4 ms·

This is just one more proof of how messed up the patent system is. The problem now becomes: why was that patent awarded in the first place ?

by zrgiu_ 15y ago

av500 15y ago
it's a design patent. I don't think the patent examiners are supposed to watch all of Youtube to maybe find a similar device dated 16 years back. But since it's known now, Apple can just stop, pay everybody's legal bills and be done with it...
- slowpoke 15y ago
  Or we could stop this patent nonsense in the first place. They are nothing more than catalysts for petty lawsuits that look little better than kids throwing sand at each other. Or a group of high-school kids bullying a kindergartener, if we'd be talking about one of the many lawsuits from the big players against small businesses.
- markokocic 15y ago
  Seems like Samsung would be better of paying a couple of geeks to go to work and watch Star Trek and similar SciFi movies instead of paying a bunch of money to patent lawyers ;)
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    Actually, that would be a cool crowd sourcing project, and not just encompassing Star Trek. If you spot a possible prior art for a patent in a work of fiction, you could put it on some sort of wiki. It would be a great source of information to fight patents (especially the ridiculous), and show the absurdness of the system.
ghshephard 15y ago
It would be helpful to cite the patent in question, I presume we are referring to D'889, more precisely known as D504,889. When you are critiquing a patent on HN, you should bring some novel ideas to the table, rather than generally disparaging the patent. D'889 is a Design Patent. See: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni... for what a Design patent is. Your critique could likely take multiple approaches. You could critique the concept of a patent in general. You could critique design patents. Or, you could critique this particular design patent. My question to you - have you read through D'889, (which you can look up here: http://www.google.com/patents http://www.google.com/patents) By the way - I completely agree with you that D'889 is overly vague, covered a design that had prior art - most famously in kubrick's 2001. See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/samsung-objects-to-ipad-patent-saying-stanley-kubrick-came-up-with-it-first http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/sam... What I'd be interested is why, in particular, a generic design patent covering nothing more than "Tablet" was used by Apple in anything more than a defensive posture. They didn't invent the concept or design - they just executed on it. Patents should be awarded for novel designs, processes - not on the filing of other people's published work.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  The most interesting critique of the design patent I've seen is that it doesn't actually look like an iPad. It's thicker and has no button, and a different bezel. Even if you allow that Apple could protect the iPad look, they've done it with a design patent that covers a different design. Then they've prevented the sale of yet a different variation. It appears like they cover a wide range of possible tablet designs with this patent rather than a single unique design. Some images to illustrate: http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+Much+Like+the+iPad++or+Samsung+Tab+101/article22685.htm http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+...

This is just one more proof of how messed up the patent system is. The problem now becomes: why was that patent awarded in the first place ?

by zrgiu_ 15y ago

This is just one more proof of how messed up the patent system is. The problem now becomes: why was that patent awarded in the first place ?

av500 15y ago

it's a design patent. I don't think the patent examiners are supposed to watch all of Youtube to maybe find a similar device dated 16 years back. But since it's known now, Apple can just stop, pay everybody's legal bills and be done with it...

slowpoke 15y ago
Or we could stop this patent nonsense in the first place. They are nothing more than catalysts for petty lawsuits that look little better than kids throwing sand at each other. Or a group of high-school kids bullying a kindergartener, if we'd be talking about one of the many lawsuits from the big players against small businesses.
markokocic 15y ago
Seems like Samsung would be better of paying a couple of geeks to go to work and watch Star Trek and similar SciFi movies instead of paying a bunch of money to patent lawyers ;)
- slowpoke 15y ago
  Actually, that would be a cool crowd sourcing project, and not just encompassing Star Trek. If you spot a possible prior art for a patent in a work of fiction, you could put it on some sort of wiki. It would be a great source of information to fight patents (especially the ridiculous), and show the absurdness of the system.

ghshephard 15y ago

It would be helpful to cite the patent in question, I presume we are referring to D'889, more precisely known as D504,889. When you are critiquing a patent on HN, you should bring some novel ideas to the table, rather than generally disparaging the patent. D'889 is a Design Patent. See: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni... for what a Design patent is. Your critique could likely take multiple approaches. You could critique the concept of a patent in general. You could critique design patents. Or, you could critique this particular design patent. My question to you - have you read through D'889, (which you can look up here: http://www.google.com/patents http://www.google.com/patents) By the way - I completely agree with you that D'889 is overly vague, covered a design that had prior art - most famously in kubrick's 2001. See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/samsung-objects-to-ipad-patent-saying-stanley-kubrick-came-up-with-it-first http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/sam... What I'd be interested is why, in particular, a generic design patent covering nothing more than "Tablet" was used by Apple in anything more than a defensive posture. They didn't invent the concept or design - they just executed on it. Patents should be awarded for novel designs, processes - not on the filing of other people's published work.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago
The most interesting critique of the design patent I've seen is that it doesn't actually look like an iPad. It's thicker and has no button, and a different bezel. Even if you allow that Apple could protect the iPad look, they've done it with a design patent that covers a different design. Then they've prevented the sale of yet a different variation. It appears like they cover a wide range of possible tablet designs with this patent rather than a single unique design. Some images to illustrate: http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+Much+Like+the+iPad++or+Samsung+Tab+101/article22685.htm http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+...