Apple Granted Broad Patent On Wedge-Shaped Laptops 326
Nick Fel writes "Apple has been granted a broad patent (PDF) on the wedge-shaped design of the MacBook Air. The design has been copied by most ultrabooks, and their manufacturers are likely starting to feel a little uneasy about the news."
Awesome... (Score:4, Insightful)
...yet another thing granted to the rapacious by the incompetent.
Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Informative)
Patents and copyrights are used only to protect past acompilishments not create new ones. Stronger IP protections are only used to slow down growth. It is all but ignored by growing economies.
Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) What "icon" is KingBenny talking about? I don't see any.
(2) Excellent point. The Constitution provides for "limited exclusive rights" for inventors/authors to promote production, but history is now showing that it has the opposite effect of stagnating creativity (and locking-up control in a few megacorps) for 20 or 100+ years. Thomas Jefferson was right to propose amending the constitution to insert a time limit on copyrights/patents.
"Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding -- years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose."
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, why doesn't apple patent these? Just because we already have knives and forks?
It's not as if no computer has been wedge shaped before. My first computer was a Sinclair... from the side, it looked like this http://s19.postimage.org/s17afwooj/Sinclair2_A.jpg [postimage.org]
Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a DESIGN patent, not a UTILITY patent. It protects a very specific appearance of a thing. Essentially, if you made something similar enough to this that it could be easily confused by a customer, you infringe.
You can make all the wedge-shaped laptops you like. Apple is not pretending to ANYONE that they "invented" wedge shaped computers.
We do this EVERY time a design patent comes up on Slashdot. Editors: please take 15 mins to learn the difference between design and utility patents if you're going to persist in posting up flamebait articles on the topic.
Re:Awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)
The concern here is the the same as the rounded corners things last year. Apple designs are, intentionally, minimalist designs. Granting of design patents on what amounts to purely functional designs is problematic. The Dutch court last year struck down the rounded corner design patent (called community design in Europe) because there were not any non-functional elements and the court held that purely functional designs are less worthy of protection. I think the U.S. would be wise to adopt the same stance.
Just to reiterate, the problem with this patent is not design vs. utility, it is the functional nature of the design that should not be worthy of design patent protection.
Re:Awesome... (Score:4, Informative)
If you take a look at the linked patent, you'll see it is essentially nothing but pictures of the MacBook Air, with no commentary on what features are/aren't protected. You'd expect Apple to do nothing less, and they aren't make any specific claims about edges/corners/wedges. Just 'something that looks like this'.
Design patents are (by intent) subjective. If you came up with a soft-drink with a logo in your hand-writing, there has to be a process to decide if you were deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking it was Coca-cola, but we don't want rules defining what your hand-writing is supposed to look like. So Coca-cola just submit pictures of the logo, and we figure the rest out later.
If your objection is the existence of design patents, then fair enough. A judge taking a point of view on 'generic elements' is healthy and normal part of the process.
Re:Awesome... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a design patent has a place. It as an extension of trademark. The problem with THIS design patent is that it is attempting to monopolize the most efficient engineering design for a thin laptop computer (the wedge shape) and not some cosmetic design to differentiate themselves from the competition. This strays precariously close to utility patent territory. Design patents should be required to have non-functional distinguishing features. So long as you avoid that/those features then you are in the clear. This patent is purely functional and hence should not have been granted.
Apple attempted to argue last year in the Netherlands that Samsung tablets violated their equally vague European Community Design on a rectangular device with rounded corners. The Dutch court held that, in essence, Apple had simply taken the most efficient shape for their product and attempted to monopolize it. This is not the purpose of a Community Design nor a Design Patent. Engineering issues should be covered by utility patents, not design patents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're arguing that Apple shouldn't be allowed to patent their designs because they are too simple, right? Their 'efficiency' is the problem. I can't imagine how you'd decide whose designs are 'complex enough' to be worthy of protection.
I've looked at this patent 3 times and I don't see how you decided that Apple are doing what you say they are: it's honestly just a set of pictures of their product. There's no 'claims'. In the text they describe it as "an ornamental design". I think you're saying th
Re: (Score:3)
We're arguing across each other: You're arguing about about what Apple will do with this patent, based on past example, and I'm arguing that the patent, as filed, is entirely reasonable and valid. Both can be true.
Feel free to take the last word...
Free rider problem solved? (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents and copyrights are used only to protect past acompilishments not create new ones.
The entire purpose of patents and copyrights is to create incentives for new works. Patents and copyright attempt to address the free rider problem [wikipedia.org]. Without some reasonable assurance of protection, a lot of beneficial works would never be created.
None of this is to say the laws for patents and copyrights aren't badly in need of updating. They very much are broken in their current form. But the idea of protecting inventive works against the free rider problem is demonstrably beneficial.
Stronger IP protections are only used to slow down growth. It is all but ignored by growing economies.
This is where your argument falls apart. Without relatively strong IP protections, there are fewer incentives to create new work because there are so many copycats. Those same growing economies grow largely by imitating established economies with established IP protections. They tend to create very few (not zero but few) new and innovative works. You can only grow to a limited extent by copying other people. Eventually you have to create your own works and sooner or later that requires some form of IP protection. The exact model can vary but for better or worse there is presently no better solution to the free rider problem out there.
Re:Free rider problem solved? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me see you come up with the scratch needed to develop a new drug. Patents are needed to encourage private investments in new technology.
Re:Free rider problem solved? (Score:5, Insightful)
Limited time patents and copyright on actual innovation or copyrightable works.
This crap that Micky Mickey mouse is still under copyright after 84 years is bullshit.
Patents on the wedge shape are bullshit. Copyrighting of range check code is bullshit.
90%+ of patents now are bullshit. The ones that are not live on in perpetuity. The solution is not to get rid of patent or copyright.
The solution lies in bringing back the limits.
And killing the lawyers of course.
Re: (Score:3)
"This crap that Micky Mickey mouse is still under copyright after 84 years is bullshit."
You might want to notice he has changed over the years, and ther eis a reason fore that.
Yes, Copyright is too long. 14 years is fine, even 20.
This is a design patent for a specific things. It's for laptops, with a wedge, that are brushed nickle, have their feet is a specific space, etc. They did not get a utlity patent on the wedge. It prevents confusion. Seeing how many companies are trying to copy the specific design,
Re:Free rider problem solved? (Score:4, Insightful)
"This crap that Micky Mickey mouse is still under copyright after 84 years is bullshit."
You might want to notice he has changed over the years, and ther eis a reason fore that.
Yes, Copyright is too long. 14 years is fine, even 20.
20 is too long.
This is a design patent for a specific things. It's for laptops, with a wedge, that are brushed nickle, have their feet is a specific space, etc. They did not get a utlity patent on the wedge. It prevents confusion. Seeing how many companies are trying to copy the specific design, it prevent market confusion.
" Copyrighting of range check code is bullshit."
format.
Oracle vs Google.
"90%+ of patents now are bullshit. "
That's a lie.
That would be your opinion.
Yes, kill the lawyers, that way no one can defend you from anything. Twit.
Getting rid of lawyers would help alot.
No law should ever be written that you need a lawyer to defend you for.
Justice should not come at a cost. Laws are either simple or unjust.
Re:Free rider problem solved? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless - gasp - social funds, not private investments, are used to develop new drugs. That way we don't have to worry about making a few pigs filthy rich as a side effect of the process.
Gee, sounds like exactly what governments ought to be doing, to me.
Re:Free rider problem solved? (Score:5, Insightful)
NONSENSE! Shut your face! With nothing but stupid "social funds" we would cure nothing but the dumbest stupidest things like malaria which only kills a few million people a year. How the hell would we ever have enough "social funds" to cure the important things like flaccid penises and hair loss that affects millions of very rich people? HOW? You ever stop to think before you open your stupid ape mouth?
Sheesh, the nerve on some people!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me see you come up with the scratch needed to develop a new drug. Patents are needed to encourage private investments in new technology
A lot of the money is going towards marketing. A lot of the expense is for drugs that are designed to do nothing more than replace alternatives that have gone off-patent. A lot of times, the new drug carries side effects and/or is less effective than the cheap generic.
Take all of that out, and new drugs would still be developed. Instead of being developed by a compa
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about technology, why are you talking about art?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting notion. You know, when I decide to create something, the only time patents cross my mind is something like "does somebody have a patent on something that they can twist to try to cover my creation and cause me harm?". In other words, the current environment does stifle innovation, even in cases like mine where most of my stuff would be obvious to a person skilled in my profession faced with a similar problem--and therefore should not be patentable in the first place. Well, unless one is a larg
Re:Free rider problem solved? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most progress is not made by totally new and innovative products, but by "standing on the shoulders of giants"... That is, a product which is mostly a copy of a previous one, but with a few improvements here and there.
Developing something new from scratch is time consuming and costly, especially when you have to work around huge numbers of patents... Also if a product is too different to existing ones, users will often reject it because it's too unfamiliar.
Plenty of beneficial works were made before the days of patents or copyrights, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do so again were these schemes abolished. People create works for all kinds of reasons, not everyone is purely motivated by profit and greed...
On balance, the current patent/copyright laws do far more to stifle innovation than to promote it.. You have products which are crippled to avoid patents, people afraid to release (or even start developing) products for fear of being sued, works still in copyright when the original author is long dead (many of which will be totally forgotten and/or lost by the time copyright expires) etc etc...
Both copyright and patents were meant to be a compromise between the ability for creators of such works to profit, and the benefit of society as a whole... The current systems however are so distorted and corrupt that they are generally entirely detrimental to society and often to the creators of the works too.
For-profit also causes innovations to be stifled, why release a new (expensive, requiring retooling etc) product, when you can continue selling your existing one?
Wrong, try again (Score:4, Informative)
Patents were intended to get inventors to publish "how to" information to further society. The limited term of exclusivity is a form of compensation for revealing what might otherwise be kept a trade secret. OTOH if you use that definition, anything that is obvious in hind-sight should not be patentable since introduction of a product would be disclosure of the idea - at least ideas like the shape of a laptop.
Re:Free rider problem solved? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your post was a patent application, I'd reject it over several unsupported claims. Patents were not intended to fix the "free rider" problem. Anything innovating enough to deserve a patent could be kept a trade secret instead. Things that can be easily copied are by definition more derivative than innovating. This wedge based design for example; it's an obvious advance made possible by continued reduction in component size. Once it's becomes possible to shrink things to that form factor, it was inevitable. Cue "shoulders of giants" comments and how many instances of co-discovery litter scientific history.
What patents were intended to do was let an inventor make a deal with the world. They could get monopoly rights on their invention in return for sharing it with everyone. Other companies wouldn't have to reverse engineer the process, they could just license it for a fee instead. The production capabilities of the world move forward; other companies don't have to waste time re-inventing the same wheel.
If it's possible to re-invent the wheel in question without seeing the so-called "intellectual property", it wasn't a non-obvious advance. That's where the bar is supposed to be at here, with an explicit obviousness test. That test has been weakened into a ridiculously low one now. And the result is a patent process that does nothing but weaken business. There is no value being provided by patent holders anymore, no resulting benefit to society sufficient that they should be rewarded with a monopoly on something. The social contract implied by the patent process is no longer being honored by the companies patenting things, and instead they're just stifling innovation, by small companies in particular.
Re: (Score:3)
So why didn't you demonstrate it then, rather than just assert it? Also, I notice that you didn't specify who it is allegedly beneficial to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Awesome... (Score:4, Interesting)
Without some sane form of protection (current system != sane), you run the risk of the copycats making most of the money, leaving true innovators struggling to fund future innovations. Say you owned a company and spent several years developing the best widget since sliced bread, then some Chinese company immediately cloned it and sold it for half what you could sell it for, would you still be railing against IP protections? I think not.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to get a patent on some painfully obvious idea, but that's an issue with implementation, not with the actual concept of IP protections.
Spartacus moment (Score:2)
And I don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Toshiba AC-100 Android netbook:
http://uk.computers.toshiba-europe.com/innovation/jsp/SUPPORTSECTION/discontinuedProductPage.do?service=UK&PRODUCT_ID=1091301 [toshiba-europe.com]
Physical dimensions W x D x H : 262.0 x 189.8 x 14.0 (front) / 21.0 (rear) mm
weight : starting at 0.87 kg
Release date: aug 2010
Better (Score:3)
Not as flat, but already the form of a wedge.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Really, it's prior art and obvious. Apple must be incapable of competing. Just wait until Samsung finishes with them as they actually have a lot of hardware patents. All Apple has is this look and feel stuff.
Re:Awesome... (Score:4, Insightful)
'Prior art and obvious' do not appear to be reasons to not file for a patent, from what I've seen. In fact, they might be reasons to apply: If people have done it, and it's obvious, surely someone will get a patent on it soon, and you don't want to have to pay patent licensing fees. (Or worse.)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, but all Apple will do is slow the introduction of competitors products. When these hardware companies that have many hardware patents instead of just stuff related to look and feel fight back like Samsung and probably every other Android manufacturer eventually, it's not going to be good for Apple down the road, but hey they flipped the switch and started patent wars along with Oracle which might just have really messed things up, I just don't see how this can be good for anyone including Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Coca Cola didn't patent that shape.
The company that developed the design, the Root Glass Company, got a design patent on the prototype bottle, but that bottle was never put into production, and the one that was wasn't patented.
Read the patent! (Score:4, Informative)
Page 2, "OTHER PUBLICATIONS":
Sony Viao X505, available at least as early as May 8, 2005
Apple cited the Viao in its application. Keep in mind that this is a design patent, not a utility patent.
Re:TOTALLY ORIGINAL (Score:5, Informative)
Yes indeed, but it seems Apple *did* pay attention, since they referenced that very thing in the patent itself.
Oh wait, you didn't read it! My mistake! Carry on!
Re:TOTALLY ORIGINAL (Score:4, Informative)
Pay no attention to the Sony Vaio X505 [cbsistatic.com] behind the curtain!
Which is cited as prior art in this design patent.
Which means, in order to infringe on this design patent you have to make something which looks much more like a MacBook Air than a Sony Vaio X505. It says nothing at all about building something which works the same as an Air let alone weighs the same.
Which is clearly a limitation on freedom of expression; one which is nowhere as onerous as a normal patent and which isn't that much of a big deal. Let's worry about the fact that poor people in medium income countries are dying because of drugs patents first please. And before that let's worry about the fact that random independent software companies can get destroyed by patents they never even knew existed, let alone benefitted from in their software development process. Design patents are a very minor issue.
Re:Awesome... (Score:4, Insightful)
Design patents period should not exist.
Trademarks exist to prevent consumer confusion that is it. There is nothing so novel in making a laptop a wedge shape or flat that deserves protecting.
Re: (Score:3)
Dear Patent Office (Score:2)
The shape of a wedge has been around for thousands of years, maybe the egyptians or Greeks invented it.
Re:Dear Patent Office (Score:5, Informative)
Functional parts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yea, let's just ignore that Apple sued Samsung for using ROUND FUCKING CORNERS on phones in Germany. But Apple would never use such a thing in an anti-competitive manner. Trust me, I'm a doctor!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason so many details are needed in the application, I suspect, is to prevent a Chinese company from producing an exact knockoff
Explain how a US patent for anything prevents a Chinese company from doing anything. The Chinese have no problem producing knockoffs to compete against foreign products in Chinese markets.
It's a design patent... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a "broad" patent on any wedge shaped laptop but instead a relatively narrow patent on portions of the ornamental design of the Macbook air. Looking at the priority date, you'll see that the earliest filing date is 2010, which means that even the original Macbook Air models are prior art for this case.
Look at the listing of prior art and you'll see PLENTY of wedge-shaped notebooks that are already out there... because this patent is *not* covering all wedge-shaped notebooks, despite the intentionally hyped-up-so-we'll-make-ad-revnue summary & headline. (P.S. I run adblock to help do my part to have Slashdot lose money for posting this drivel).
Can be invalidated if design has practical utility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can be invalidated if design has practical util (Score:4, Funny)
That and according to this Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]: "Design patents cover the ornamental nonfunctional design of an item. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear)." So let's figure out how to show "practical utility" for a wedge shape.
It's a Mac... It's only functional use is as a door stop. The wedge shape has been standard for door stops for eons!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
That and according to this Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]: "Design patents cover the ornamental nonfunctional design of an item. Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility (e.g. the shape of a gear)." So let's figure out how to show "practical utility" for a wedge shape.
The shape cuts down on size and weight. That should be utility enough.
Re: (Score:2)
So let's figure out how to show "practical utility" for a wedge shape.
It is a wedge shape because the hinge cannot be made as thin as the rest of the unit.
Re: (Score:3)
They patented the ornamental appearance of the MacBook Air.
Other than the already trademarked Apple logo in the center of the lid and the arguably practical wedge shape, what ornamental appearance is left?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I run adblock to help do my part to have Slashdot lose money for posting this drivel).
-or- You could just check the little box that says, "Disable advertising" like I did.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to have that box. It seems to have been taken away from me. Not sure why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a design patent... (Score:4, Informative)
And, uh, a company's own products can't be 'prior art'...
Not true:
35 USC 102: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(b)the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States
That applies even if the description, public use, or sale was by the inventor. It's to keep people from selling a product for years, waiting until a competitor appears, and only then filing an application.
Look-and-feel (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought it was determined in Apple v. Microsoft (windows) that you cannot patent or copyright the "look and feel" of software or hardware?
Re:Look-and-feel (Score:5, Informative)
You can't get a design patent for basic functional details. The fact that it's made of two parts, that the front is thinner than the back, and it's hinged are purely functional. The specifics - the curves and contours that only serve an aesthetic purpose - can be protected.
Shenanigans!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty soon all useful physical designs will be patented and there will be no room to innovate without fear of A. Being sued into oblivion or B. Paying a significant portion of start-up costs to patent holders.
Way to keep the money at the top USPTO.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF (Score:2)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
A wedge shape for a laptop is just an idea. How can this be patented?
It can't, the summary is complete bullshit. The patent is a design patent, a very narrow patent on the exact look of the macbook air, not a broad patent on a "wedge shaped laptops".
Steve Jobs: (Score:2)
What the ..... (Score:2)
How is it even possible to patent "look" of a system? Is this not what copyrights and trademarks are for?
Design patent, not a utility patent (Score:5, Informative)
Don't Panic!
This is a "design patent," not a "utility patent." "The difference between a design patent and a utility patent [wisegeek.com] is that a design patent protects the ornamental design, configuration, improved decorative appearance, or shape of an invention, [while] a utility patent protects any new invention or functional improvements on existing inventions."
People get design patents so that they may have legal recourse when someone substantially copies the appearance of their product. Apple got a design patent on its particular ornamental design of wedge-shaped laptops, to keep people from making knockoffs off them, not "a broad patent on wedge-shaped laptops."
Unsolicited, unprofessional advice: Roll over. Go back to sleep.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on Apples previous usage of Design patents for rectangular with round corners I think it's perfectly appropriate to panic.
They will sue others, even if they look completely different as the Galaxy tab was not even the same size or shape and was sued. I'd expect that there will be a few dozen suits against Intel's new ultrabook standard in short order.
Endless Apple Patent Discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference (Score:2)
between a wedge and an inclined plane? I guess Heron of Alexandria not having prior art on that simple machine makes it a more attractive patent target?
Prior Art - The Shape of Things to Come (Score:2)
Already been around for two centuries (Score:2)
Seriously? Here is another wedge-shaped laptop [hygra.com] that has been around since at least 1800.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought patents had to have no prior art? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You could read the article and see that the Vaio is even referenced in the patent itself...
How to read a design patent (Score:4, Informative)
The scope of a patent is defined by its claims as read in light of the specification, but design patents only have one claim, which simply refers to the drawings in the patent specification. The figures in design patents are drawn in a very particular way [uspto.gov]. The most important thing to know is that only the solid lines matter. The dashed lines are only there to provide context and do not represent the claimed design. In this case, most of the laptop is drawn in dashed lines. It's a little hard to tell because of the relatively low-quality PDF, but it looks like only the lid is drawn in solid lines. Compare that to the parent design patent, D642172 [google.com], which covers more of the case, the keyboard, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's DESIGN Patent (Score:2)
Oh Baby Jesus Wept.
Design patents are NOT broad.
They cover ONLY the details of the particular ornamental design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#Protections [wikipedia.org]
Is the Razr prior art? (Score:2)
The Motorola Razr -- both the original flip phone and the current smart phones -- have a design that is thicker where it needs to be and thin elsewhere to conserve weight and volume. Not really a wedge but similar. Perhaps non-Apple ultrabook makers could adopt that thin-with-a-bump design. It's easier to grip, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are supposed to be inventive. What the fuck is up with the Patents Office over there?
Re:Don't kill the messenger (Score:4, Insightful)
It has to do with their funding model.
A few years ago I remember reading how congress lived up to their name and decided to cut back on funding at the USPTO (or even make it a profit centre)
Next thing you know they are willing to patent anything from though processes to math equations.
If challenges to patents meant the USPTO would share even 10% of the court costs when the patent is invalidated, this shit would get fixed quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that would teach the USPTO about accountability; if you successfully get a patent invalidated in court, the USPTO has to pay your legal fees.
Re:Don't kill the messenger (Score:5, Informative)
This is a design patent. It does not need to be inventive. The slashdot summary that said it was a "broad" patent is completely false.
This prevents other companies from making knock-offs of this particular design. If the ornamentation on a knockoff is changed, for example, so that it no longer looks exactly like this Mac Book Air, then the knockoff is ok. It's only if it matches exactly what is in this design that it would be infringing.
The slashdot summary makes it sound as if wedge-shaped laptops are now all covered by this patent. Whether it's just written poorly or intentionally designed to cause FUD is anyone's guess. Maybe the submitter will respond.
Re: (Score:3)
--The slashdot summary that said it was a "broad" patent is completely false.--
I think Apple will assume it is broad and sue the hell out of everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, this covers ANY laptop that is thinner on one edge, which is purely an evolutionary change as some parts (like the HD) get smaller, while other parts (like the battery) don't. Are they supposed to artificially thicken the front edge to the same height as the battery, just to avoid this patent?
Could you please google for "design patent"? It covers ANY laptop that is a copy of the MacBook Air, which probably includes every model created by the "designers" of some companies, but it doesn't cover all laptops that are thinner on one edge.
Apple even gave a wedge shaped laptop design by Sony as prior art. By definition, anything that looks more like the wedge shaped Sony laptop than like the wedge shaped Apple laptop doesn't infringe on Apple's design patent (but might infringe on Sony's design pate
Re:Don't kill the messenger (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, this covers ANY laptop that is thinner on one edge, which is purely an evolutionary change as some parts (like the HD) get smaller, while other parts (like the battery) don't. Are they supposed to artificially thicken the front edge to the same height as the battery, just to avoid this patent?
No it doesn't. If you read the patent, they even cite that people had done laptops thinner on the front than the rear before (sony), and that it's not what the patent covers.
Re: (Score:3)
ASSEMBLE!!!
Re: (Score:2)
If there are no players there won't be a game to hate.
As long as all the players are working on gaming the system the system will not be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the current litigious environment, Apple would be foolish not to acquire as many patents as possible.
Or they could use their vast resources to get the system changes so it's not so stupidly litigious.. but then they wouldn't be able to use it to their own advantage.
"Everybody else is a fuckhead, which justifies me being one too" is one of the weakest excuses in human history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't kill the messenger (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary is complete bullshit, this patent is a design patent, a very narrow patent on the exact look of the macbook air, not a broad patent on a "wedge shaped laptops".
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the patent officers supposed to investigate "prior art" before issuing the patent? Maybe like congress they just aren't doing their jobs anymore, and dumping it on the courts to nullify laws/patents.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/7032616626194684.JPG?0.3942647363857573 [weblogsinc.com]
Enough said.
From the patent:
Page 2, "OTHER PUBLICATIONS":
Sony Viao X505, available at least as early as May 8, 2005
The Examiner looked at the Vaio and properly determined that this design was different and not obvious in view of it.
Re: (Score:3)
"The Examiner looked at the Vaio and properly determined that this design was different and not obvious in view of it."
then the Examiner is a fucking arse...
So, you're saying that if I put the Viao and the Macbook Air on a table in front of you without booting them, you'd honestly think I set down two Viaos or two Macbook Airs?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a design patent.
It also references earlier wedged laptops (like Sony's X505) in the patent application itself.
It's not a utility patent. The sky is not falling, but the original submitter did succeed in driving ad revenue to Cnet. Mission accomplished.