Apple Applies For Color-Change Patent

Secret300 writes "Apple is applying for a patent to release "devices capable of dynamically changing their ornamental or decorative appearance." If this is a success, it would considerably boost Apple's presence in the technology world." So, perhaps we can not only theme our desktop on the machine - but our *literal* desktop.

Additional discussion....

[imac.usr]

They're talking about this over in the Mac forum on Ars Technica: Interesting Apple Patent [infopop.net]

Re:Too broad for no prior art.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and this [thinkgeek.com] little device [thinkgeek.com] also would seem to fit (based on the info in the article). I'm sure there are plenty of other examples including those cool Van something or other generator plasma display thingies.

Re:Is this how the patent system works now?

[WPIDalamar]

read the patent.

It's on a method of doing it using light to shine through the case.

Re:"devices capable of changing their color"

[sydb]

And what about novelity (is that a word?)? Screw the prior art searches, we need examiners that can say "This is not novel, so it's not patentable, even tho no one else has done it."

"Novelty" is "newness". "Novel" means "new". If no-one else has done something then by definition it is novel.

You might argue that "novelty" suggests something which is actually imaginative. But I think that here the word "novel" is used to define what is imaginative.

So don't throw away your prior art database out of a desire for novelty; you'll be throwing away your primary objective indicator of novelty.

potential patent flaw

[Chris Canfield]

If the patent calls for a change in the "ornamental or decroative appearance of a device," but then goes back to claim this could provide feedback to the user about the internal state of the device, doesn't that preclude the display from being decorative? Isn't it then, simply, an additional display device inside of a case?

I know, there are millions of examples [chiasso.com] of prior art [chiasso.com] that all are [sharperimage.com] microprocessor controlled utilizing storage (write once only, but it is storage) and decorative lights projected through a surface. But at what point do we draw the line between decorative and functional?

-C

Mathmos?

[obi]

Sounds like Mathmos (www.mathmos.com) would have a bone to pick with this patent.

They've got a whole series of "devices dynamically changing their ornamental or decorative appearance", pretty much in the same way Apple describes in this patent. Just check out the "tumbler" or "faze"...

my powerbook already has this

[mpest]

As someone may have already pointed out, My TiBook already has TWO (2) implementations of this. 1) There's a white light on the cover that pulses (beathes kindof) when the computer is sleeping. 2) The powercharger glows green when charged and orange when charging. Both of these fit the description of "dynamic ornamental appearance" as apple describes them I believe. This patent is from february and could just be covering existing products. But I still think a glowing imac would be cool and could be likely.

Re:Too broad for no prior art.

[Sentry21]

The patent isn't talking about display surfaces changing, it's talking about the actual housing for an electronic device changing, i.e. the plastic shell of your TV changing colour. That would be hard to shower prior art for, since I've yet to see a TV or monitor that could dynamically change the physical appearance of its external housing.

Apple, I don't know what on earth you've come up with, but I'm at once scared and excited. I can't wait for whatever MWSF you show this off at.

--Dan