3 ms·
While I agree with the gist of what you're saying, the "rounded corners" claim was that the specific corner shape was an ornamental as opposed to useful part of
by jasomill 14y ago
While I agree with the gist of what you're saying, the "rounded corners" claim was that the specific corner shape was an ornamental as opposed to useful part of the iPad's design. Design patents and utility patents aren't even close to the same thing.
- fpp 14y agoAnd you are of course right, but - I believe - what is important here is that for keeping our legal systems functional it is necessary to actively limit the opportunities to abuse it
- jasomill 14y agoTrue. And the main reason for keeping our legal system functional? The belief that alternatives would invite even more abuse!
- ZeroGravitas 14y agoThe key element of both (all) types of patents is that, rather than "protecting" your property, they actually allow you to prevent others from independently inventing or designing the same thing by giving you a legal monopoly. In that regard using the law to prevent someone having rounded corners on a handheld device isn't too different from preventing them having a touchscreen device that you unlock by swiping.
- jasomill 14y agoSure. I'd even go on to say that the latter isn't much different, in principle, than granting Eli Lilly a monopoly on pills that, by a certain chemical action, boost serotonin levels in the brain. Which is not to say that there might not be sensible reasons for society to favor protection of one over the other. In the words[1] of Oliver Wendell Holmes, "the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." Fortunately for the industry, today's ruling was clearly written by a judge well-versed in both. [1] http://books.google.com/books?id=xXouAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1 http://books.google.com/books?id=xXouAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1 (well worth reading in context)