[Kaotik]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/...rabook-makers/

The shape is shared by many, many ultrabooks, but Apple did file the patent before ultrabook specs were released - however what apparently everyone forgot was that ultrabooks & air weren't the first laptops to use such shape, Sony had laptop with such shape already back in 2004, which should have rendered it impossible for Apple to get the patent approved

Here's Sonys 2004 laptop X505

[RudeCurve]

Why wouldn't it be approved? Those laptops aren't being made anymore.

[Mize]

Being awarded a patent is a far cry from being awarded a defensible patent. Clearly the USPTO reviewers overlooked some prior art.

[Mize]

Originally Posted by RudeCurve

Why wouldn't it be approved? Those laptops aren't being made anymore.

A patent means you invented it before it was generally known or publicly disclosed. The fact that nobody makes it any longer has no bearing whatsoever. Even if it had been apple who disclosed it publicly first (let's say they sold a MBA before they filed) then it isn't patentable.

[Mize]

Apple filed this in 2011 while the MBA was released in 2008. It is not enforceable as the prior release of the MPA constitutes prior art. Sorry Apple.

[RudeCurve]

Originally Posted by Mize

A patent means you invented it before it was generally known or publicly disclosed. The fact that nobody makes it any longer has no bearing whatsoever. Even if it had been apple who disclosed it publicly first (let's say they sold a MBA before they filed) then it isn't patentable.

Err...no...I own/have a patent and it's for an invention that was invented before. It's just that nobody bothered to patent it before I did.

[Mize]

Originally Posted by RudeCurve

Err...no...I own/have a patent and it's for an invention that was invented before. It's just that nobody bothered to patent it before I did.

Uh, then your patent isn't worth shit.

I have a patent portfolio and know patent law reasonably well as I've been through IP disputes, etc. and if I can demonstrate prior art with public disclosure then your patent isn't enforceable.

Public disclosure is known as a baring event. Google is your friend.

[Grall]

Originally Posted by RudeCurve

Err...no...I own/have a patent and it's for an invention that was invented before. It's just that nobody bothered to patent it before I did.

You actually can't patent publically known information. It'd be like trying to patent the wheel (which I'm sure people have actually tried to do, but whatever.)

That you still got your patent means either you did not do your job (proper search of prior art), or the patent office didn't do their job, or both. Your patent is in other words invalid.

[Gerry]

Originally Posted by Grall

You actually can't patent publically known information. It'd be like trying to patent the wheel (which I'm sure people have actually tried to do, but whatever.)

That you still got your patent means either you did not do your job (proper search of prior art), or the patent office didn't do their job, or both. Your patent is in other words invalid.

From what I've seen of the US patent office lately they tend not to put any effort into finding whether a patent is enforceable or if there's any prior art. They simply let the lawyers sort it out afterwards.

[RudeCurve]

Originally Posted by Mize

Uh, then your patent isn't worth shit.

I have a patent portfolio and know patent law reasonably well as I've been through IP disputes, etc. and if I can demonstrate prior art with public disclosure then your patent isn't enforceable.

Public disclosure is known as a baring event. Google is your friend.

Whether it's worth anything isn't the point, the point is I've been granted the patent.

Originally Posted by Grall

You actually can't patent publically known information. It'd be like trying to patent the wheel (which I'm sure people have actually tried to do, but whatever.)

That you still got your patent means either you did not do your job (proper search of prior art), or the patent office didn't do their job, or both. Your patent is in other words invalid.

That's an obvious example that's not patentable. My invention isn't obvious, the mechanism has been used on other products, it just hasn't been used all products in specific ways. It's not just about what it is but how it is used and how it is different in its design. Yes you could design a better wheel or tire and patent it....

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Gerry

From what I've seen of the US patent office lately they tend not to put any effort into finding whether a patent is enforceable or if there's any prior art. They simply let the lawyers sort it out afterwards.

I think it would make the world a better place if patents were just rubber stamped and debated in court ... no more delays in getting patents approved, no more submarining, no more pretence that the patent office's approval means a fucking thing.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by Gerry

From what I've seen of the US patent office lately they tend not to put any effort into finding whether a patent is enforceable or if there's any prior art. They simply let the lawyers sort it out afterwards.

This has been a problem for the US patent office for a number of years. They don't have the expertise to deal with complex technical patents, so they just grant them and let everything get sorted out in court, where the people with the most money for the most lawyers usually win. Exactly the opposite of what the patent system was designed for in the first place.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

This has been a problem for the US patent office for a number of years. They don't have the expertise to deal with complex technical patents, so they just grant them and let everything get sorted out in court, where the people with the most money for the most lawyers usually win. Exactly the opposite of what the patent system was designed for in the first place.

Though this hardly is complex technical patent

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Mize

Apple filed this in 2011 while the MBA was released in 2008. It is not enforceable as the prior release of the MPA constitutes prior art. Sorry Apple.

It's amazing how many big companies try to patent shit over a year after they showed it in public ... what's the point? Are there really judges in Texas stupid/corrupt enough to let this kind of shit get to the juries? (Where it becomes a crap shoot, no matter how open and shut it is ... that's why they try to do this in rural areas, to find the least capable jury.)

If not it's just a waste of time and money ...

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

Though this hardly is complex technical patent

I bet you it's written as if it is. For years now the US patent office has been in the mindset of granting patents without thinking about them too much.

It would be interesting to know how many patents the USPO reject, and how many of those rejections are against big companies like Apple.

[Mize]

Originally Posted by RudeCurve

Whether it's worth anything isn't the point, the point is I've been granted the patent.

Laugh. My. F*cking. Ass. Off.
Your patent should not have been granted.
This is why it is not enforceable. Go read.

[RudeCurve]

Originally Posted by Mize

Laugh. My. F*cking. Ass. Off.
Your patent should not have been granted.
This is why it is not enforceable. Go read.

So you're moving the goal posts of not patentable to not enforcable...LMFAO...

BTW that's dependent on the lawyers and court not you...oh wait I forgot you have a law degree too right?

Go buy some HDD insurance man...

[Grall]

Originally Posted by RudeCurve

Whether it's worth anything isn't the point, the point is I've been granted the patent.

Yeah, but as explained, simply being granted it doesn't really mean diddly squat in this day and age. Countless people have been granted patents on perpetual motion machines for example despite them not even working (speaking of which, what happened to your free energy motor you were screaming so much about many moons ago now... Still under development and can't be shown? )

That's an obvious example that's not patentable. My invention isn't obvious, the mechanism has been used on other products, it just hasn't been used all products in specific ways.

If you didn't invent it and it was used in other products in the past, how do you justify your claim of being deserving patent protection?

Assuming nobody ever made a wallet with hinges on it, putting hinges on a wallet isn't really a novel invention, as both wallets and hinges have long existed, so why should anyone be able to patent it?

[Mize]

Dude, you are just painfully ignorant.
A patent confers a right of exclusivity. If it isn't enforceable no right is conferred and the patent is nullified. What you have is a piece of paper that cost you money and has no value.

Simply put "Patents are granted for the design of an original invention" and if you or apple or anyone managed to get a stupid enough reviewer that you manged to get a patent on something that wasn't original then whoop-dee-doo. It is unenforceable, it doesn't confer any exclusivity and it therefore doesn't meet the definition of a patent.

Back to ignore with you.

[Gerry]

Originally Posted by RudeCurve

That's an obvious example that's not patentable. My invention isn't obvious, the mechanism has been used on other products, it just hasn't been used all products in specific ways. It's not just about what it is but how it is used and how it is different in its design. Yes you could design a better wheel or tire and patent it....

Since you've got patent protection why don't you just tell us what this invention is then?

[RudeCurve]

Originally Posted by Grall

Assuming nobody ever made a wallet with hinges on it, putting hinges on a wallet isn't really a novel invention, as both wallets and hinges have long existed, so why should anyone be able to patent it?

That's not really a valid analogy. All foldable wallets have soft hinges so there's no point in trying to patent a wallet with hinges.

Originally Posted by Gerry

Since you've got patent protection why don't you just tell us what this invention is then?

Patent protection doesn't magically mean it creates money to pay for lawyers to enforce your patents.

[Grall]

Maybe we've slipped too far off topic, which is that Apple's being its usual asshole self and patenting blindingly obvious, and/or already existing solutions, in an underhanded (and illegal) attempt to stymie competition?

[Simon F]

Although the earlier discussion was "interesting" and, from my experience with patents, not entirely accurate, the original article appears to be about a "design patent" which is different concept, i.e. a registered design

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item.

[Kaotik]

figured there's no reason for another thread, this time Apple patents induction based charging (used by Braun at least since early 90's), rotating, scrolling and resizing documents on touch screen (used by every smartphone out there probably)
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...-displays.html

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

figured there's no reason for another thread, this time Apple patents induction based charging (used by Braun at least since early 90's), rotating, scrolling and resizing documents on touch screen (used by every smartphone out there probably)
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...-displays.html

For the induction charging thing, do they go after HP retrospectively? You know, for the Touchstone charger released a year ago. The patent is for something an (ex) competitor has actually been shipping for a year and Apple themselves still don't have an inductive charger on the market!

Also, surely prior art for other inductive charging devices should apply here?

I see they have also managed to get the Galaxy Nexus banned in the US over other pretty obvious patents.

I wonder when all this stuff will end?