3 ms·

This seems like an entirely reasonable design patent to me. There are lots of ways of drawing such a slider; the patent does not cover any function, merely the

This seems like an entirely reasonable design patent to me. There are lots of ways of drawing such a slider; the patent does not cover any function, merely the ornamental design. Now, the idea that this should entitle Microsoft to all of Corel's profits for the entire product is clearly absurd; as the article points out, that's the current legal precedent but is being appealed. Lawyers are hardly going to not take advantage of precedents which favour them; nor would it even be good if they did -- the fastest way to overturn bad law is to apply it strictly and make obvious its failings.

CamperBob2 11y ago
It would be reasonable if someone, somewhere, could explain how we, as a society, benefit from granting government-enforced monopolies on things like this.
- jchavannes 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents
  - iamcreasy 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
- cperciva 11y ago
  The original argument essentially mirrored that of copyright (indeed, design patents were originally called design copyrights): To reserve ornamental designs to their creators, since nobody would spend time on such designs if they could be legally copied. Design patents came to exist with the advent of mass-produced goods which were both functional and ornamental. Copyright covered objects which one merely looked at (books, paintings, etc.) while design patents covered objects which were used for a purpose (flour mills, stoves, etc.); neither of these applied to a work of art engraved into the side of a cast-iron stove.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  Not very conversant with the theory behind design patents, but seems to me they are used more for protecting distinctive UIs and associations with brands than for protecting the investment in actually designing them. Here's the closest thing I can find off-hand (http://republic3-0.com/design-patents-primer-david-gerk/ http://republic3-0.com/design-patents-primer-david-gerk/), which also links to another article (http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/7-Du-Mont-Janis-1.pdf http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/7-Du-Mont-Janis-1.pdf) that I have not yet read: > Gerk: Design patents have been part of our intellectual property framework for a long time. In fact, the first U.S. law providing for design patent protection was passed in 1842. The impetus for protecting “designs” came about in response to the prevalence of copycats misappropriating the popular designs of the time, both here in America and elsewhere across the globe. For example, laws providing protection for “design” were developing in Britain during that time period as well. At that time, manufacturers in a variety of industries, including iron works (think stoves, railings, and kitchen utensils) and textiles, began including ornamental designs on their products to distinguish themselves from their competition. These original designs were quite ornate, time-consuming and not surprisingly – given the time period – often done by hand. When copycats began to use these designs to sell their own products, this prompted efforts by businesses to seek separate protection for their designs, especially since they weren’t being effectively protected under either patent or copyright. Indeed, in this particular case, the alleged UI copying was deliberately done to free-ride on the popularity of Word's Ribbon UI (yes, apparently it's popular): > Among many examples, Help for WordPerfect X7 suggests that the user “simulate the Microsoft Word workspace until you are accustomed to work in WordPerfect” Copying the exact design of a slider does actually seem like more work than just throwing something together by yourself...
jondubois 11y ago
Microsoft should not have been allowed to patent this particular design because it is made up mostly of elements which are in the public domain. For example, the 'plus' and 'minus' symbols are universal symbols. Circles and straight lines would also fall into the public domain. I don't think you should be able to patent designs which are just basic compositions of symbols/motifs which have existed for thousands of years. Besides, lots of old remote controls use plus/minus symbols to indicate volume-up/volume-down in a similar fashion. This design is obviously derivative.
- astrowilliam 11y ago
  If you want to go the route of people using the idea of things that have been used for thousands of years in patents, no one should be able to patent a wheel design because wheels have been around for a very long time and every wheel is a derivative of the original wheel design. Sure, wheels are a utility, but the design of a wheel is using pieces from other people's ideas. Patents are silly anyway, imho.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  You are analyzing design patents as you would utility patents, which I doubt is correct. These patents are more about "look and feel". You don't break down a design into its components (else taken ad absurdum, everything would decompose to curves and straight lines and combinations thereof), but instead analyze it as a whole. I believe prior art searches for design patents look for almost exact matches of a given diagram.
  - jondubois 11y ago
    It just doesn't seem fair that you should be able to patent things based on how they 'feel' - The mood of something is highly subjective and usually has cultural roots (and culture is in public domain).
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Patents are (supposedly) a power granted to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and it's rather hard to see how patents over mere ornamentation can further that goal, even in principle.

CamperBob2 11y ago

It would be reasonable if someone, somewhere, could explain how we, as a society, benefit from granting government-enforced monopolies on things like this.

jchavannes 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents
- iamcreasy 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
cperciva 11y ago
The original argument essentially mirrored that of copyright (indeed, design patents were originally called design copyrights): To reserve ornamental designs to their creators, since nobody would spend time on such designs if they could be legally copied. Design patents came to exist with the advent of mass-produced goods which were both functional and ornamental. Copyright covered objects which one merely looked at (books, paintings, etc.) while design patents covered objects which were used for a purpose (flour mills, stoves, etc.); neither of these applied to a work of art engraved into the side of a cast-iron stove.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
Not very conversant with the theory behind design patents, but seems to me they are used more for protecting distinctive UIs and associations with brands than for protecting the investment in actually designing them. Here's the closest thing I can find off-hand (http://republic3-0.com/design-patents-primer-david-gerk/ http://republic3-0.com/design-patents-primer-david-gerk/), which also links to another article (http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/7-Du-Mont-Janis-1.pdf http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/7-Du-Mont-Janis-1.pdf) that I have not yet read: > Gerk: Design patents have been part of our intellectual property framework for a long time. In fact, the first U.S. law providing for design patent protection was passed in 1842. The impetus for protecting “designs” came about in response to the prevalence of copycats misappropriating the popular designs of the time, both here in America and elsewhere across the globe. For example, laws providing protection for “design” were developing in Britain during that time period as well. At that time, manufacturers in a variety of industries, including iron works (think stoves, railings, and kitchen utensils) and textiles, began including ornamental designs on their products to distinguish themselves from their competition. These original designs were quite ornate, time-consuming and not surprisingly – given the time period – often done by hand. When copycats began to use these designs to sell their own products, this prompted efforts by businesses to seek separate protection for their designs, especially since they weren’t being effectively protected under either patent or copyright. Indeed, in this particular case, the alleged UI copying was deliberately done to free-ride on the popularity of Word's Ribbon UI (yes, apparently it's popular): > Among many examples, Help for WordPerfect X7 suggests that the user “simulate the Microsoft Word workspace until you are accustomed to work in WordPerfect” Copying the exact design of a slider does actually seem like more work than just throwing something together by yourself...

jondubois 11y ago

Microsoft should not have been allowed to patent this particular design because it is made up mostly of elements which are in the public domain. For example, the 'plus' and 'minus' symbols are universal symbols. Circles and straight lines would also fall into the public domain. I don't think you should be able to patent designs which are just basic compositions of symbols/motifs which have existed for thousands of years. Besides, lots of old remote controls use plus/minus symbols to indicate volume-up/volume-down in a similar fashion. This design is obviously derivative.

astrowilliam 11y ago
If you want to go the route of people using the idea of things that have been used for thousands of years in patents, no one should be able to patent a wheel design because wheels have been around for a very long time and every wheel is a derivative of the original wheel design. Sure, wheels are a utility, but the design of a wheel is using pieces from other people's ideas. Patents are silly anyway, imho.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
You are analyzing design patents as you would utility patents, which I doubt is correct. These patents are more about "look and feel". You don't break down a design into its components (else taken ad absurdum, everything would decompose to curves and straight lines and combinations thereof), but instead analyze it as a whole. I believe prior art searches for design patents look for almost exact matches of a given diagram.
- jondubois 11y ago
  It just doesn't seem fair that you should be able to patent things based on how they 'feel' - The mood of something is highly subjective and usually has cultural roots (and culture is in public domain).
- Natsu 11y ago
  Patents are (supposedly) a power granted to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and it's rather hard to see how patents over mere ornamentation can further that goal, even in principle.