT.
Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.
You know very well why it wasn't done in 1994. Or 2000. Or 2005. The pieces that make the latest attempt successful weren't yet in place, at least a price that made business sense. In some cases certain needed hardware wasn't available at any price. Even the capacitive touchscreens that Apple depends on weren't economically viable until the past 5 years or so.
If Apple had wanted to build the current iPad 6 years ago and make it a successful venture, they could not have. The pieces and parts were way too expensive or not available at all.
You know very well why it wasn't done in 1994. Or 2000. Or 2005. The pieces that make the latest attempt successful weren't yet in place, at least a price that made business sense. In some cases certain needed hardware wasn't available at any price. Even the capacitive touchscreens that Apple depends on weren't economically viable until the past 5 years or so.
If Apple had wanted to build the current iPad 6 years ago and make it a successful venture, they could not have. The pieces and parts were way too expensive or not available at all.
All true, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple were the first to succeed.
Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.
It is more than digital newspaper. You obviously have not watched it. They are the pionieer and innovator in the tablet industry, IMO. Apple copied from them, and Samsung followed Apple making better product. But, I am happy with my IPad as my wife and 3 year old daughter love it.
This is a nice summary, although reality adds complexity. There is a genuinely difficult problem embedded in this disagreement.
Indeed. But what most people seem to be forgetting is that Apple is duty bound to do whatever it can to protect against unreasonable infringement even if the available procedures are based on precedents that are somewhat questionable. From Apple's point of view, there is clear infringement. The question is how do they most efficiently achieve some recourse. Given the nature of the game and the rules/laws, (sometimes fallacious) that come into play, there is always going to be a level of expediency. As a business seeking to gain some temporary advantages from its own pioneering work, Apple would be silly not to explore reasonable strategies that are legally permissible.
Comments
Too much of a generalization - not all ideas can be patented.
Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.
Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?
Same comment.
Same response.
6. If a first person furnishes all of the ideas to make an invention and a second person employs the first person or furnishes the money for building and testing the invention, should the patent application be filed by the first and second persons jointly?
A. No. The application must be signed by the true inventor, and filed in the USPTO, in the inventor?s name. This is the person who furnishes the ideas (e.g. the first person in the above fact pattern), not the employer or the person who furnishes the money.
http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp
Not a definitive "You can patent ideas" but it does show that in order to get a patent for the design, you need to be the person who came up with the idea, and not just the employer or finance guy. You can't patent JUST an idea, but when something get's to a "prop" stage, or when a writer develops a new interface for a computer in his book, they're not "just" ideas anymore.
But the idea itself is NOT patentable. I think we agree on that. The implementation is patented, and not the idea itself.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".
Name the stakes and the odds. I'll take your offer for any amount of money you are willing to put up.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtP...eature=feedlik
They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.
So Apple copied the idea of a tablet newspaper to come up with their tablet computer. It's even worse than that. Both Apple and the newspaper researchers stole the idea from the "slates" that kids used instead of notebooks several decades ago. Thieves, everyone!
I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".
It can be considered infringing if the average consumer is confused into thinking it is the same product. For example, there was a "Freedom Stick" game controller that was ruled to be a confusingly similar design as the NES Advantage joystick.
But this is clearly not, for one, the ST communicator has a mesh that flips open, no phone I remember has that.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek
I'd say only if the word "Pad" didn't exist before Star Trek.
and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtP...eature=feedlik
They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.
That is closer, it would be interesting to see if it qualifies as prior art. However, the top face has a rolled edge, and the side has a stylus pocket, and the bottom edge width is a different size than the sides and top. I'm not even sure a design patent can have prior art problems like a utility patent.
Apple is making a higher profit margin on their products than anyone else in their field, and they are by far the market leader when it comes to sales Volume for the ipad. I'd say they're doing quite fine with people "stealing"
That's ridiculous. So in your view, it's OK if I steal 10% of your possessions as long as you're wealthy enough to have lots of stuff left over?
Stealing hurts Apple a great deal - even though they're strong enough to do well anyway.
Interesting link {1994 media reader}. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.
Might be relevant - if Apple were trying to patent the concept of a media consuming device. But they're not. It's a design patent and since the 1994 'product' looks nothing like the iPad, it's irrelevant.
Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.
Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?
None that I know of. Patents are rewarded for inventions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
"The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application"
HOWEVER, we're talking about a DESIGN PATENT, which is a different matter (http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/design.html). It is conceivable that a design patent could cover just an idea.
In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".
Nonsense. No one owns the right to the Giza pyramid's design.
To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek...
Seems much more likely that the idea of "iPad" derived from Apples own earlier product, the MessagePad.
People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.
Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.
Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?
I suspect that we are really only disagreeing semantically here on the definition of "idea". My point is that you do not actually have to build a functional device to obtain patent protection - the patent just needs to include a sufficiently complete description of how you would build it. At that point it is still just an idea in my view, but I'm guessing that by "idea" you are thinking more of just the concept of what it would do (e.g. a time machine, rather than the technical plans to build a time machine).
Nonsense. No one owns the right to the Giza pyramid's design.
Name the stakes and the odds. I'll take your offer for any amount of money you are willing to put up.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...copyright.html
Don't be so sure of yourselves. I know for a fact that if want to use an image of the Golden Gate Bridge for commercial purpose, you must ask for permission from San Francisco and maybe pay for a license to do so.
People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.
This is a nice summary, although reality adds complexity. There is a genuinely difficult problem embedded in this disagreement. Apple clearly created a new market with both the iPhone and the iPad, both of which were extensively dismissed as doomed to fail when released. But they succeeded beyond all expectations. So other companies now want to get a share of that market, as they should, and also as we, the consumers should want them to.
So in terms of design, how much protection should Apple be given? It would not be fair to say that no one else can build a tablet computer. Is it reasonable to call foul if other companies deliberately try to imitate the appearance of, say, the iPad in order to confuse potential customers? Most reasonable people would probably say yes. Are Samsung doing that? Much harder to determine.
Are they following the same basic design that Apple demonstrated to be so popular? I would say clearly they are. Is that wrong? I don't know, but they would be foolish not to follow the successful recipe as closely as they can get away with - unless they can improve on it, which doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Seems much more likely that the idea of "iPad" derived from Apples own earlier product, the MessagePad.
People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.
If you watch 'tablet newspaper (1994)' in YouTube, you would see that they are the innovator. It does pretty much what my Ipad2 does. It is quite lengthy video clip, but really worth have a look.
I don't know what Samsung copied still and what Apple is exactly moaning about. I only see similarities in images manipulated by Apple. If you look at the default home screen with size comparison, they are different. Some says icons, but they are different. Also, Samsung has their own design, have you seen Samsung digital photo frame(2006)?
I think Apple is a striking copycat and even worse they claim original. See what they are doing now. Making great products should not be an excuse for being a copycat.
If you watch 'tablet newspaper (1994)' in YouTube, you would see that they are the innovator. It does pretty much what my Ipad2 does. It is quite lengthy video clip, but really worth have a look.
Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.
Are they following the same basic design that Apple demonstrated to be so popular? I would say clearly they are. Is that wrong? I don't know, but they would be foolish not to follow the successful recipe as closely as they can get away with - unless they can improve on it, which doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Samsung does have their own basic design, search for 'Samsung digital photo frame (2006). It is basically same design for their GT.
Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.
You know very well why it wasn't done in 1994. Or 2000. Or 2005. The pieces that make the latest attempt successful weren't yet in place, at least a price that made business sense. In some cases certain needed hardware wasn't available at any price. Even the capacitive touchscreens that Apple depends on weren't economically viable until the past 5 years or so.
If Apple had wanted to build the current iPad 6 years ago and make it a successful venture, they could not have. The pieces and parts were way too expensive or not available at all.
Samsung does have their own basic design, search for 'Samsung digital photo frame (2006). It is basically same design for their GT.
If they can convince the courts that their tablet does more closely resemble their earlier product then that should represent a reasonable defence.
You know very well why it wasn't done in 1994. Or 2000. Or 2005. The pieces that make the latest attempt successful weren't yet in place, at least a price that made business sense. In some cases certain needed hardware wasn't available at any price. Even the capacitive touchscreens that Apple depends on weren't economically viable until the past 5 years or so.
If Apple had wanted to build the current iPad 6 years ago and make it a successful venture, they could not have. The pieces and parts were way too expensive or not available at all.
All true, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple were the first to succeed.
All true, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple were the first to succeed.
Which appears to be just as much about fortunate timing as anything else IMO.
Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.
It is more than digital newspaper. You obviously have not watched it. They are the pionieer and innovator in the tablet industry, IMO. Apple copied from them, and Samsung followed Apple making better product. But, I am happy with my IPad as my wife and 3 year old daughter love it.
This is a nice summary, although reality adds complexity. There is a genuinely difficult problem embedded in this disagreement.
Indeed. But what most people seem to be forgetting is that Apple is duty bound to do whatever it can to protect against unreasonable infringement even if the available procedures are based on precedents that are somewhat questionable. From Apple's point of view, there is clear infringement. The question is how do they most efficiently achieve some recourse. Given the nature of the game and the rules/laws, (sometimes fallacious) that come into play, there is always going to be a level of expediency. As a business seeking to gain some temporary advantages from its own pioneering work, Apple would be silly not to explore reasonable strategies that are legally permissible.