Apple Patents the Wedge Design

[justin82]

i want to patent phone/tablet/tv ..etc screens that are in the rectangular fashion .:icon_ devil:

 

[CoFoltman84]

Figures 3and4 look like flat devices, they don't appear bigger at either end...so its basically any electronic that is longer than it is thick/wide.:blink:

 

[Immolate]

When a dog goes rabid, you put it down. It isn't that you can't put the dog in a cage and keep it from harming anyone, you can. But once its rabid, it can do only harm and no good, so you get rid of it for the good of all. The patent office needs a serious overhaul, but we should all endeavor to put Apple out of business by refusing them sales or recommendations. They need to feel the pain of their rotten decisions.

 

[Alastrionia]

Everyone is missing the point. Getting a patent on a product does not prevent anyone from using the design, it simply requires others to pay royalties if they want to use the design. Patents are designed to recognize and promote innovation. Why shouldn't Apple be able to patent a new, and potentially more innovative laptop/device design? I would also imagine that Ford (or some other company) did get a patent on the spoiler. When you invent something that others will want to use and innovate, you should be given credit (money) for your work.

You're right in that if you have something innovative and new and are the 1st, then patent it and make some money off of it. Good business sense.

HOWEVER - Apple is not doing any of that. They are simply taking the most vague, grey area ideas and grabbing them up. This is not good business.
This is cutthroat bullcrap as they have nothing innovative or new or spiffy to give us.

And the wedge design? seriously? that's been here for FAR longer than apple can even legitimately try to claim.

I hope someone somewhere can finally put an end to this madness

 

[jayman350]

Everyone is missing the point. Getting a patent on a product does not prevent anyone from using the design, it simply requires others to pay royalties if they want to use the design. Patents are designed to recognize and promote innovation. Why shouldn't Apple be able to patent a new, and potentially more innovative laptop/device design? I would also imagine that Ford (or some other company) did get a patent on the spoiler. When you invent something that others will want to use and innovate, you should be given credit (money) for your work.

Patents were designed to recognize and promote innovation, the problem here is that apple is using it the other way around. They do not necessarily have a new idea/design/innovation with the wedge, they simply are calling "dibs" on it so that when someone else has something even remotely similar looking they can pull out this patent and have the device banned. Most patents that apple have pulled out for examples of infringements are so broad and vague, like using a finger for input instead of a mouse. The biggest issue I have with the patent system as it stands, you can patent an idea with absolutely no means of ever actually producing this idea, you now "own" this idea. That does nothing to encourage innovation, it encourages hoarding of patents and waiting for others to follow through on your idea so you can sue them.

For the most part, Apple has not been using their patents to get these companies to pay up for a license, they are using them to stifle competition. Examples being the GNEX and Galaxy Tab. The Tab has been through the ringer with these patents all b/c it is a rectangle that somewhat looks like it could be an ipad.

Oh and just so everyone knows I'm calling dibs on the parallelogram...go ahead try and make something that looks like my parallelogram and I will unleash my stable of patent lawyers who litigate with the fury of a thousand Steve Jobs'

 

[jseah]

And the wedge design? seriously? that's been here for FAR longer than apple can even legitimately try to claim.

At least since the 70's. Look at the Triumph TR7.

View attachment 52328

 

[Lars]

You're right in that if you have something innovative and new and are the 1st, then patent it and make some money off of it. Good business sense.

HOWEVER - Apple is not doing any of that. They are simply taking the most vague, grey area ideas and grabbing them up. This is not good business.
This is cutthroat bullcrap as they have nothing innovative or new or spiffy to give us.

And the wedge design? seriously? that's been here for FAR longer than apple can even legitimately try to claim.

I hope someone somewhere can finally put an end to this madness

I completely agree with you, but my original argument is that there is nothing illegal with what they are doing. While it is shady and "cutthroat," it's up to the courts (and USPTO) to deny a patent, and Apple is just doing what any intelligent and money hungry business would and should do.

 

[FoxKat]

I think I am going to vomit.

Everyone always lames Apple, but why does no one ever blame the US patent office or the Courts for standing behind Apple? If I had to guess, the Judge's making these pro-Apple decisions (like Judge Koh) and the folks at the US patent office are behind the times and dont really get technology as much as we do here.

Ps- I guess Sony can expect a lawsuit for their patent infringing S Tablet

Yes, the system is broken, but the end doesn't justify the means. There is a thing known as "abuse of the system".

wonder what the doorstop manufacturers think of this... maybe one of them has a creative (and bored!) legal team

The list of things this patent could be "infringed" by, is essentially limitless. It's absurd. This is a slap in the face of every innovation possible. Apple is saying "if you intend to compete with me, we'll cut your legs off and profit from your demise". This is nothing short of monopolization.

Everyone is missing the point. Getting a patent on a product does not prevent anyone from using the design, it simply requires others to pay royalties if they want to use the design. Patents are designed to recognize and promote innovation. Why shouldn't Apple be able to patent a new, and potentially more innovative laptop/device design? I would also imagine that Ford (or some other company) did get a patent on the spoiler. When you invent something that others will want to use and innovate, you should be given credit (money) for your work.

But wait, isn't a patent for something that is different, new and unique? Aren't just about every car on the road wedge shaped? So perhaps Apple holds patent over all the auto makers since their cars are thinner at the front than the back.

This is true - but I'm pretty sure Apple didn't invent the wedge design.

I am going to patent a molecule that is comprised of three atoms, two of one kind, and one of another, which in their ambient temperature state are bonded together in a triad configuration, and are a liquid, and this molecule when in contact with a flammable material acts as a suppressant to the combustion of said material. Yet, also this molecule when broken apart into its primary atoms results in two gasses, one which is flammable and the other which is an accelerant, which when combined through combustion release the triad molecule in a gaseous state at high temperatures, which can then be cooled and reclaimed, essentially comprising a closed loop fuel source. Also, one of the two primary atoms, and the combined molecule are the building blocks of life as we know it (AKA Water, Hydrogen & Oxygen).

You will pay me a royalty every time you breathe and when you burn any fuel that is hydrocarbon based, in other words...essentially everything.

Agreed and this is what bugs me about Apple. They take credit for what has been done before, and everyone thinks they are at the peak of all innovation. However, they still can't be faulted for getting a patent if nobody else has, and those who previously used/created the design don't come forward to challenge Apple's patent.

Yes they can be faulted. It's frivolous in nature and only serves to thwart competition, pad the pockets of lawyers, waste the court's time and our tax dollars, and all for one purpose - to monopolize the industry.

frivolous adj. Of minimal importance; legally worthless. A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit. In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant. In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.A frivolous appeal is one that is completely lacking merit, since no review able question has been raised therein.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.​

​

---

frivolous adj. referring to a legal move in a lawsuit clearly intended merely to harass, delay, or embarrass the opposition. Frivolous acts can include filing the lawsuit itself, a baseless motion for a legal ruling, an answer of a defendant to a complaint which does not deny, contest, prove, or controvert anything, or an appeal which contains not a single arguable basis (by any stretch of the imagination) for the appeal. A frivolous lawsuit, motion or appeal can result in a successful claim by the other party for payment by the frivolous suer of their attorneys fees for defending the case. Judges are reluctant to find an action frivolous, based on the desire not to discourage people from using the courts to resolve disputes.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.​

​

 

[Lars]

For the most part, Apple has not been using their patents to get these companies to pay up for a license, they are using them to stifle competition. Examples being the GNEX and Galaxy Tab. The Tab has been through the ringer with these patents all b/c it is a rectangle that somewhat looks like it could be an ipad.

Oh and just so everyone knows I'm calling dibs on the parallelogram...go ahead try and make something that looks like my parallelogram and I will unleash my stable of patent lawyers who litigate with the fury of a thousand Steve Jobs'

They are most certainly getting them to make people pay up for licenses. No company wants to be sued, it's terrible and expensive business. The problem is that nobody is paying for these licenses, infringing on the patent, and then litigating the infringement in court. I'm not saying this is the wrong path to take, but if Samsung (or others) wants to avoid a lawsuit, all they need to do is pay Apple for the license before developing their product.

I just want to add that I am by no means an Apple supporter, I just have strong opinions about what is and isn't considered "legal" or good business.

 

[tommyz]

Fig. 5 & 6 Looks like it has a Micro-USB. When did apple use a micro-usb?

If you look at fig. 5 & 6 it looks like there are micro-usb ports. Doesn't apple use their own port for power and communications?

 

[rowdyguy124]

My Asus netbook, which is still used daily with it's 10 hour battery life is a classic example of a wedge design that predates this patents by a few years. Apple needs to crash and burn hard.

 

[Dusty]

View attachment 52332

This man calls BS!

 

[sNuFfYStiGLiTZ]

I should patent something that apple is using but they haven't patented yet, then sue apple for infringement. I would let all the other companies use it free of charge and give apple the big green weenie. Major dick move.

 

[bruben7886]

That's it.....I'm putting y'all on notice. If apple patents the wedge, I'm patenting the fulcrum.....and the wheel

 

[FoxKat]

Do I hear U.S. Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against Apple?