Apple is granted a patent on the rectangle. No, really Thinking of making a thing that is portable, has a display and is rectangular with rounded corners? Well, DON'T! You'll be infringing Apple's new design patent. Apple already owns a design that describes an iPad-like slab with rounded corners, patent US D627,777. Now it's got another one and it's much simpler: behold US D670, …
This post has been deleted by its author
... I agree, but I don't think this is a laughing matter at all ... there must be an endemic psychotic disorder prevalent amongst the United States Patent Office officials ... you can't even really blame Apple, and others, for applying for this nonsense, while there is such an institutionalized "nutcasery" at work that grants patents like this ... and since there is no moral or shame in obscene profit making (sosume) ... this rubbish will go on and cripple real innovation ... worldwide ...
Let's see how the fanboys manage to defend this as 'innovative', IP that needs protecting, Apple have every right to charge for people using their stuff, etc, etc
It's a fucking rectangle with rounded corners. Only been in use for thousands of years since we started making things that would be better without sharp pointy bits.
I agree.
Based on the voting it seems the humourless are out in force, so I'll spell out the meaning of my previous post very slowly indeed: patenting something this obvious is contrary to established manners. Obvious patents appear to be taking hold across the industry. The idea of writing such patents is therefore innovative according to the dictionary. Furthermore there's irony in the way that pushing boundaries in one area is holding another back and in the dissonance with Apple's claims of innovation.
It's a registered design. If you have a product that has a particular look and feel then you protect it, simple as that. If you don't then you will get your product imitated.
Look at all the dyson-like vacuum cleaners in the shops and he has a registered design patent, imagine if he didn't? he'd be out of business.
Gah!! The ridiculous Microsoft Windows and Dyson excuses again!
Microsoft have not got a design patent on panes of glass, they have a copyright on the term Windows in the context of computer software. FFS, this one comes up every single time.
Dyson, last time I looked, has not managed to patent a vacuum cleaner which is a simple geometric shape. The patents they hold are for technological components and innovations contained within their products.
Patenting a geometric shape is utter madness and no amount of apologist excuse making can justify it. This is very bad news for all consumers. If Apple get away with this then every other manufacturer is going to start trying it on.
Let's see how the fanboys manage to defend this
Apple are providing a service, you should all be grateful.
For YEARS now you've been complaining about how broken the patent system is. Yet nothing has been done and the system hasn't improved. Apple are obviously being helpfully, doing what the readership of El Reg have been unable to - they're pushing the patent system as far as possible. Sooner or later, with Apple's high profile in the media, the powers that be are going to notice, and then take some action to fix the system. And you'll all have Apple to thank when that day comes. Instead of complaining, you should be singing their praises :)
(well come on, you did ask for that)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amarna_Akkadian_letter.png
1. Learn the difference between patents and trademarks. It's important. Trademarks MUST be defended or they can be invalidated. Patents don't have to be until you want to, so patents can be trolled.
2. Yes, they do. Windows most vociferously, and Apple for their company name (both PC manufacturer and record company). At least Intel got beaten down when they tried on the 486.
This post has been deleted by its author
You do realize that the same sort of process happens all of the time in Europe, too, right?
For that matter, the EU process is worse. Here's the "Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market" website dealing with such things:
http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/RCD/legalReferences/legalReferences.en.do
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
When you actually produce a product that has a specific look (that doesn't depend on function), you can get a design patent. That means that someone else can't whip up a quick copy of your product to try and steal sales from you.
Design patents are very specific, with defined measurements, curves, and angles. No, it's not just "rectangular with rounded corners." It's "rectangular with these proportions and corners with a certain radius." No, you can't create a "uPad" with measurements just 0.1 mm off - that's covered, too.
Design patents have been part of the process for a very long time now. They've been in use for over 170 years (the first US design patent was for a font).
quote: "Design patents are very specific, with defined measurements, curves, and angles. No, it's not just "rectangular with rounded corners." It's "rectangular with these proportions and corners with a certain radius." No, you can't create a "uPad" with measurements just 0.1 mm off - that's covered, too."
I looked for those measurements and definitions on the USPTO site (link http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/D670286), but all I can see is a billion references and this:
FIG. 1 is a bottom front perspective view of a portable display device showing our new design;
FIG. 2 is a bottom rear perspective view thereof;
FIG. 3 is a front view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a rear view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a top plan view thereof;
FIG. 6 is a left side view thereof;
FIG. 7 is a right side view thereof; and,
FIG. 8 is a bottom plan view thereof.
The shade lines in the Figures show contour and not surface ornamentation.
The broken lines in the Figures show portions of the portable display device which form no part of the claimed design.
Wherefore art thou, measurements and definitions of radius of curvature which comprise the registered design?
Or am I supposed to measure the line drawing myself, and calculate my own radius of curvature of the corners from a .png on a website?
You say that, but have you read the patent? There's no sizes anywhere, no definitions of contour, nothing. As far as I can see, AIANAL, they've got a design patent on the generic rectangle with rounded corners and smoothly curved back.
The patent system looks very very broken at this point...
"they've got a design patent on the generic rectangle with rounded corners and smoothly curved back."
It's worse than that as if you look closely the curved back is shown in broken lines and so isn't part of the claimed design. The only thing claimed is the general rectangular shape with round corners.
Perhaps the limiting bit is that it is for a "portable display device" like a monitor that requires some other piece of kit to do anything. No input, no (de)coding, no calculations, no storage and just a display. If that's the case, I could live with that since the portable dvd player my niece got for long car trips is more than just a display. Otherwise I'd have to conclude the patent office was filled with people who find burger flipping too mentally taxing.
You say that "As far as I can see, AIANAL, they've got a design patent on the generic rectangle with rounded corners and smoothly curved back.", but it's worse than that. The patent itself says:
"The broken lines in the Figures show portions of the portable display device which form no part of the claimed design."
The curved back, the rounded corners, the position of the camera and button, etc, are all shown in broken line - their patent ONLY covers the rounded rectangle, with no dimensions or relative proportions, as far as i can see.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
