3 ms·
Except that you're completely wrong. It's a design patent. It's for specifically how it looks not for the actual functionality. And they are basically just giv
by threeseed 7y ago
Except that you're completely wrong.
It's a design patent. It's for specifically how it looks not for the actual functionality. And they are basically just given out like candy to anyone that applies since they are only useful in situations where companies do an exact 1-1 copy. Otherwise it doesn't infringe.
So feel free to create your own iBook clone knowing you won't infringe on this.
- kick 7y agoAn exact, 1-1 copy shouldn't be prevented. Also, you're either completely wrong or completely misleading, and I can't tell which (maybe both) because of HN's history with completely misinterpreting patent law. They've gotten other software patents before (on things no more based on functionality as the above patent), and utilized them to sue opponents. "Slide to Unlock" comes to mind. https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/2/5676776/samsung-found-to-infringe-apple-patents-for-over-119-million-in https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/2/5676776/samsung-found-to-i...
- threeseed 7y agoDesign patents serve a useful purpose though. Companies should be encouraged to innovate on a design and arrive at their own implementation. Otherwise you would see large companies simply duplicate en masse the works of smaller ones. Utility patents like "slide to unlock" are obviously more about protecting an idea by patenting the most common implementation. But again in this case it was trivial to workaround since we've seen many unique phone unlock mechanisms come from the Android ecosystem.
- ascagnel_ 7y agoDesign patents are why Apple sued Samsung, and won, over the Fascinate (the Verizon-branded version of the original Galaxy that was pretty naked in its attempt to clone the look & feel of iOS in that era).