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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
"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
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.
Comments
So, Apple has patented a rectangle. Maybe they will sue the maker of my tile floor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbsteph
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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?
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
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.
I micturate on this article and all the comments, including this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
SNIPI 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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
"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
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Precisely. Apple should sue Sony for preemptively copying their future products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
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.