Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Reform the patent system.

I think we all know where this is leading.

Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

xanadian: /you know who ELSE hated apples?

Adam and Eve?

xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

Funbags: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

The 11th Doctor?

xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

The giant mutagenic blob created by Cobra?

MisterBill: Funbags: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

The 11th Doctor?

Oranges?

So, I wonder if I have to pay Apple every time I build a DIV with rounded corners.

xanadian: /you know who ELSE hated apples?

Peaches and herb?

dj_spanmaster: MisterBill: Funbags: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

The 11th Doctor?

Oranges?

Johnny Appleseed's kids?

"Why don't we have a goddamn pear for a change, dad?"

jayhawk88: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

The giant mutagenic blob created by Cobra?

*glares*

That was about as stupid as the Transformers episode where the Autobots were saved from electrocution because they all had tires.

/f'in apples?

MisterBill: Funbags: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

The 11th Doctor?

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds?

xanadian: /you know who ELSE hated apples?

William Burroughs' wife?

Yeah, that's exactly right, Subby. Don't listen to all the people explaining how you're wrong. What do they know? After all, you get your insightful commentary from Slashdot.

MacEnvy: Reform the patent system.

Pretty much this - if you can patent a generic shape then the system is broken and needs fixing.

Did anyone read the rest of the article?

"..the IP announced today extends protection to TriCap and its core ARxChange platform over the organization, sorting, ranking, valuing, and posting of debt and accounts receivable across all U.S. consumer markets, not only those derived from the healthcare industry."

Snapper Carr: MacEnvy: Reform the patent system.

Pretty much this - if you can patent a generic shape then the system is broken and needs fixing.

But since you can't, then what?

Wired: It seems most of the patents that Samsung is either licensing to other folks, or using against competitors in patent suits, are related more to technology than design - 3G technologies and other wireless technologies, for example. But what's used against Samsung most often focuses on design. Does Samsung just not have a ton of design patents? Or is it just impossible to patent a rectangular piece of glass with a touchscreen, which every smartphone and tablet has today, and is under dispute in the Apple trial?

Packingham (Samsung): In terms of patents, we have a made lot of contributions in the design space as well. I would say the patents we're struggling with - where there's a lot of discussion and litigation right now - are around these very broad design patents like a rectangle. For us, it's unreasonable that we're fighting over rectangles, that that's being considered as an infringement, which is why we're defending ourselves.

Hopefully the entire industry is in the position now where we have to defend ourselves and say, "Look, it's unreasonable for us to be in the position of claiming that there is design, claiming that there is some sort of protected property, around a rectangle." So I would say, yeah, we have design patents as well, but they're not as simple as the rectangle. And so that's where I think you see a little bit of this challenge.

In some cases, for most of us in the industry, it's defying common sense. We're all scratching our heads and saying, "How is this possible that we're actually having an industry-level debate and trying to stifle competition?" Consumers want rectangles and we're fighting over whether you can deliver a product in the shape of a rectangle.

Logically, as an engineering and manufacturing company, it makes more sense to focus on the things that are really relevant and we think are truly intellectual property. They are truly unique, and have come intrinsically out of the investments we made in R&D. A rectangle did not come out of R&D investment that we've made. Some of our products happen to be in the shape of a rectangle, but I wouldn't consider that to be an art or a science that we've created.

Theaetetus: But since you can't, then what?

From an article linked in TFA -

"That really is a patent of stunning breadth if you take seriously the idea, when you look at the diagram in the patent, that Apple gets to own a computer that's shaped like a rectangle," (emphasis mine) Lemley says. "Well, then designing around [that is] going to be awfully hard for Samsung or anybody else."

So, yeah.

Theaetetus: if you can patent a generic shape then the system is broken

In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

The shape of a Coke bottle has been patented in 1915. Somehow this didn't prevent Pepsi from conducting business.

exick: MisterBill: Funbags: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

The 11th Doctor?

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds?


The AMA?

MisterBill: Funbags: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

The 11th Doctor?

Yes. YOU WIN THE PRIZE!

/it's an apple.

BullBearMS: Theaetetus: if you can patent a generic shape then the system is broken

Relevant part.

In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

Yep, and the claimed design also has to be both novel and nonobvious - i.e. not "generic".

The shape of a Coke bottle has been patented in 1915. Somehow this didn't prevent Pepsi from conducting business.

Yep. It's not a generic shape, but a very detailed and distinctive shape. Pepsi's bottles are significantly different.

Snapper Carr: Theaetetus: But since you can't, then what?

From an article linked in TFA -

"That really is a patent of stunning breadth if you take seriously the idea, when you look at the diagram in the patent, that Apple gets to own a computer that's shaped like a rectangle," (emphasis mine) Lemley says. "Well, then designing around [that is] going to be awfully hard for Samsung or anybody else."

So, yeah.(emphasis mine)

But they don't. Apple doesn't claim ownership over "a computer that's shaped like a rectangle," and no one should take that idea seriously.
So, no.

BullBearMS: Theaetetus: if you can patent a generic shape then the system is broken

In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

The shape of a Coke bottle has been patented in 1915. Somehow this didn't prevent Pepsi from conducting business.

[dl.dropbox.com image 358x577]


There's a big difference between the shape of a coke bottle (which is pretty unique) and a rectangle (which has been the de facto shape of hand-held electronics for nearly 4 decades.

.


1977 - Mattel Electronic Football game

BullBearMS: The shape of a Coke bottle has been patented in 1915. Somehow this didn't prevent Pepsi from conducting business.

That bottle shape isn't functional. A rounded rectangle for tablets and screens is.

Snapper Carr: There's a big difference between the shape of a coke bottle (which is pretty unique) and a rectangle (which has been the de facto shape of hand-held electronics for nearly 4 decades.

[img402.imageshack.us image 332x500]

1977 - Mattel Electronic Football game

That's not a rectangle. This is a rectangle:


Yours has rounded corners with what looks like a centimeter of radius, bowed left and right sides, plus that mock-arena shape in the middle. Then there's the logo, the speaker grill, all those buttons, the three-dimensional profile, etc.
See the distinction? Not a "generic rectangle".

You say that those differences are negligible or irrelevant, and that's why you think patent law is "broken"... but the law doesn't ignore those differences, which is why it isn't.

enry: jayhawk88: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

The giant mutagenic blob created by Cobra?

*glares*

That was about as stupid as the Transformers episode where the Autobots were saved from electrocution because they all had tires.

/f'in apples?

Don't you sully that episode. It had arguably Shipwreck's shining moment, as he bravely and selflessly threw single apples into the blob, hoping that that last one would be the one that killed it, until he was saved by Scarlet.

"So my mom bought a Galaxy because it looks just like an iPhone but bigger."

rpm: BullBearMS: The shape of a Coke bottle has been patented in 1915. Somehow this didn't prevent Pepsi from conducting business.

That bottle shape isn't functional. A rounded rectangle for tablets and screens is.

Step 1: I will open a tire company and patent the idea of round circular tires
Step 2: Sue everyone, even a girl on a tricycle
Step 3: Profit

I would argue the bottle's shape is functional in helping you hold a cold piece of glass that is wet, much like the shape of a banana is functional for it being held by someones hand and proof their is a god.

Hyjamon: rpm: BullBearMS: The shape of a Coke bottle has been patented in 1915. Somehow this didn't prevent Pepsi from conducting business.

That bottle shape isn't functional. A rounded rectangle for tablets and screens is.

Step 1: I will open a tire company and patent the idea of round circular tires
Step 2: Sue everyone, even a girl on a tricycle
Step 3: Profit

I would argue the bottle's shape is functional in helping you hold a cold piece of glass that is wet, much like the shape of a banana is functional for it being held by someones hand and proof their is a god.

Neither the bottle shape nor the rectangle shape are functional:
"The elements of the design may indeed serve a utilitarian purpose, but it is the ornamental aspect that is the basis of the design patent." L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
"a product feature is functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article." (Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982).
While "a container" or "a shape" may be functional, in that they're holding liquid or surrounding a screen, there's no requirement that the container have that Coke curve or those ridges, or that the device be a rectangle as opposed to other shapes. They don't affect cost or quality, nor are they essential, since alternatives exist.

Is there anybody who actually read the article (beyond the first few Apple/Samsung paragraphs) who can translate it from finance to English? It sounds like somebody essentially patented the Collateralized Debt Obligation, but I didn't really get it all.

rugman11: Is there anybody who actually read the article (beyond the first few Apple/Samsung paragraphs) who can translate it from finance to English? It sounds like somebody essentially patented the Collateralized Debt Obligation, but I didn't really get it all.

Here's the relevant claim:
1. A method for the organization of disorganized receivables comprising:
organizing by a computer the disorganized receivables into a portfolio of organized receivables by a method including
    sorting the delinquent receivables by employing a sorting parameter to obtain sorted receivables,
    ranking the sorted receivables by employing a ranking parameter to obtain ranked receivables, and
    scoring the ranked receivables by employing a scoring parameter to obtain a final score;
wherein the sorting parameter, for each specific account in the receivables, comprises:
    (a) outstanding unpaid balance on the account;
    (b) age of the account;
    (c) prior collection history of the account;
    (d) household income and home value of the debtor on the account;
    (e) geographic distribution of debtor, based on a parameter which is a member selected from a state, a zip code, a phone number, an employer and a work phone
    (f) type of debtor/payer classification selected from the group consisting of individual, business entity, insurance provider and government provider;
wherein the ranking parameter comprises:
    (g) an intrinsic value for each sorting parameter (a)-(f);
    (h) a comparative value for each sorting parameter (a)-(f); and
wherein the scoring parameter comprises a calculation to obtain the final score, and
wherein the final score represents the collectability and the base value of the portfolio of organized receivables; and
linking by an electronic input-output device the final score to a secure website on the internet.

Specifically, according to the PTO, the prior art "fails to include a sorting parameter based on geographic distribution of debtor and demographics of the receivables profile based on household income and home value."

It's not my area of expertise, so this is more of a guess, but it doesn't appear to be patenting collateralized debt obligations so much as a particular method of sorting and ranking tranches.

So I need to rank debt before sorting it?

I would have called sorting and ranking the same thing.

ZAZ: So I need to rank debt before sorting it?

Nope, sort than rank. To be "ranking the sorted receivables," they must have already been sorted.

elvisaintdead: exick: MisterBill: Funbags: xanadian: Hey, like I needed *another* reason not to buy an Apple product.

/you know who ELSE hated apples?

That bully in Good Will Hunting?

The 11th Doctor?

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds?


The AMA?

Altaïr ibn La'Ahad?

If I could patent misleading headlines (and the instant greenlight) I'd be very very rich.

IF your business has to rely on a government provided monopoly instead of competing on an open market then you don't deserve to be in business.

Wow, this article only leads with Apple-Samsung as an intro...it's actually about a completely different patent. But whatever.

Anyway, as far as the case goes, I wonder if Apple will get caught manipulating images again...after being called out for it twice...

Theaetetus: You say that those differences are negligible or irrelevant, and that's why you think patent law is "broken"... but the law doesn't ignore those differences, which is why it isn't.

While you see that, and most intelligent people see that, apparently there are plenty of people so consumed with butthurt that they cannot see that you merely have to add some decorative change so that your product isn't a exact copy of Apple's design patent.

Samsung has already gotten around Apple's design patent in one jurisdiction by making the bezel somewhat thicker on two sides. Yet the product in question is still shaped like a rectangle.

Theaetetus: It's not my area of expertise, so this is more of a guess, but it doesn't appear to be patenting collateralized debt obligations so much as a particular method of sorting and ranking tranches.

Which, if true, farking sucks, because at the end of the day, it's just data godammit...there's nothing innovative to be found in an approach to how it is sorted. The MEANS of sorting, i.e. the engine driving the sorting, could be innovative, but just saying "we're gonna sort on A, then B, then C as a subset of D blah blah blah" is hardly patent worthy in a sane world. So I hope to God you're wrong...

/but I'm guessing you have no problem with it...

BullBearMS: Theaetetus: You say that those differences are negligible or irrelevant, and that's why you think patent law is "broken"... but the law doesn't ignore those differences, which is why it isn't.

While you see that, and most intelligent people see that, apparently there are plenty of people so consumed with butthurt that they cannot see that you merely have to add some decorative change so that your product isn't a exact copy of Apple's design patent.

It's NOT an exact copy. The measurements/ratios are different. There-in lies the contradiction you gentlemen seem to be stuck in. Theaetetus at least loves to point out that "it's a very specific patent". Then, when one points out that the actual device in question is actually not very specifically identical to the design in said patent, he'll say "apparently it's close enough for some judges".

So, which is it? Is it a VERY specific patent that some are simply judging as in a NOT very specific way, or is it an overly broad patent that is intentionally nebulous? Can't have it both ways...

MythRender: xanadian: /you know who ELSE hated apples?

Adam and Eve?

William Tell?

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Anyway, as far as the case goes, I wonder if Apple will get caught manipulating images again...after being called out for it twice...

[img13.imageshack.us image 365x500]

When both instances of "calling out" are by the same publication, based on the same documents, and within 3 days of each other, I'm not sure it really counts as "twice". Usually, the implication is that you've done some act after the first calling out, and the second one refers to that act.

Additionally, that image you posted... why, it's almost implying that Apple squished the Samsung tablet to change the aspect ratio, no? If so, why did they simultaneously change the screen, as well as eliminating the label in the middle of the right side of the bezel? They didn't? Those are two different Samsung tablets?! Woah! That means that all those claims of "calling out" would be false!

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: It's not my area of expertise, so this is more of a guess, but it doesn't appear to be patenting collateralized debt obligations so much as a particular method of sorting and ranking tranches.

Which, if true, farking sucks, because at the end of the day, it's just data godammit...there's nothing innovative to be found in an approach to how it is sorted. The MEANS of sorting, i.e. the engine driving the sorting, could be innovative, but just saying "we're gonna sort on A, then B, then C as a subset of D blah blah blah" is hardly patent worthy in a sane world. So I hope to God you're wrong...

And if they were patenting "the end of the day," I would agree that it farking sucks. But they're not. They patented the exact words I pasted above. Not "just data," not "the end of the day," not "we're gonna sort on A, then B, then C as a subset of D blah blah blah".

/but I'm guessing you have no problem with it...

Yes, but that's because I actually read all the words as having meaning, rather than saying "yeah, sure, that's a lot of words, but what it really means is these two words, and I can't believe they patented two words whargarrrbl!"

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: It's NOT an exact copy.

Yet multiple jurisdictions have ruled that it does infringe on Apple's design patent. Including jurisdictions inside the US.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BullBearMS: Theaetetus: You say that those differences are negligible or irrelevant, and that's why you think patent law is "broken"... but the law doesn't ignore those differences, which is why it isn't.

While you see that, and most intelligent people see that, apparently there are plenty of people so consumed with butthurt that they cannot see that you merely have to add some decorative change so that your product isn't a exact copy of Apple's design patent.

It's NOT an exact copy. The measurements/ratios are different. There-in lies the contradiction you gentlemen seem to be stuck in.

Negligibly different. The test is whether a reasonable observer would notice any difference, not whether an engineer with a set of calipers would be able to measure a difference.

Theaetetus at least loves to point out that "it's a very specific patent". Then, when one points out that the actual device in question is actually not very specifically identical to the design in said patent, he'll say "apparently it's close enough for some judges".

Actually, no, what I say is "the test is whether a reasonable observer would notice any difference, not whether an engineer with a set of calipers would be able to measure a difference."

So, which is it? Is it a VERY specific patent that some are simply judging as in a NOT very specific way, or is it an overly broad patent that is intentionally nebulous? Can't have it both ways...

Nope, you're drawing a false dichotomy.
Let's actually go back to the tape, since you're prosecuting me based on some imagined words cooked up in your feverish imagination, rather than actual quotes.
You said: "Nope, the other drawings are even more vague and minimalist than the first. Even taken as a whole, they're vague. It's just a damn shape. "Narrow", my arse.."
To which I replied: "You could take a ruler and protractor to that and come out with very specific measurements and angles. That's not in any way vague. It's a very, very narrow patent."

Continuing with that, the patent is very, very specific. That engineer with the set of calipers could measure every line and angle in the figures. There's nothing "intentionally nebulous" or "overly broad" about it.
The test for infringement is different, and is based on the reasonable observer test. It's all about whether or not a reasonable observer could distinguish the patent from another device that has different measurements.
Basically, if the patent says 200 mm, you don't get to claim non-infringement because you're 199.9999mm or 200.001mm. If a reasonable observer can't tell the difference, then it's close enough, and you're infringing.

BullBearMS: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: It's NOT an exact copy.

Yet multiple jurisdictions have ruled that it does infringe on Apple's design patent. Including jurisdictions inside the US.

Yeah. He thinks it has to be an exact copy to infringe... yet simultaneously, he also claims that you can disregard all of the myriad features in the patent and that "any rounded corners" would infringe. Which makes one wonder what exactly he thinks "exact copy" means.

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Anyway, as far as the case goes, I wonder if Apple will get caught manipulating images again...after being called out for it twice...

[img13.imageshack.us image 365x500]

When both instances of "calling out" are by the same publication, based on the same documents, and within 3 days of each other, I'm not sure it really counts as "twice". Usually, the implication is that you've done some act after the first calling out, and the second one refers to that act.

Additionally, that image you posted... why, it's almost implying that Apple squished the Samsung tablet to change the aspect ratio, no? If so, why did they simultaneously change the screen, as well as eliminating the label in the middle of the right side of the bezel? They didn't? Those are two different Samsung tablets?! Woah! That means that all those claims of "calling out" would be false!

Uh, yeah. Anyway, that image is what Apple presented as the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Here is an independent photo of that tablet next to the iPad 2:


So, what device is that in Apple's comparison? You seem certain that it's legit. If it's legit, why did they present some alternate product as a Tab 10.1?