Another Garbage Patent 612
*no comment* writes "Literally "garbage patent" that is, Apple was rewarded a patent for the "Garbage" icon in Mac OS X. The patent documents can be found at the USPTO by clicking here. More on this and other Apple patents are in this article over at the macobserver."
Whats funny..... (Score:3, Funny)
fp
I guess MS can just use (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I guess MS can just use (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I know I do:
I pulled one of those "designed for Windows98" stickers off a box years ago and stuck it on my kitchen bin ...
Only it's not a very fair comparison - my bin has never crashed in over three years of continuous operation, which is more than I can say for Win98 :)
How many Apple engineers are needed to draw a can? (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft? HELLO?! :) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :) (Score:5, Funny)
I liked this quote from the abstract of the start menu patent:
Re:How could they do this?? (Score:4, Informative)
You know, if every fuckwit in the world makes up definitions [investorwords.com] for commonly available words [ramshock.com], english will get more fucked up than it already is.
Re:How could they do this?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't insult you, I label you. You are an idiot, and I find nothing insulting about saying it. If a wall is white, and I say it is white, it's not insulting. Because you take offense in what you are, it is of no concern to me.
"Information that is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public" Definition [ncsu.edu]
Ok, if you are talking about Import/Export controls than I will say that you are correct in your understanding of Public Domain. Unfortunately, your definition is only applicable for import and export of goods. Discussing anything else, especially Intellectual Property and Copyrights, your definition is completely wrong.
Repeat after me, "Mr. Sane is wrong." "Public Domain, in the context of the discussion, which is Intellectual Property; of relation to the sales and licensing of Windows 95, is defined as something free for use without any attachments of copyrights or patents." See also, encumbrance and a vast array of other definitions that you would do well to learn.
On a side note, I love it when people post websites trying to justify their incorrectness without reading the entire page and understanding the scope of what they are trying to prove.
Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft? HELLO?! :) (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why the status bar is at the bottom - since your mouse should rarely have to go down there.
One GUI 'expert' said that the start menu is in the bottom right hand corner because in general the mouse will be quite far away from it, and so you can just shoot the mouse down as far as it goes and click. This works in most enviroments - gnome(panel), kde (kicker), fvwm.. but not the newest windows (tut tut).
New slogan for USPTO (Score:5, Funny)
Better Yet: (Score:5, Funny)
Garbage in, Patents out!
They partially relinquish copyright. (Score:5, Funny)
I submit that the first major MacOS X worm should have a specific payload: replace everyone's trash icon with the ugly black and white version in Apple's patent application.
it's a design patent (Score:5, Informative)
Ever see those infomercials where they start off with "our new, innovative, *patented* design..." Well, odds are they've got a design patent.
Re:it's a design patent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:it's a design patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Why not Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that a copyright only protects that particular set of pixels. Apple's (and other) desktops are rapidly gaining scaling and other functions, and the design patent probably allows them more flexibility with protecting the look of their trashcan. I mean, if MS were to implement an inverse vector algorithm or something they could probably argue that they didn't copy Apple's stuff, but they did copy the design. This protects that.
But hey, IANAL, so what do I know.
Re:it's a design patent (Score:4, Informative)
Re:it's a design patent (Score:3, Informative)
You got that about 100% wrong. As pointed ouit by others in this thread, ONLY the visual design is protected. The functionality is not protected (and couldn't be, since Apple was using trash can like icons for over 15 years.)
ambiguity is the problem! Re:it's a design patent (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with software patents is lack of code disclosure. If the patent judges could compare line-by-line a MS .asp page feature with a php/apache page, they would laugh most of this stuff out of court. Unfortunately, they can't force them to include the patented code, because code is also protected under copyright and trade secret. The patent office is allowing a "black box" style patent--without even proof of a working system. They used to require detailed specs and proof of actual working devices. Now companies like Rambus can draw some pretty pictures and then prosecute the people who actually spend time and resources building the thing. This goes aginst 200 years of precedent!
That alone should be enough to get these thrown out, but patents don't work that way. They are assumed to be sacred, holy, creative genius by the courts until someone spends the time and money to strike each one down. Our wonderfull legal system doesn't allow the courts to "see" what goes on in the real world, only what comes into court--they can't even overturn bad Laws until someone's hanged for breaking it!
thanks for the link, shows this is bogus. (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design to be patentable must be "original." Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute. Furthermore, subject matter that could be considered offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality is not proper subject matter for a design patent application.
Anyone want to tell me that a trash can for things you want to get rid of is, O-rig-inal? Looks more like a well known object to me. If a trash can is orignial and non-obvious then a picture of my go-nads is uncommon and inoffensive. The patent office is insane and might actually consider a porno motif for design patent. I'll send them the pictures right away. I'm in the money, I'm in the money.
Anti-grouch? (Score:5, Funny)
It was great. Empty the trash, and Oscar the Grouch would come out of the trashcan singing. Then CTW sued the the muppety pants off the author and it pretty much disappeard.
Re:Anti-grouch? (Score:4, Funny)
A way out.... (Score:5, Funny)
Move over Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
All your icons are belong to us...
What I can't wait for is when Apple patents the space character in file names. Whew! Imagine the royalties on the "Program Files" (c:\Progra~1 to 8.3 folks out there) folder.
This just in: Apple patents the technique of "double-click launching" to launch applications visually.
Garbage Lawsuits... (Score:3, Funny)
As a result, I've just been leaving my trash on the floor, just outside the garbage can.
I wonder (Score:3, Funny)
If not I'm making one right now!!!
Check my .sig soon to know when its available for download.
necessary evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
If companies couldn't get a patent for something it would be much harder for them to profit and thus they wouldn't develop items/technology as quickly or at all.
To offset this "monopoly" that is legally created, patents have expiration dates. For example: Tylenol(acetaminophen) once cost 'too much' but once it's patent ran out other companies rushed in and the price dropped significantly.
Paying that higher price for some feature on a laptop sucks but would you rather not be able to buy a laptop because no one wanted to produce/invent it?
Re:necessary evil... (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, your very example has disproved you, for ICQ very willingly invented and published "Instant Messenging" techniques without any protection, and there were many immediate copies (AOL, Microsoft, and others). Yet, even knowing they had no way to prevent clones, Mirabilis still went ahead and created the field.
Re:necessary evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is irrelevant, the point is that innovation occured, without needing the incentive of patents, or any kind of guarantee of income.
However, Mirabilis was very profitable. They got a big cash buy-out [icq.com] from AOL. The internet-craze jackpot. $100s of millions for a handful of employees. Much more than they were worth, and so far AOL still hasn't figured out how to earn money [slashdot.org] on that stuff.
(Note, if you read the press release [icq.com], it is incorrect about some things. The developement of ICQ wasn't "accelerated", it was halted (on the desktop platform), so that it wouldn't lure customers away from AOL's nascent offering. AOL felt it was absorbing what could've been a major potential competitor, 5 years later)
Re:necessary evil... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing in particular, actually.
the current corporate mindset seems to be `patent everything, let the courts sort it out'
Absolutely. Ever since the big Kodak v Polaroid [purdue.edu] case, that's how they've acted. Kodak learned from their expensive defeat (the $925,000,000 settlement was just a fraction of their losses), and today it patents anything it can think of, without any consideration of them ever being workable or useful. (The bottom of this page [216.239.53.100] gives the top 20 patenters, Kodak is one)
The authors of ICQ had at least as good a chance of getting a patent as any silly one-click shopping `inventors'.
Not really. Getting patents effectively requires thousands of dollars for lawyers. One-Click was "invented" by Amazon.com, a major corporation that, while not profitable, had barrels of funding to burn.
Mirabilis was four 20-something guys with a good idea. Much less likely they could've afforded to push through a patent on a software idea (especially since the patent would've been flimsy anyway, with so many programs resembling prior art already well known)
Re:necessary evil... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's an utter lie. Thank you. You've been bought by the marketing and legal departments out there. Don't cry when they come for more of your paycheck.
The incentive is profits. The incentive is memes--that your idea is what set the motion forward, regardless of whether or not it is now the dominant idea or method or not. The incentive is creativity itself.
People have this stupid notion that people will think of things because they'll get paid. What bullshit. People think of things because that's what they do innately. Because they have nothing better to do. Because they want to help someone or improve something.
The incentive for invention was thought itself, not profits.
You want people to do something noble? Honorable? To be really good?
Don't advertise the pay scale. MDs did, and most of the talent left. Lawyers got power and 6 figures, and now every 3rd radio commercial is about some pro or anti DUI defending jackass.
I, for one, find it ludicrous crap like this is is patentable. This is getting so pissy that I'm starting to believe our entire economy is in the shits because of business practices preventing competition, not fostering it. I think how ludicrous that ink jet cartridges sell for $26. Want to enter the ink jet printer market? Can't. Tech is patented. Want to duplicate ink jet cartridges? Can't. Cartridges are patented. DMCA violation since they chip the cartridges. Want to enter the CDMA market? GSM? Patented. Even if you could, you don't have the loot to buy the bandwidth from the FCC anyways.
Funny thing, I don't blame Apple. Or Amazon. They don't have much of a choice--do it or get blasted later. I'm simply pissed such overbearing laws that have gone well beyond their constitutional intent perpetuate in our seemingly intelligent and thoughtful 21st century society.
No wonder I'm sitting here with a broadband connection with nothing decent to watch tonight--DVDs take time to come in the mail, the bandwidth sucks for video, and there's nothing good on TV. Everything's closed where I live. Makes me almost wish I drank; at least I'd go to a stinkin bar.
Fuck 'em. I'm saving my loot.
How innovative. How much better off we are. BAHH! Damn sheep. CNBC speculates that corporate spending will increase soon. Yeah, right. Who's buying?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Oooookayyy...... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that patents can work but the current system for them is horridly broken. The current patent office would hand out patents on the wheel if the application used sufficiently large words and creatively tarted up diagrams. A working patent system would be wonderful. No patent system whatsoever would be be better than the corrupt and inept monstrosity we're dealing with now.
As for Microsoft's "innovation" here is screenie of a NEXTSTEP desktop that predates 95:
http://www120.pair.com/mccarthy/nextstep/intro.
I would say in a multitasking gui, the idea that you have to do SOMETHING to organize those tasks is pretty obvious.
RTFA (as usual) (Score:5, Informative)
Keep this in mind before flaming anyone.
Re:RTFA (as usual) (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bummer because that trash can was an interesting innovation. Anybody remember the olden days of computers back in the early 80's? People were afraid of them. One of the most voiced fears is "I'm afraid I'll hit the wrong button and wipe out everything!". The "you're putting it there, but it's not your final decision yet" approach was really useful in reducing people's fears that they'll break their computer.
Just because we take it for granted today doesn't mean it's wrong. (Though I do question why this is news and not patented back years ago when it was used...)
Re:RTFA (as usual) (Score:5, Funny)
Years ago('94-ish), I was a total PC kiddie and didn't know anything about Mac's. At one point I had to load a program on a mac, and put a floppy in the computer. We spent forever trying to figure out how to eject the disk. Eventually someone told us to trash it, and my answer was, "are you sure?" Of course, it worked and since then I've realized that Mac's are far too logical for me.
-Sean
Why You Trash Mac Floppies (Score:3, Informative)
You could very easily get by using floppies without ever knowing that you could eject by trashing, however. As others have mentioned, "Eject Disk" (Command-E) was under the Special menu. "Put Away" (Command-Y) also worked, although the idea there is that something should be put back to where it came from. Usually you used "Put Away" for files.
Re:Why You Trash Mac Floppies (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RTFA (as usual) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (as usual) (Score:5, Informative)
However, a design patent would protect this element. Presumably this will expire in twenty years.
In All Fairness... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In All Fairness... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that fair? You go to hell, Homo Sapiens Sapiens!
Get my point? This fundamental system of depravity started +/-40,000 years ago, get used to it.
Oh, this is rich (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.invention.com
http://www.litmanlaw.
http://www.gilmanresearch.com/pages/944483/in
http://www.isc-online.com/forms/inventorinfor
http://www.qualitypatent.com
How low can you go!
I'm going to lose Karma on this one..... (Score:5, Funny)
Terrified Employee: Well sir...umm...(looks around room) how about our round corners?
Jobs: Already in heavy use. You're fired
Employee 2: How about the idea of color coding computers to go with your decor?
Jobs: Nah, we already cornered the artist market. You're fired.
Employee 3: Well....how about this (picks up trash can)
Jobs: Brilliant! Get a picture of that to the Patent office as soon as possible.
It's a design Patent (Score:4, Insightful)
All in all this is much ado about nothing.
It helps to understand what a "design" patent is (Score:5, Informative)
The USPTO defines "design patents" here. [uspto.gov]
For ADHD slashdotters:
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture...
In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171)...
Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute. Furthermore, subject matter that could be considered offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality is not proper subject matter for a design patent application (35 U.S.C. 171 and 37 CFR 1.3).
It's only a design patent. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the PTO web site:
So, it doesn't cover any functionality. In fact, if the design relates closely to functionaly, then that weakens the patent. In this case, I'd say the design of the garbage can icon pretty precisely relates to the functionalty of throwing away files.
With this in mind, it seems that it's probably a pretty toothless patent. Don't lose any sleep over it.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
There will be a point when the whole system will have to be scrapped or totally overhauled. More such "garbage" patents will bring this day closer. I can't wait.
It aint just technology companies folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, Im talking about tanning lamps, not computers. Same crap. Someone might as well patent the sun as a tanning device and charge us all royalties. Its just as phunked up in the real world.
Why WOULDN'T we expect Apple to patent a garbage icon? The problem isn't Apple, its the US Patent process. And the fact that so many companies feel forced to do defensive patents.
screw that (Score:5, Funny)
And all I need is a picture of my room to prove nobody comes close to 'prior art'. I hear that argument a lot, nobody comes close to the 'prior art' that I posess...
Prior Art (Score:3, Funny)
(I have one of these. My mom refers to it as an "OS X garbage can")
real reason.. (Score:5, Funny)
Trash Can Absurdity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trash Can Absurdity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trash Can Absurdity (Score:3, Informative)
You mean it was counter-intuitive to select the disk and go to the menu marked "File" and use the "Eject" item (key combo: apple-E)? You could also have used the "Put Away" (key combo: apple-Y) item in the "Special" menu . Later on when contextual menus were available you could control-click on the disk and hit the "Eject Disk" item.
Dragging the disk to the trash was just one of several ways to eject a disk. Some may have been more intuitive than others but the quickest way was to drag it to the trash. Think of it as a power user shortcut, not the default action.
With MacOS X the trash icon becomes a disk eject icon when you start to drag a disk anywhere. When you hover over the eject icon it says Eject. So now you do not drag the disk to the trash, you drag it to the eject.
Re:Trash Can Absurdity (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Trash Can Absurdity (Score:3, Interesting)
I always found this aspect of macs... rather... disturbing. (always hated them, too.)
I recently got my first mac (Titanium PowerBook) and i just use the eject button on my keyboard (F12).
Or i rightclick on a CD/etc and select eject. Works for disconnecting from network shares, too.
This dragging shit into the trash is for deleting. I don't CARE if it changes into an eject icon. It was still a trash icon before i began dragging
D.
Re:Trash Can Absurdity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trash Can Absurdity (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmmm (Score:3, Informative)
It would be SO easy....
Microsoft has a leg up here! (Score:5, Funny)
You'd think the Northern California latte liberals at Apple would care more about their environment than Microsoft folks do, but that isn't the case. While Apple's filling up our landfills with garbage bits, Microsoft recycles them so they can be used again.
Re:Microsoft has a leg up here! (Score:5, Funny)
No, Micro$oft really is the evil empire. What happens when you recycle garbage? It is sent to a central facility where it gets carefully sorted through and the useful things get picked out to get turned into new products. The facility makes a tidy profit on this.
So, when you dump your homework / old code / other data in M$ recycle bin, it gets sent...
The best thing is, because they call it the recycle bin, they're not even lying about scouring your data for useful stuff!
Sleep well.
Here's a bit of irony (Score:3, Informative)
After the Mac had it's trash can, NeXT had it's recycler (in the dock). So actually no, Microsoft did not take Apple's trash can and make it a recycle bin. Jobs's company NeXT did that long before Microsoft did.
For those who don't know, Mac OS X is essentially NextStep with a lot of the Apple stuff hacked into it.
Anyway.. as far as the patent goes, it seems it is just on that very specific design of a trash can which I do not have a problem with. Notice that they even cited prior art because the claim doesn't seem to be that they are the first trash can, the claim seems to be that they are the first trashcan with this particular design.
wait (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid pattent laws asside... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because something is cute doesn't mean it needs to be in gnome/kde/windows/apple/gem/whatever desktop.
When people first encounter lack of trash on a unix box, they come running to the sysadmin, who tells them "You cannot undelete files, there gone there gone."
Data isnt something to be hap-hazardly pushed about and retrieved from garbage cans. Back it up, keep track of it if its important. Trash cans encourage a lax attitude toward work habits on the computer.
Re:Stupid pattent laws asside... (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aside, before computers, there was paper, and people were accidentally throwing out important documents long before you or I were even born -- If people were fortunate enough to realize their error quickly, they could retrieve the documents from the physical wastebasket before the janitorial staff came around to throw it all in the incenerator. The trash can metaphor seems to me to be just a computerized extension of that way of doing business.
Personally, the only thing I'd change about the trash can as it currently (and most commonly) exists is to be able to say exactly how much disk space I want stuff in the trash to take up before it automatically and permanantly wipes older stuff.
Design Patent (Score:4, Interesting)
This may be a design patent; however according to this [uspto.gov], "a design which simulates a well known, or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute."
I think a trash can might be a well known object.
These aren't method/process ("utility") patents (Score:3, Informative)
Jewelery, etc, often has ornamental design patents on it.
As for laptop design patents,
"While a design patent may be issued for a utilitarian article, such a patent may be obtained only to the extent that the ornamental features dominate the functional features. To the extent to which a design is predominately utilitarian in nature, it is not protectable by a design patent in the United States. "
The only thing the patents prevent you from doing is making something that looks exactly like say, a powerbook g4, such that an ordinary observer might purchase the "fake" product thinking it was the patented product.
I wouldn't worry much about it, since the only protectable parts are the parts of say, the trash icon, not found in the prior art.
Honest and (maybe) balanced comments... (Score:4, Informative)
That's significant. A new era! The beginning of something other than EVERYTHING that had proceeded it. (Yeah, Xerox notwithstanding. That's another story.) The garbage can WAS a completely different, new, and innovative idea.
Do they deserve a patent for it? Hmm. Tough call. Would I be as fair to Microsoft if they'd invented it? Tougher call--I've tried to be fair to MS when they do something creative or right, but it's been such a rare event that I can't promise unbiased commentary.
But as long as a general patent like this is legally valid, I'd say that this specific patent is valid. At the time, it was creative enough to change computing, and that's impressive.
Too Easy (Score:5, Funny)
It figures (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:5, Insightful)
Intellectual property, in limit, should be patentable. The original idea was to provide governmental protection for inventors given they FULLY PUBLISH the idea set forth in the patent if and only if that "object" is non-intuitive.
What's turned out is software patents patenting damn near everything in sight. Who cares if it's new or not. These days, making software is becoming a legal minefield, and the USPTO isnt helping (dump dump dump). Even the process of playing a DVD you own can violate 10's of patents. That's why MPlayer is off the US shore.
So, I'm not against intelluctal property, but am against software patents until the UPSTO starts heavily regulating those types. Until then, I say we should violate EVERY software patent we can find until the rules are changed.
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:4, Insightful)
You do that. I'll find a way to get cigarettes and Playboys to you for as many years as they get you for, too...
Not a popular opinion on this site but it's against the law and breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how wrong you feel the law is. You'd better be damn sure they turn it over (like segregation, or slavery) if you go against it, and that they do it before you're caught. Even if the law is repealed, if you commit the crime while the law exists then you broke the law of the hour and are responsible for it.
Breaking patent and copyright law is thrown around much too trivially these days. While bad laws (horribly bad ones), they are as much laws as is fraud and larceny. Most people aren't caught, but the ones that are are hung by their toenails for years before they pull them out.
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth Josh Crawley:
Until then, I say we should violate EVERY software patent we can find until the rules are changed.
ahknight responded:
Not a popular opinion on this site but it's against the law and breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how wrong you feel the law is.
Except that Josh Crawley is advocating something called "civil disobedience" -- something that is a time-honored tradition for getting unjust laws changed.
Burning one's draft cards was also "breaking the law" thirty-five years ago but there were enough of us who were willing to go to jail rather than participate in a war we considered unjust-- that we made a point that is still being heard today.
Taking in a runaway "Negro" slave was "breaking the law" a hundred and forty years ago but enough people believed strongly enough in their principles to do it anyway.
Dumping a shipload of tea into a harbor was "breaking the law" two hundred and thirty years ago, but... well, you get my point.
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:4, Insightful)
The quote stands for any instance. Rejection of unjust law is one of the ways changes get made - and since there's little or no direct responsibility from lawmakers (a flaw in our system thats gotten worse over time), direct action is one of the few ways to make major changes.
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, and more importantly, whats so evil about software patents?
I happen to hold a software patent for an idea that I'm currently marketing. If it werent for the patent I would have _NO CHANCE_ at making any money on my idea. As a result, I would have had no reason to spend the thousands of hours researching it. **THE IDEA WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY**
It is completely unique and highly fuctional. How is this any different than designing a new device? If it has function and is unique it has function and is unique.
Why is the fact that its a patent on software make it evil?
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:4, Insightful)
The patent itself is moot, because art is covered under COPYRIGHT LAW.
---Secondly, and more importantly, whats so evil about software patents?
I never said that. What's evil is a government organization is OK'ing patents on damn near every aspect of computing. They dont care if it has prior art or not. If we had a decent system where all patents were checked for consistency and prior art, we wouldnt be in this situation.
---I happen to hold a software patent for an idea that I'm currently marketing. If it werent for the patent I would have _NO CHANCE_ at making any money on my idea. As a result, I would have had no reason to spend the thousands of hours researching it. **THE IDEA WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY**
You have to do that, as well as everybody else. Still the point is that the software patent sector is crumbling under its own weight, and rapidly.
---It is completely unique and highly fuctional. How is this any different than designing a new device? If it has function and is unique it has function and is unique.
A device has a purpose and is physical. Software is simply equasions... math. SHould I be able to "patent" calculus, or the pythagorean theorem, or hell.... even addition? If anything, software patents should be limited to very complex equasions with source included. In that guarantee, they will have royalties delivered to whomever uses that source. Also, a very limited patent time should also be given. Personally, no more than 5 Years.
---Why is the fact that its a patent on software make it evil?
It's the corruption already in the system. Not the patent itself.
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:5, Informative)
Some reasons software patents are evil are:
- regular patents protect one specific thing, software patents protect one tiny piece of a large puzzel. So a single program most of the time infringes on a large number of patents, making licensing not feasible (if you have to pay 5% of your revenue for every patent you use, you'll probably have to pay for each copy you sell).
- they don't protect small-time developers at all (except maybe against other small-time developers). If you find out that IBM or Microsoft violates your patent and you demand some retribution for that, they'll have a look at your program and probably find that you violate 30 patents of theirs. Of course, because they are such nice guys, they will probably allow you to keep using their patented stuff if they can use your 1 patent. So the protection you get is zero, and if they're not nice guy's you'll have to pay extra. The advantage of a small software developer is the speed at which he can follow changes of the market and do things, compared to the big, slow megacorporations.
- Programming not very unlike composing a symphony: just like you can't just take a couple of "musical techniques", throw them together and get something that sounds good, you can't take just a couple of (patented) cool software techniques, throw them together and get a killer app. It's the way you make those things work/sound together, the hours of debugging/refining that makes/breaks the result.
- Software patents are granted for the most stupid things, for tthe simple reason that if you take something already existing that is completely obvious, but do it in software, it is considered new (e.g. selling stuff in a store -> selling stuff via the Internet, keeping client records in a store -> keeping client records in an internet store,
...)
- there are so many software patents that pretty much every program in existence probably violates several patents. If you want to develop a program, sell it and make sure you don't violate any patent, you'll probably spend more time on lawyers to look at all available software patents than you'll ever make selling your program.
The bottom line is that software patents do not promote progress and inventions (which is the original goal of the patent system), but in fact retard it (since you should be scared to do something, knowing that you're probably violating at least one patent or another and that when someone who has such a patent finds you annoying enough, he'll either sue you to hell or force you to give him all "intellectual property" you got). See also this article [researchoninnovation.org].In the same spirit: Beethoven is considered a great composer that was very progressive for his time, i.e. he introduced a lot of "new" things in his music. Nevertheless, should there have been music patents in his time, he would have been unable to make any of his compositions, since although he was smart, he wasn't smart/good enough to reinvent the music from zero and still get something that sounds good. It's similar in software development: you may be a superprogrammer with great ideas, but no one is that good that he can reinvent software development from scratch. You're just bound to reuse ideas that others have had before (and lots of people have the same ideas at the same time, without knowing anything about eachother).
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe YOU would not have brought the idea to see the light of day, but there is a high probability that somebody else would have done it if you didn't, and it is very likely somebody else already has done it before you but didn't patent it. Tell us what your patent number is, and we'll almost certainly be able to find somebody who already has a fully functioning product that implements what your patent does, and they did it without owning or having knowledge of the patent.
Over 99% of patented software would have been created anyway by the patent holder or somebody else if software patents didn't exist. Also, over 99% of software accidentally implements somebody else's patent. Even the techniques that are advanced and original enough to possibly deserve the patent they received, like RSA encryption and MP3 compression, have had equivalent alternative unpatented implementations created by others.
Plain and simple, there is almost no software out there that would not have been created by somebody if software patents didn't exist, but there is a lot that has been aborted or delayed because of the minefield of software patents that exists.
Re:Let's see how this turns out (Score:5, Funny)
How about just a diatribe against the patent office. Did you actually take the time to look at the patent? Probably not. Here, I'll save you the trouble.
The ornamental design for a user interface for computer display, as shown and described.
That's it. And a picture of a trash can, which the patent office would be happy to sell you a copy of. This is an invention? If this is an "invention", then I think I can literally patent my ass. Why not? By this precedent, I should be able to send them a picture of my ass, with the claim "The design for a sitting device as shown and described."
Re:Wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks this says more about you than about the Slashdot population in general.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am glad to catch your post!
Apparently I was wrong thinking that Patents were for processes, not for designs. Was under the impression that Copyright and Trademark were for designs.
Please enlighten?
Thanks in advance!
Re:Wonderful! (Score:5, Informative)
Copyrights are for original artistic works. BUT with regards to pictoral, sculptural, or graphic works, they must be non-functional.
Trademarks are for designs that indicate the source of a good or service used in commerce. Since the Trash isn't being used to identify products in commerce, it wouldn't qualify. The Apple logo would, OTOH.
Thus, a typeface is not copyrightable, because the letter shapes are arguably not sufficiently original, and are certainly graphic and functional, said function being to convey to people a particular letter.
Design patents apply to how things look, as opposed to how they function. There's some additional requirements (one relevant here being that the design might not be original enough)
Thus a typeface could receive a design patent, and basically they exist to fill in that gap in copyrights.
Of course, if you had a Banana Jr. computer that closely resembled the original Macintoshes, and Apple had a design patent on the case, then a design patent could serve a similar role to trademarks.
Note also that the types of protection that the various approaches convey can be significantly different.
Re:Wonderful! (Score:4, Informative)
Furthermore, if you really want to piss & moan about how everyone would jump on MS for doing something this underhanded then you may want to check this one out: Utility (not Design) patent 5,757,371 [uspto.gov] Taskbar with start menu from (you guessed it) MS.
Re:Wonderful! (Score:3, Interesting)
In this particular case, though, I don't know what extra protection does a patent give them. That icon (as designed) is or can be already protected by copyright, I assume, which lasts, let me see, forever.
What's the point of getting these design patents? Or, even better, what is the point of awarding ornamental design patents, other than a source of funding for the USPTO?
Re:Wonderful! (Score:5, Funny)
Heh.
Re:If Microsoft did it (Score:3, Informative)
The Patent on the concept of the "Trash Can" in an O.S. is what is ridiculous.
You're either Robert Thomson... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thomson's brainless analysis was posted on February 20th in the Financial Post. As for the analysis itself:
1) Revenue fell from a year earlier. Making Apple the only computer company to have been hit by the sagging economy.
2) ... the same time Apple's sales were falling, PC sales rose. This tells us nothing about Apple's performance in comparison with competing companies. It only reveals Apple's performance vs. the aggregate of all competing companies. This includes not only Dell, Gateway, and HP, but also Bob's Cheep Komputer Shack. Such comparisons don't tell us whether the overal PC sales growth was fueled by one or two companies or was solid across the board (which it wasn't).
3) ... there aren't any new iMacs in Apple's future. I'll reread that statement and laugh when the next iMac (or the next consumer Mac, whatever it's called) ships. Does this crystal ball have a "reset" button?
4) ...has recently undergone a restructuring and is slowly fading into nothingness. I'm not sure what restructuring he's referring to here, but I'm also not sure how restructuring equals a slow fade to nothingness. Restructuring happens all the time in large organizations, and it can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how and why it is implemented. As to nothingness, why are there so many new O'Reilly books about OS X, so much interest in Apple on Slashdot (vs. 3 years ago), and so many positive reviews of Apple products in publications that include PC Magazine and InfoWorld?
As a final point, Apple, like any large company, engages in intellectual property development and protection as a matter of habit. It's not as if someone at Apple says, "Oh, shit! We'd better get off our asses and come up with a design patent on the trashcan!" The process can take *years* to implement, and at any given time, I'm sure Apple, like any other computer hardware/software company, is pursuing dozens of claims.
Re:Everyone... (Score:3, Insightful)
What is even worse are the incompetants that run this site. This is a DESIGN patent for crying out loud. All it covers is the exact design of the freaking trash can image.
Folks here are so clueless when it comes to what a patent is that it makes me want to scream.
Re:Info on 'What can be patented?' (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FINE! (Score:3, Funny)
If Apple Asks what it All means, wink & tell 'em "ButtHead Astronomer."
:-)
Re:Slashdot is Garbage (Score:4, Interesting)
Or perhaps they are aware that patent law is supposed to prevent design patents being given out for pictures of everyday objects?
Hems, Taco, crisd et al - GET A CLUE.
Quite.
TWW
No, but... (Score:3, Interesting)