r/technology • u/damontoo • Jun 09 '12
Apple patents laptop wedge shape.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apple-patents-the-macbook-airs-wedge-design-bad-news-for-ultrabook-makers/203
Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
Patent attorney here, who has written many opinion letters for large companies on the scope of design patents. Design patents provide a notoriously narrow scope of protection. Especially when you're dealing with a crowded field such as laptop shapes, the scope of protection only includes those parts of the ornamental design that are new.
Plus, the patent includes a rectangular-solid shape as well as a wedge shape as two embodiments. Why doesn't the headline say "Apple patents rectangular laptop shape"? It's equally as true (by that I mean that both are equally misleading and sensationalistic).
Edit 2 Sorry, my mistake - it's only one wedge-shaped embodiment. I saw the front/rear view and thought those were showing an example of rectangle shapes.
Edit My jimmies always get rustled when I see threads like these where people get thrown into a rage about a patent they see, and give an explanation for their rage that so obviously reveals that they have no idea what patents are, how they work, or why they exist.
9
u/Sloady Jun 09 '12
Question - I was under the impression that something can only be patented if it's new and novel. Is that not true, or is this a really bad ruling likely to be overturned?
12
Jun 09 '12
Your impression is correct. Novelty is one of the requirements for patentability. For this patent to have been granted, a patent examiner would have searched the prior art for similar designs and determined that indeed Apple's design is new in some respect.
Of course, there are some aspects of the design that are the same as the prior art - like the aspect ratio of the laptop, the fact that it's generally rectangular, possibly even the fact that it has that wedge shape. Those parts are not protected. But as long as some part is new (maybe the exact angle of the wedge, or the radius of curvature of the corners, or the details of the convex lid, etc.) then that part is what the patent protects.
→ More replies (8)26
u/Paultimate79 Jun 09 '12
But ...apple... and rabble.. and pitchforks...
→ More replies (1)3
Jun 09 '12
Exactly, never mind the U.S. Patent Office and the reviewers who awarded the patent.
→ More replies (2)12
u/makgzd Jun 09 '12
Thanks for this. It's nice seeing someone with actual knowledge posting instead of just pointing fingers. Followup question: Would any possible patent infringement be retroactively enforced, or would similar designs be grandfathered in? This is more for my own curiosity than anything.
14
Jun 09 '12
A patent can only possibly be infringed by a product designed/made after publication of the patent application. If there's a "prior art" design that has ornamental features that are the same as some of those in the design patent, then those features are outside the scope of protection of the patent. The patent only covers those features that are new when compared to every single prior art design in existence.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Offish Jun 09 '12
Can you clarify the difference between a design patent and trade-dress protection for me (particularly the part about why design patents exist at all). I'm sure there's a reason, but I don't get it.
13
Jun 09 '12
Well, they're very similar, in that neither can be functional, and both can protect the product's overall appearance. Trade dress is a little broader, though, in that it also can protect things like color, sounds, smells, or even the design of a store (like Two Pesos). Also, trade dress can theoretically last forever, while design patents expire after 14 years.
Design patents are easier to enforce, though. The patent publication explicitly lays out all the details of the design being protected so it's a lot easier to prove infringement. Plus, you don't actually have to be in the business to have design patent protection - you just have to be granted a patent. For trade dress protection, like trademark, you actually have to be using the protected design in commerce and have to establish its distinctiveness in the eyes of the relevant consuming public for there to be any protection at all.
2
u/SasparillaTango Jun 09 '12
so my toshiba from a few years ago, that has a most certainly wedge-like shape would not really be infringing on a patent right? The outlines of the laptops in the article, to me, look like they could be any laptop made in the past 5 years.
→ More replies (1)1
u/swimtwobird Jun 09 '12
aaaaa, there is nothing like someone who knows what the hell they are talking about stepping in.
to be clear - I don't - but that was a soothing read.
1
u/oupablo Jun 10 '12
Question - How does prior art play into design patents? Looking at the patent here, it says it was filed in July 2011. Wouldn't the macbook air have been considered prior art at that time or does that not matter since the air is owned by the company filing the design patent?
The reason I'm confused is that apple seemed to have filed this after all the other laptops with the same shape started rolling out. I find it odd that the USPTO would give a company a patent that would allow said company to go out and sue other companies that have a product available that violates the patent at the time of filing.
2
Jun 10 '12
Prior art works in the same way as it does for utility patents - anything published or used (I'm simplifying here) before the priority date is prior art. The patent was filed in July 2011, but on its face it claims priority to an earlier application filed in October of 2010, and I didn't look at that one but it's possible it claimed priority to an even earlier application. The term is 14 years from the earliest filing date of all those. Prior art has to pre-date the earliest filing date of all those.
1
u/MrPhosita Jun 10 '12
I'm also a patent attorney working as an examiner at the USPTO and I wish I had more upvotes to give.
Whenever I read a patent article on the internet, be in a tech website like slashdot or a community based website like reddit, I can't help but roll my eyes the number of replies I see brandishing their pitchforks when they don't have a clue on how patents and patent law works....
→ More replies (12)1
u/ForeverAlone2SexGod Jun 10 '12
I don't know if I'm infinitely amused by the fact that a patent attorney is talking about how rustled his jimmies are, or if I'm infinitely horrified by it.
45
u/Oiman Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
To sum up:
The title is misleading. The patent is only for the lid (and, apparently, the bottom, but I stand by my point - as the 'defining' part of the wedge, the back, isn't included. You can't patent a triangle and leave out one of the sides.).
It's a design patent - for the shape. Like the design of a Coca-Cola bottle. It's still perfectly okay to make bottles, just not ones with that particular, well defined, shape.
If this patent gets waved in front of the competition for having a wedge shaped design, their lawyers will need 5 minutes to notice the last line of text in the patent.
The fact that Wired didn't bother to read the whole patent application, is just plain bad journalism. If they left the fact that it was a patent for the lid only out on purpose for 'extra juiciness', it's good old Apple bashing.
EDIT: there appears to be a solid line at the bottom I didn't notice.
→ More replies (3)1
32
u/NorbertDupner Jun 09 '12
If you read the article, you'll see it is filled with images of the Macbook Air. Also, they were recently granted the patent; they applied for it before the wedge shaped Macbook Air was released.
8
u/ShrimpCrackers Jun 09 '12 edited Feb 28 '20
That's amazing that they managed to patent a shape that Sony was using 5 years before them
→ More replies (8)1
u/BrainSlurper Jun 09 '12
The laptop you are talking about really looks nothing like the MBA or it's knockoffs, due to the lowered keyboard and cylindrical battery hinge thing.
→ More replies (1)
23
Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
People need to understand drawings are not patents. Whoever wrote this article doesn't even mention what the patent claims are. Still, it's just a design patent.
For people who aren't too familiar with patent law; you should probably think of design patents are more alike to trademarks than the patents you usually think about.
This only protects the ornamental / aesthetic aspect of the product, nothing functional. It doesn't necessarily protect all wedge shaped laptops (actually it almost certainly does not), it merely protects them against computers that would look almost identical to the MacBook Air.
2
Jun 09 '12
In a design patent, the drawings are the whole deal. There's only one claim, which usually says something like, "The ornamental design of a device, as shown in the appended drawings." In essence, the drawings are the claims.
→ More replies (3)2
u/rougegoat Jun 09 '12
The drawings are lifted from a design patent and make up the bulk of the claim.
4
u/Darkencypher Jun 09 '12
It fucking kills me.
I used to see shit like this and think "wow, this is pretty cool! I wonder when they'll intergrate it". Now all I think is "who's going to get sued now?"
4
4
4
u/the_geth Jun 09 '12
Sent from my MBP : Fuck you Apple. You make me ashamed of being your customer. Seriously now, fuck you.
93
u/ChristopherNievess Jun 09 '12
Patents and copyrights are used only to protect past acompilishments not create new ones.
68
Jun 09 '12
No, that is not how it works. By promising future protection, we incentivize people to design new things. So while they are retroactive in nature, they are most certainly promoting new accomplishments.
29
u/SonOfDadOfSam Jun 09 '12
No, by protecting every little idea a company has, we incentivize companies to sit on new and revolutionary ideas until they've milked everything they can out of their past ideas. Why compete with yourself when you've got a guaranteed source of income for now, and another one lined up when that one stops making money?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)14
→ More replies (50)-4
u/whitewateractual Jun 09 '12
welcome to deregulated capitalist America.
59
u/Seref15 Jun 09 '12
Except patent law is regulated, it's just regulated by a bunch of ancient thickwads who don't give a shit and not a single major voice in office today has thought to look some of this garbage over.
24
27
2
u/kurtu5 Jun 09 '12
1 Its not deregulated.
2 Capitalism is a useless word because no one uses it properly. I think if you had said crony capitalism, you would have been more accurate.
2
u/rasputin777 Jun 09 '12
The companies are using Federal regulations as ways to squelch profit in others. This is the regulations fault. Are you daft?
→ More replies (2)10
Jun 09 '12
The capitalist mindset:
Environmental regulation? Fuck that!
Pro-monopoly regulation? Yes, please!
5
u/kurtu5 Jun 09 '12
You are not describing capitalism.
Wiki.
Capitalism is generally considered to be an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit by privately-owned business enterprises.
The key words are "private". What you are talking about is not private, but state oriented.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)4
u/whitewateractual Jun 09 '12
The irony is, that patents now effectively limit technological growth instead of the intended purpose to preserve success. Some of the patents corporations own protect ridiculous things that, by no means, should be patented, thus stunting growth and producing hoards of unnecessary lawsuits.
→ More replies (20)
6
Jun 09 '12
The ultrabook landscape it littered with notebooks that look suspiciously like the MacBook Air.
Considering the culture of the internet, the lack of any other comment I could find about this typo in the first line leads me to believe that most people commenting didn't even read the article before taking a side.
3
u/7499 Jun 09 '12
Thank heavens nobody patented tubular metal objects back in 19th century so we all can have modern plumbing without paying royalties...
3
u/technosaur Jun 09 '12
I do not blame shameless Apple, but am amazed the patent office would grant a patent based on shape without the unique shape being tied to a function. Fucking ridiculous.
3
u/deadeight Jun 09 '12
This is a pretty misleading subject title. You can't just patent stuff like that.
3
2
2
Jun 09 '12
I never liked that shape anyways, the best shaped macbooks were the white macbooks, they looked more solid and sturdy..
2
2
Jun 09 '12
I don't think this in particular is a big deal, but i think patents in general are annoying. I mean, a wedge shape, how fucking general can you be.
2
2
u/Spineless_John Jun 09 '12
At first I thought Apple was going to start making something like the Sabre Pyramid. Needless to say, I was disappointed.
2
2
u/deprecated7 Jun 09 '12
I love how many experts reddit has. Makes getting answers easy and painless!
2
u/MegaPablo Jun 09 '12
This is why I wish apple never made computers. They are just hipster magnets and a waste of money
2
u/heimdal77 Jun 10 '12
This whole patent thing has gotten out of hand. I mean I get people wanting to get credit for their ideas but it is just getting to insane levels. you got celebrity trying patent/copyright words and names, companys trying patent every single possible thing they can think of. There are even companys forming that sole business is to collect patents and then sue anyone who might violate one of them. I mean hell there is even a patent on how to swing on a swing set... Seriously enough is enough there needs to be some common sense injected into the whole patent/copyright system as far as what people can actually get patents for.
2
u/Kyoraki Jun 10 '12
I'm going to patent the concept of making stupid patent claims, and put an end to this nonsense.
2
u/SuperAwesomeBrian Jun 10 '12
Leave it to Apple to patent logical laptop design to minimize space and say it is done in the name of protecting their ideas.
Basically to me, this is like Apple patenting the circular shape for an analog watch and claiming that it was a revolutionary thought.
2
2
2
u/Issachar Jun 10 '12
Patents and copyrights in the US have become so absurd, that I'm beginning to wonder if at some point other countries will simply decide not to automatically recognize US patents and copyrights, essentially saying "the US system has become so absurd, we cannot take it seriously in our country."
3
Jun 09 '12
Clearly angling the bottom of the laptop hasn't been done before at all. I mean, ASUS for one has clearly never done that.
3
6
3
u/nerdrage717 Jun 09 '12
Patents were designed to protect the "little guy" from the "big guy" stealing his idea and mass producing it. They should not be used for large companies to create a monopoly on certain products.
1
u/ignignokt_err Jun 10 '12
Wrong. Patents are meant to encourage innovation by offering protection for ANYONE that develops a new idea. That aside, this is a design patent and as such does not cover any functionality, only the exact design.
→ More replies (2)1
Jun 10 '12
People shouldn't be copying apple products either, why does it give them a monopoly?
Any tech company would sue if someone produced something identical.
2
u/MadKat88 Jun 09 '12
Breaking: Apple conducts shady business and fanboys look the other way! More at 6.
15
u/Paultimate79 Jun 09 '12
While ignorant tools like you sit making jokes without actually reading the story or getting facts. More at 11!
0
2
u/D-Evolve Jun 09 '12
First the rectangle, now the triangle/wedge.....they realise these things existed before right?
6
u/fido5150 Jun 09 '12
By that logic, no design should be patentable, since design is just a conglomeration of pre-existing shapes.
→ More replies (1)
3
2
u/Jack_Beanstalk Jun 09 '12
FUCK patents, they are all bullshit, lets remove all of them and have companies compete on the rate of innovation.
Who gives a fuck if other companies are copying you, if you innovate faster than them you're still gonna be on top.
All these bullshit patents preclude is competition on manufacturing costs.
Maybe if apple was forced to compete against copycat products they would't ludicrously overprice everything they fucking sell.
1
u/socioteq Jun 10 '12
Especially in the case of companies who have MORE MONEY THAN THE US GOVERNMENT
2
2
2
2
Jun 09 '12
companies are continuously taking design ideas from apple, and it isn't like they're patenting the wedge shape, as the title suggests.
→ More replies (9)
2
2
u/AdventurousAtheist Jun 09 '12
Asus netbooks have been using this style for years, called the clam shell. It's amazing the stupid things you can get patented. I bet Apple tried to patent the rectangular style too.
2
Jun 09 '12
While I am sure this is a pretty routine, and non controversial issue, I predict Apple will use it to try to block imports of any laptops/ultrabooks they don't like, and /r/apple will state that they are only doing what they are legally obliged to do...
2
u/futuresoldierKY Jun 09 '12
Once again, Apple is trying to be a monopoly and are attempting to prevent advancement of startups and new technologies. They don't even need Steve Jobs as CEO to screw other people over.
2
2
2
u/crake Jun 09 '12
Apple did not patent a "wedge" shape for a laptop. The design patent discussed in the article (US Des661,296) is not a patent to cover any and all wedge shaped laptops; this patent covers only the specific design disclosed. Limitations include the port configuration, the surface contours on the lid, raised portions (i.e., feet) on the four corners of the bottom surface, a divot at the center of the leading edge, etc. To infringe this patent, one would have to manufacture a laptop essentially identical to the MacBook Air - not only identical in general shape, but including all of the limitations in the drawings. This design patent is limited to a very specific design. The article falsely reports that the patent is to the "wedge form factor" - this is incorrect, the patent covers only the design in the drawings which includes many limitations above and beyond the shape. Frankly, while reporting on patents is always butchered by the media, it's a shame that a technical publication like Wired did not have someone knowledgeable about patent law edit this article.
All of the outrage in this thread against "obvious" patents stems from not understanding the bounds of the patent. This is because (i) the article misrepresents the scope of the patent, and (ii) what the general public conceives of as the scope of a patent is generally far broader than what the legal scope of a patent actually is.
6
u/Lewsor Jun 09 '12
Except their patent specifically says that port configuration, feet (size and shape) and hinge design can be different than their reference drawing, and can still infringe the patent. The patent is just a broad claim on any wedge shaped laptop.
2
u/caernavon Jun 09 '12
So Apple is now officially in the business of suing other companies in the future?
2
2
u/finetunedthemostat Jun 09 '12
We're patenting shapes now?
Dibs on circles. Bitches love circles.
2
u/Predux Jun 09 '12
Go ahead, take your circles. I call cylinders. Bitches really love cylinders.
2
u/finetunedthemostat Jun 09 '12
And what are the faces of your cylinder? Circles! That's copyright infringement!
→ More replies (4)1
1
-1
1
u/this_AZN Jun 09 '12
Can't this be construed as an attempt to monopolize the market with apple products? By limiting other manufacturers' ability to exploit the consumers' preferences?
9
Jun 09 '12
That is what a patent is. A state granted monopoly over an idea or design. The idea is that you give greater incentive to innovate if the company is guaranteed a monopoly over what they produce for some limited amount of time.
1
1
u/Ferrofluid Jun 09 '12
I hope Apple cleared their patent with Sinclair (UK computer in the 80s) before doing it. This thing has massive similarities to the ZX81.
1
1
Jun 09 '12
I don't like wedge-shared laptops anyway. Prefer them to be the same thickness front and back.
1
1
1
u/ThanklessTask Jun 09 '12
Bad news suckers, I'm off to patent human form. Now anyone other than the freaks in WTF will have to pay me royalties.
FFS Apple, grow a set and sell a product because it's good not because you've tied you competition up in litigation.
1
Jun 09 '12
On a related note.
Cadburys has a patent out on the shade of purple it uses on it's products.
Industry has patented, sounds, images, colours and shapes... whats next? textures?
1
u/Oni-Warlord Jun 09 '12
How can they patent something that has already been done both other people?
1
u/-TinMan- Jun 09 '12
I would like to patent the colour of my hair, so that I might sue anybody who uses "brown".
1
u/eliterofler Jun 09 '12
That's not a wedge shaped laptop, THIS is a wedge shaped laptop. (Asus G53 for those wanting to know)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/TOAST2218 Jun 10 '12
this is absolutely out of line apple. of course i will never buy into any of your laptops but the ipod is nice haha. only thing from them i own.
1
1
Jun 10 '12
I should patent curved edges that way everyone either pays me or sells their razor-edged laptops.
1
1
1
u/EpicCatFace Jun 10 '12
Y'all, I could never patent something that complicated. I'll stick with a-patentin' a cube. I changed the cube to be round though. I call it the round-cube. Or a rube.
1
1
u/twitch1982 Jun 10 '12
can some one explain to me why having your laptop be wedge shaped is a useful feature?
1
u/Issachar Jun 10 '12
It makes it slimmer on one side, so for the same weight you can have some components that must be thicker than the average thickness. It also makes it look slimmer even though it might not necessarily be so. How slim people perceive the product to be is more important than how slim it actually is.
I've read some reviews that say that because of the materials it is made of, Samsung's Galaxy S III phone feels lighter than comparable phones even though it isn't any lighter and is in fact ever so slightly heavier.
But no one buys a phone based on the read-outs of a scale. They buy it based on how light they perceive it to be.
1
1
1
0
u/April_Fabb Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
As much as I dislike this kind of crap "invention", one needs to look at the history leading up to Apple being such a patent bully. I actually understand when someone gets tired of being copied to no end by the competition. I'm not even sure what a "perfect world" would look like…would it mean that everyone and their aunt could copy/steal design solutions to no end? I mean, where do we draw the line?
Edit: the downvotes vs substantiated replies-ratio is interesting, to say the least.
→ More replies (6)8
u/nicholsml Jun 09 '12
The same can be said about Apple. They copied the ideas behind their new CPU's and changed over to x86. They even copied/leased/borrowed/bought the core of their OS.
We do not fault them this because those are common sense changes.
The problem here is Apple suing other people for anything vaguely related to them. They are a predatory company like Microsoft.
→ More replies (3)
-4
u/complex_reduction Jun 09 '12
So basically, "Apple being cunts" makes headlines again. I'm not saying their products don't have a few merits but jesus christ how about you fucking sell me a product rather than try to stop other cunts selling me their products? Can't compete anymore Apple? Boo fucking hoo.
3
2
u/shoziku Jun 09 '12
while other companies are spending on innovation, manufacturing, and donating to charities, Apple puts money back into the economy through litigation.
1
u/My_Body_Is_Ready Jun 09 '12
I'm fully prepared for the downvotes the following statement will bring, but it must be said:
WHAT FUCKING FAGGOTS.
0
u/well_golly Jun 09 '12
My old Sony Vaio R505 was wedge shaped when not docked into the expansion bay, and it pre-dates Apple's wedge design.
This patent isn't going to hold up.
3
→ More replies (2)4
u/AfricazMost Jun 09 '12
Apple actually cite the Sony Vaio and Olidata Altro in the patent; but it was still approved.
1
u/paulornothingatall Jun 09 '12
What I love is people being downvoted for making valid points on how this is just a design patent. However people receive up votes for bitching about Apple. It's just a design patent chill.
1
u/Cognoggin Jun 09 '12
God dammit, I was just going to chop some firewood, with my axe and a wedge. Now I'll have to use a sledge and inverted furkel.
0
u/CannibalisticVegan Jun 09 '12
Why don't they patent the art of patent trolling whilst they are at it?
2
Jun 09 '12
Funny enough, Halliburton actually tried to patent the art of patent trolling.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/11/junk-patents.html
There's a solid argument that the patent attorneys (Clive D. Menezes and Howard Speight) who drafted this patent application should have their license revoked.
→ More replies (3)
-2
Jun 09 '12
This just seems sad to me. Is there anything you can't patent? I use to hope for a world where instead of tens of thousands of computer companies competing/combating one another, they all worked together and shared resources. That way you don't have a dozen companies struggling and failing to create something that another company almost has out the door. It just felt like an obvious way to prosperity.
Well, I've grown enough to know that something like this isn't remotely possible in today's capitalist world. But then I still see shit like this and it just irks me. "Yea here's a good idea that everyone in the world with a laptop will appreciate, but let's make it harder for people to access it."
I know it's more complicated than this, but I often wonder if our world could jump leaps and bounds in progress if we just spent a few months REALLY sharing ideas.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Gark32 Jun 09 '12
you're blaming regular capitalism for the faults of crony capitalism, which are barely distant cousins.
-5
1
Jun 09 '12
You know, this is exactly the kind of thing that patents should be used for. "My design is unique and offers distinct benefits." I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
1
1
Jun 09 '12
...My father would womanize; he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the wedge-shaped laptop.
0
1
1
u/b00ks Jun 09 '12
Too late, I think dell has been ugly laptops with this shape for a while (not ultra thin, but wedge shaped... like my studio.)
1
1
1
u/Nauriology Jun 09 '12
Question! When one patents something, does it go for all countries or is it specific in one?
1
Jun 09 '12
Only the certain country, they gotta file at different offices for certain countries, for example the recent New iPad spat in China that Apple was fighting cause they didn't own the trademark and were denied the license.
1
1
Jun 09 '12
Yes this is getting a bit too weird...but why does it seem like every time Apple comes out with something...others are making their products look similar in some way?
Everything "i" this and "i"that. I see some manufacturers peripherals are now starting to be white or aluminum...or selling the all in one computer.
Don't tell me it's not happening because I see it every time I go into an electronics store.
1
1
u/wanderer11 Jun 09 '12
How do you patent a shape? That's like saying I patent round wheels. Everyone else must use ovals.
1
Jun 09 '12
That patent is so unAmerican that it is a classic typical American innovation crushing move.
1
u/topazsparrow Jun 09 '12
So just to get this straight... As the cost to manufacturer the technology goes down every year, the end cost to the consumer drastically increases due to inherent litigation costs for the manufacturer? Yay 'murica!
1
u/Reedfrost Jun 09 '12
"The ultrabook landscape it littered with notebooks..."
That spelling it awesome.
1
u/1leggeddog Jun 09 '12
This decade is gonna be remembered as the PATENT WARS decade.
Everyone is copying everyone else so companies fight back by patenting everything instead of actually IMPROVING their products.
I do not know much about patents but from an outsider's perspective this is the vibe im getting from this kind of thing.
1
u/soulbender32 Jun 09 '12
Oh yeah? Well I just patented Geometry. So Apple and I are gonna have words. Trying to steal my wedge shape and my rectangles....
1
1
u/Lonecrow66 Jun 09 '12
I guess they are too afraid to let their product stand on its own and allow people to mimic their product.
1
-3
u/mosler Jun 09 '12
Fuck you apple
1
u/mosler Jun 10 '12
oh so you would prefer to support this frivolous lawsuit anti competitive POS company... sheep.
-6
u/4570 Jun 09 '12
Steve Jobs may have been a genius but he really shouldn't have started this slap-fight before he left. Suing over the rounded rectangle shape was a slippery slope that will likely lead to much worse than this.
8
Jun 09 '12
Steven Jobs Wasn't a genius.. He was a dick who used shitty tactics just like bill gates and the rest of the american business industry to get where we was.
→ More replies (1)
-1
-1
u/BeautifulGanymede Jun 09 '12
More evidence that, rather than being a cutting-edge innovative tech company, Apple is a glorified legal department that specializes in menial patent rent-seeking on the tax-payer's dime.
Eliminate intellectual property law.
0
u/ReyTheRed Jun 09 '12
That is some bullshit. Wedges are so common and basic that it is absurd to grant a patent for it.
→ More replies (1)
-1
Jun 09 '12
Seriously?! Someone needs to unlodge the faggot at the patent offices lips that are constantly attached to the sphincter of Apple and get them to fucking stop blowing these stupid fucking patents up their ass! Apple you are shit, you will ALWAYS be shit, and even if by some crazy sci-fi method you exist in a parallel universe in which you are not shit.... Well it turns out we got the fucking tests back and you test ALLLLLLL fucking sorts of positive for YES you guessed it ladies and gentlemen SHIT!
0
Jun 09 '12
oh hay look everybody- it's the weekly apple hating circlejerk in r/technology... nothing new here, move along.
913
u/dabombnl Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
This is a design patent. Which means you can't copy their exact laptop design.
This is NOT a utility patent about laptops being shaped like wedges. This does not stop anyone else from making laptops like wedges like the title suggests.
Furthermore, after reading the patent, this is a design patent on the lid of the laptop only: "The broken lines are for the purpose of illustrating portions of the electronic device and form no part of the claimed design."