5 ms·
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 de
by 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 agoIt 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 agoPatents 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.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoI'd say UI design is an "useful Art". If somebody is forced to come up with their own designs rather than ripping somebody else's off, is that not progress? If there is no conceivable alternative way of doing a design (which I find extremely improbable) the solution is well-known: license it.
- yohui 11y agoI agree good UI design offers utility, but often those "forced to come up with their own designs" are simply forced to kludge together a workaround rather than do what would come naturally. This hardship may sometimes spark innovation, true, but in other cases the effort and frustration might have been better spent pushing the envelope elsewhere. And if the "invention" is obvious, developers (and users) really shouldn't have to pay the cost to license it.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoThing is, in the world of design patents even trivial changes are sufficient to avoid infringement.
- talmand 11y agoTwo things that make me feel design patents seem stupid in general. 1. What if the design is trivial itself? So trivial that there are no trivial changes to make? 2. If trivial changes is all that's require to avoid the patent, such as change a solid line to dotted line, then why have the stupid design patents in the first place? I could maybe understand such a thing for the entire application, but just a small insignificant part of the overall design? It's stupid.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoNot a big fan of design patents either, but... 1. Not sure if something trivial (e.g. an empty circle for a button) would be eligible even for a design patent. 2. The solid and dotted lines are just to indicate the claimed design vs the rest of the product respectively. Potentially the dotted lines in one patent maybe claimed as solid lines in a separate design patent.
- talmand 11y agoI have seen designs I would consider trivial, such as a slider made up of two circled symbols, a solid line, and a small box for an indicator. I wasn't referring to the lines in the claim, but in the design. I was saying; for instance, if changing a solid line in the design to a dotted line may get you past the design patent, then they are worthless to begin with.
- Natsu 11y agoThey're actually saying that the lines indicate what's claimed in the patent. While it may be true that you just have to not match the solid lines of the patent, when you have a minimal design that's barely anything but a rounded rectangle (as posted below), the design patents become a farce.