Apple finally patents "Rectangles"

[Qtis]

what are they gonna patent next the glass screen, the battery or how about the power button to turn the piece of shit on? apple is getting more and more laughable each and every day

Imagine that the seat belt was designed and patented by Volvo. The company gave all the other manufacturers the possibility of adding seat belts on cars. For free. After spending money on the design.

As I said before, this has nothing to do with the functionality. You can't have a design patent for a battery in terms of usability. You can have a design on what a battery looks like, but it has to be very specific in how it looks like. Patenting a glass screen can't be done. The material can be patented and a screen can be patented, but that would still need to have prior art to allow it. Also it's a portable display device. Not everything with a screen :3

 

[Bladexdsl]

than how can they patent a rectangle than?

 

[Engert]

Oh god. This is going to turn into another hate thread.

That's why I like forums.
It's a good pass time activity when bored at work.

Now to stay on topic. I don't think Apple will have an edge any more now that Comrade Stalin errr I mean Steve Jobs is dead and his militant rule is over.

 

[BORTZ]

Don't forget, it's 2012!

New seasons of Psych and infinity more importantly, Community come back in 2013, so the world isnt ending yet.

 

[Gahars]

Looks like Apple is moving into the Geometry classroom.

 

[Taleweaver]

It's just one of those days. First a major train strike so I had to work in another office, then some lousy news there...and now I come home to find out I've broken a copyright claim a couple DOZEN times.


Seriously...if I ever patented anything by that United States Patent and Trademark office, I would ask for a serious refund. Reason: because no one will ever take you seriously if you've got an invention patented at the same office as "that office that lets people patent rounded rectangles".


Also...quote of the year moment for Lea Shaver:

Lea: "This design patent gives Apple no new advantage, because no one is out there trying to market an iPad lookalike"

I wonder how the weather's on his planet.



Finally...someone OBVIOUSLY needs to note this sooner or later:

Spoiler

 

[the_randomizer]

Apple is comprised of nothing but butt-hurts sods.

 

[Foxi4]

As I said before, this has nothing to do with the functionality. You can't have a design patent for a battery in terms of usability. You can have a design on what a battery looks like, but it has to be very specific in how it looks like. Patenting a glass screen can't be done. The material can be patented and a screen can be patented, but that would still need to have prior art to allow it. Also it's a portable display device. Not everything with a screen :3

Fair play, this has nothing to do with functionality indeed. What the patent concerns is what is marked with the dashed lines - in this case, the rectangular-shaped glass screen covering the entire face of the device with rounded edges. Portable Display Device is a vague term - it can be easily interpreted as any portable device that displays (something) - this idea is far too vague and Apple should not have been given the patent in the first place.

This basically means that anything with a rectangular shape that has rounded edges and a piece of glass-like surface that covers the entirety of the face of the device is now infringing on Apple's patent - it's really that simple and that asinine. I could understand patenting the design of the entirety of the face, including the button layout, but not one particular element with little to no distinguishable features.

I'll fix the source links now.

 

[Deleted-236924]

It's just one of those days. First a major train strike so I had to work in another office, then some lousy news there...and now I come home to find out I've broken a copyright claim a couple DOZEN times.


Seriously...if I ever patented anything by that United States Patent and Trademark office, I would ask for a serious refund. Reason: because no one will ever take you seriously if you've got an invention patented at the same office as "that office that lets people patent rounded rectangles".


Also...quote of the year moment for Lea Shaver:

Lea: "This design patent gives Apple no new advantage, because no one is out there trying to market an iPad lookalike"

I wonder how the weather's on his planet.



Finally...someone OBVIOUSLY needs to note this sooner or later:

Spoiler

They can sue for something that was done before the patent was filed?

 

[Engert]

...on other news Microsoft announced today that they will release the Start Menu patent since they won't be using it any more.

 

[Foxi4]

They can sue for something that was done before the patent was filed?

Before? No. Anything afterwards? Yes.

 

[PolloDiablo]

If I patent a turd, none can poop anymore?

 

[SuzieJoeBob]

I'm gonna go patent the sphere than every company that's made a ball owes me royalties!

I have been trying to find the clip from Frankenhole where Jesus yells at a store clerk for not giving Jesus royalties. After all, the watch had his name written in big letters, but the face was of a strawberry-blonde child, thus avoiding the royalty fee. So far nothing...

 

[SuzieJoeBob]

They can sue for something that was done before the patent was filed?

No, as that was done prior to there patent. It is the same as someone committing a crime, then being take to trial after the law concerning their crime has been changed.

For example, if a mass murderer commits 30+ murders before the death-penalty is revoked in the jurisdiction of his crimes, but is later on caught and brought to trial 10+ years after the law's changes, his trial will be able to have the death-penalty on the table. All of the proceedings will be based on the law during the murders; any additions/ommitions of the law afterward are thrown out.

That holds true for Apple suing yet another company over something made before the patent came to be; Apple would have no grounds to sue, as their bullshit patent didn't exist back then, so the company had no reason not to create it. No one laid claim to that invention, so why wouldn't they be allowed to use it???

Edit: Sorry for the double-post. I thought someone would have posted in between...

 

[Janthran]

If I patent a turd, none can poop anymore?

That's not how it works.
Nobody would be able to sell poop anymore, though.

 

[Rockhoundhigh]

Hooray for the Western world, lawsuits and patents for everyone!

 

[Janthran]

Somebody, quick! Patent sliding keyboards! That'll put Apple in their place.

 

[Foxi4]

No, as that was done prior to there patent. It is the same as someone committing a crime, then being take to trial after the law concerning their crime has been changed.

For example, if a mass murderer commits 30+ murders before the death-penalty is revoked in the jurisdiction of his crimes, but is later on caught and brought to trial 10+ years after the law's changes, his trial will be able to have the death-penalty on the table. All of the proceedings will be based on the law during the murders; any additions/ommitions of the law afterward are thrown out.

That holds true for Apple suing yet another company over something made before the patent came to be; Apple would have no grounds to sue, as their bullshit patent didn't exist back then, so the company had no reason not to create it. No one laid claim to that invention, so why wouldn't they be allowed to use it???

Edit: Sorry for the double-post. I thought someone would have posted in between...

Uhm... Such analogies highly depend on the country in question...

Let's just cut it down to the Latin proverb "Lex Retro non Agit" - a law does not apply retroactively (lit. Law does not move (work) backwards), meaning that you cannot be punished for something that was made illegal after you've done it, it's one of the cornerstones of law in most countries. Not using this rule would lead to absurd situations where you become a criminal just because you did something that was later made illegal.

 

[boombox]

Apple's stupidity = Mind blown

 

[SuzieJoeBob]

Uhm... Such analogies highly depend on the country in question...

Let's just cut it down to the Latin proverb "Lex Retro non Agit" - a law does not apply retroactively (lit. Law does not work backwards), meaning that you cannot be punished for something that was made illegal after you've done it, it's one of the cornerstones of law in most countries. Not using this rule would lead to absurd situations where you become a criminal just because you did something that was later made illegal.

That is exactly what I was trying to say, but you put it a lot better than I did. I knew there was a proverb for what I was trying to say, but I forgot what it was. Thanks!!!