Once again, Appleinsider uses the term "wins" when describing the granting of a patent. Patents are not won (as in a contest). They are applied for and granted.
This is the iPad 2/3/4 design and… iPhone 4S. I guess. Look, the second one's a tossup, but the first one's valid.
True, but it still proves my point that this is not the first nor the last design patent Apple will be granted so I don't see how it's news. Especially when Apple isn't even in the top 20 in terms of companies that are granted patents. Samsung applies for and receives far more patents than Apple, and IBM tops them all.
Blame the rich! They need to pay their fair share and grant all of us patents!!
Huh, I never thought of that. In a communist society, where everyone owns everything, assuming it was established from a democratic society, would corporate patents be distributed to individuals? That'd be neat. Member of the politburo shows up at your door with the paperwork for, like, two telephony systems, a dishwasher design, and the registered trademark of a company that was shut down for being too decadent…
And you're all, "So what do I get to do with these?" and then you clam up when he gives you The Eye and says, "What the State tells you."
I wonder if the magnetic iPad cover patent will have any effect on the surface magnetic cover.
Not so much. Apple's is a *design* patent not a *utility* patent. Microsoft has a very different design, so they would not need to license Apple's.
Design patents are used more like logos, trademarks and the like. Companies are unlikely to cross license design patents. It would be like cross licensing logos or product names. It would be unlikely to make sense for either party.
Comments
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I'll ask again, why is this newsworthy? Check this out from November of 2010: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/11/apple-wins-big-time-with-iphone-4-and-ipad-design-patents.html
As the title says, that's the iPhone 4 and iPad.
This is the iPad 2/3/4 design and… iPhone 4S. I guess. Look, the second one's a tossup, but the first one's valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Meanwhile, somewhere in Shenzhen, China, an iPhone counterfeiting company collectively soiled their trousers.
Why?
Does't even matter where the patent is, it will be copied.
Once again, Appleinsider uses the term "wins" when describing the granting of a patent. Patents are not won (as in a contest). They are applied for and granted.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
True, but it still proves my point that this is not the first nor the last design patent Apple will be granted so I don't see how it's news.
It's an Apple website.
Not as much news as if it were actively involved in a suit or something, but news.
I think this is definitely news. I don't think this should this should be granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's an Apple website.
Not as much news as if it were actively involved in a suit or something, but news.
I think this is definitely news. I don't think this should this should be granted.
Perhaps they will be buying out the IP from Nissan for their LEAF Car...
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezlegrunk
Yeah, because that's the most important thing for us as a society — that anything and everything be patented by a corporation ...
Blame the rich! They need to pay their fair share and grant all of us patents!!
Originally Posted by iSteelers
Blame the rich! They need to pay their fair share and grant all of us patents!!
Huh, I never thought of that. In a communist society, where everyone owns everything, assuming it was established from a democratic society, would corporate patents be distributed to individuals? That'd be neat. Member of the politburo shows up at your door with the paperwork for, like, two telephony systems, a dishwasher design, and the registered trademark of a company that was shut down for being too decadent…
And you're all, "So what do I get to do with these?" and then you clam up when he gives you The Eye and says, "What the State tells you."
Yep. Neat.
To you, Spam, and Tallest,
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmikeo
I wonder if the magnetic iPad cover patent will have any effect on the surface magnetic cover.
Not so much. Apple's is a *design* patent not a *utility* patent. Microsoft has a very different design, so they would not need to license Apple's.
Design patents are used more like logos, trademarks and the like. Companies are unlikely to cross license design patents. It would be like cross licensing logos or product names. It would be unlikely to make sense for either party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple already patented the rounded rectangle for an electronic display, at minimal with regard to a general screen proportion.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners
...now whether they could ever successfully assert it in a courtroom is debatable.
Yup. I'm just waiting for Apple to patent a vertical line with a dot on the top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"What the State tells you."
Yep. Neat.
Reminds me on "What Apple tells you".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Yup. I'm just waiting for Apple to patent a vertical line with a dot on the top.
Reminds me on "What Apple tells you".
They're trying to patent the simple leaf drawing over the Apple as a standalone image now, separate from the Apple logo. Give 'em time.