The "D" means these are design patents. These are more like registered trademarks or copyrights than what is usually implied by "patent". They protect against copying the look and feel of an object, not how they work (an article patent) or how they are made (a process patent).
You are correct. I presume that AAPL has a utility patent on the attach mechanism, and it will be very interesting to see how vigorously they assert their rights.
I can see AAPL being diligent about sending out cease and desist letters citing the patents - particularly to places like eBay or Amazon - but really filing and pursuing infringement lawsuits? Dunno.
That's a misconception (or misreporting). Apple was not ordered to pare down the list of patents they wanted to assert. The law does not allow a judge to make that order. She could only make the suggestion. It was Apple's choice to do so in order to get the case heard more quickly.
Anyway, the thread is veering off-course so we should probably discuss this in a more appropriate thread if there's an interest in continuing.
It's not exactly a suggestion if the judge was angry. ^_^
Do you want an angry judge in your case ? Clearly, she didn't have enough time to process the huge list.
The other day I saw some third-party bands on another Apple news site. One of them had the pin-and-tuck design from the fluoroelastomer band. Glad to see that will get squashed. So many of these third-party bands just look awful.
Glad I ordered the stainless link band. It is beautiful and in keeping with Apple's style. The links are like extensions of the rounded-rectangle edge. How come no other watchmaker managed to produce a user-serviceable band like this? (Yeah I know, to protect jeweler revenue, and because they had no incentive to innovate.)
Really? Look at the Sport patent, this's where the US patent system fails. Instead of patent the connector, they're granted for the band too...yeah, that band is so original /s.
im not a watch guy so i dont know. are there other bands that use pegs and tuck in a negative space under the other part of the strap the way the sport band does?
im not a watch guy so i dont know. are there other bands that use pegs and tuck in a negative space under the other part of the strap the way the sport band does?
I mean the classic buckle in the third picture. Does it look different from traditional bands?
If there are novel aspects to the design and/or utility of the Apple Watch bands and the way they connect, here is how I would imagine Apple playing its hand:
1. File for design patents, to protect the designs until the unique designs (called Trade Dress under trademark law) come to be associated with Apple (referred to as secondary meaning under trademark law). This takes time, as people must learn about and experience the design only on Apple products in order to come to associate the design uniquely with Apple. So while trademark law will protect Apple's designs in perpetuity, it takes time for those designs to become associated with Apple and not some general design available form multiple vendors. This is where design patents come into play. A design patent provides, or at least should provide, immediate protection of a unique/novel design until that design comes to be associated exclusively with the company that created the design. Then trademark protection takes over.
2. File utility patents on any inventions Apple feels are unique and non-obvious. This gives Apple the basis for enforcing protection of their innovations, hopefully preventing other companies form employing the invention in there own competing products.
3. Employ a unique identifier within Apple bands that the Watch recognizes through the six contacts within one of the slots on each Watch where the band connects. This would be something along the lines of the way Apple products identify a Lightning connector. The technology within a Lightning connect is licensed, at a cost, to authorized Apple partners to include in their appliances (speakers, chargers, etc) that incorporate a Lightning connector. So Apple, should they wish, could prevent a Watch from operating if it is connected to an illegal band. This could be as simple as integrating a small chip (RFID, perhaps) into each band within which resides a trademarked Apple phrase, maybe just "Apple Inc." If your band contains an electronic copy of this trademarked phrase and you did not license the right to include it from Apple, you are in violation of trademark law and Apple could petition to have your products removed form the market. I'm not totally conversant in this area so there might be some nuances, but the general idea is where I'm going with this. And why Kuerig didn't do something similar is a wonder to me. If the Keurig machine doesn't detect the proper trademark, then brew the coffee wrong, and sue the trademark violators who have the correct trademarked phrase but no license to use it.
So Apple, should they wish, could prevent a Watch from operating if it is connected to an illegal band. This could be as simple as integrating a small chip (RFID, perhaps) into each band within which resides a trademarked Apple phrase, maybe just "Apple Inc." If your band contains an electronic copy of this trademarked phrase and you did not license the right to include it from Apple, you are in violation of trademark law and Apple could petition to have your products removed form the market. I'm not totally conversant in this area so there might be some nuances, but the general idea is where I'm going with this. And why Kuerig didn't do something similar is a wonder to me. If the Keurig machine doesn't detect the proper trademark, then brew the coffee wrong, and sue the trademark violators who have the correct trademarked phrase but no license to use it.
Okay here's the deal. Upgrade the watch but leave the band attachment points alone so the bands can be compatible up the generations. The tech part is going to upgrade and improve but the bands are going to have longer lifetimes, or at least they should in the case of the loop and link for example.
Comments
The "D" means these are design patents. These are more like registered trademarks or copyrights than what is usually implied by "patent". They protect against copying the look and feel of an object, not how they work (an article patent) or how they are made (a process patent).
You are correct. I presume that AAPL has a utility patent on the attach mechanism, and it will be very interesting to see how vigorously they assert their rights.
I can see AAPL being diligent about sending out cease and desist letters citing the patents - particularly to places like eBay or Amazon - but really filing and pursuing infringement lawsuits? Dunno.
It's not exactly a suggestion if the judge was angry. ^_^
Do you want an angry judge in your case ? Clearly, she didn't have enough time to process the huge list.
Glad I ordered the stainless link band. It is beautiful and in keeping with Apple's style. The links are like extensions of the rounded-rectangle edge. How come no other watchmaker managed to produce a user-serviceable band like this? (Yeah I know, to protect jeweler revenue, and because they had no incentive to innovate.)
I see there is now a 'word' for this ...
It's called "Negging" : Verb: Wrapping a putdown inside a few complimentary words.
Commenting on the wordplay only. I have always liked the phrase "backhanded compliment".
Commenting on the wordplay only. I have always liked the phrase "backhanded compliment".
An even more insidious version of this -- since it's all positive -- is 'damning with faint praise'....
im not a watch guy so i dont know. are there other bands that use pegs and tuck in a negative space under the other part of the strap the way the sport band does?
im not a watch guy so i dont know. are there other bands that use pegs and tuck in a negative space under the other part of the strap the way the sport band does?
I mean the classic buckle in the third picture. Does it look different from traditional bands?
If there are novel aspects to the design and/or utility of the Apple Watch bands and the way they connect, here is how I would imagine Apple playing its hand:
1. File for design patents, to protect the designs until the unique designs (called Trade Dress under trademark law) come to be associated with Apple (referred to as secondary meaning under trademark law). This takes time, as people must learn about and experience the design only on Apple products in order to come to associate the design uniquely with Apple. So while trademark law will protect Apple's designs in perpetuity, it takes time for those designs to become associated with Apple and not some general design available form multiple vendors. This is where design patents come into play. A design patent provides, or at least should provide, immediate protection of a unique/novel design until that design comes to be associated exclusively with the company that created the design. Then trademark protection takes over.
2. File utility patents on any inventions Apple feels are unique and non-obvious. This gives Apple the basis for enforcing protection of their innovations, hopefully preventing other companies form employing the invention in there own competing products.
3. Employ a unique identifier within Apple bands that the Watch recognizes through the six contacts within one of the slots on each Watch where the band connects. This would be something along the lines of the way Apple products identify a Lightning connector. The technology within a Lightning connect is licensed, at a cost, to authorized Apple partners to include in their appliances (speakers, chargers, etc) that incorporate a Lightning connector. So Apple, should they wish, could prevent a Watch from operating if it is connected to an illegal band. This could be as simple as integrating a small chip (RFID, perhaps) into each band within which resides a trademarked Apple phrase, maybe just "Apple Inc." If your band contains an electronic copy of this trademarked phrase and you did not license the right to include it from Apple, you are in violation of trademark law and Apple could petition to have your products removed form the market. I'm not totally conversant in this area so there might be some nuances, but the general idea is where I'm going with this. And why Kuerig didn't do something similar is a wonder to me. If the Keurig machine doesn't detect the proper trademark, then brew the coffee wrong, and sue the trademark violators who have the correct trademarked phrase but no license to use it.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7986327/keurigs-attempt-to-drm-its-coffee-cups-totally-backfired
be compatible up the generations. The tech part is going to upgrade and improve but the bands are going to have longer lifetimes, or at least they should in the case of the loop and link for example.