The first comment on Ars Technica FWIW: (I take no stand, have no expertise, just posting someone's sober response so it'll be seen here.)
I think most people don't understand what it means that this is a design patent - it's not the same thing as a "regular" patent (a utility patent). Design patents allow a company to get an exclusive right to the form of a functional object so that a 3rd party can't make a different device with identical appearance (well, not legally at least). Almost every company that puts the time into making a distinctive shape for their devices gets one: Microsoft has one for the Xbox, George Lucas got one for Yoda etc.
Design patents are extremely narrow - you have to do your level best to copy them exactly in order to be found in infringement. Plus, they specifically cannot cover functionality - that has to be covered by a utility patent, if it's going to be protected. This design patent only protects a "portable display device" (that's the wording in the Patent itself), and only one with those specific design elements that are shown in the Patent Figures.
I'd be shocked if Apple hadn't applied for design patents for all of its devices. This really isn't an issue."
>Almost every company that puts the time into making a distinctive shape for their devices gets one: Microsoft has one for the Xbox, George Lucas got one for Yoda etc. Design patents are extremely narrow - you have to do your level best to copy them exactly in order to be found in infringement.
I'd say a rounded rectangle isn't narrow at all.
Consider one of the examples given, the XBOX. The XBOX design patent found here [1] contains far more in the way of specific, distinguishing features than the rounded rectangle [2] Apple is claiming.
Microsoft would have to be awarded a design patent for a "roughly square electronic housing" to equal the absurdity.
That does not mean that this is a patent for a rounded rectangle, although it's a catchy thing to say such a patent would never be granted(even to apple). The whole point is that if another device managed to have the same dimensions and the exact same curvature it might be considered to infringe on this patent. That is however very unlikely unless, as the comment at the top states, the manufacturers of said device were actually trying to copy the ipad design.
>The whole point is that if another device managed to have the same dimensions and the exact same curvature it might be considered to infringe on this patent.
Infringing on an incredibly broad patent for a rather obvious shape is an easy thing to do.
>That is however very unlikely unless, as the comment at the top states, the manufacturers of said device were actually trying to copy the ipad design.
Rectangles, rounded or otherwise in the 4:3 to 5:4 range have been around forever. Clipboards, US Letter (paper), 4D / 6R / 8R / 12R (photo printing) to name a few.
The good old Galaxy Tab finds itself in that same crowded company above in terms of specific size, but closer to something like A4 paper, a Passport or the rounded rectangle of the common credit card in terms of ratio.
There's nothing novel about the absolute size or ratio of an iPad.
"""
Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find.
"""
Indeed, I do wonder if Hollywood had focused more on filing IP patents instead of complaining about protecting there margins then they would of been better of.
Now if somebody could only patent taking an idea from a movie or TV series and applying in real life. Then put that in the public domain, well, it would be interesting for the public at least with regards to being able to apply common sence with a hint of health and safty. Not like we have square eye's and retro displays were rectangular with rounded corners.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple goes after Microsoft about the Surface design if the new tablets take off in the market, because Apple and Microsoft's patent cross-licensing agreement explicitly prohibit "cloning."
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1292505/584.pdf
--edit--
I understand that you may not agree with me as these are just things to think about, but I would really love an actual response rather than a down vote.
Without reading the patent, are we qualified to judge? The patent in question cites 227 previous patents; There might be more to it than "a rounded rectangle."
> This design patent only protects a "portable display device" (that's the wording in the Patent itself), and only one with those specific design elements that are shown in the Patent Figures.
The article also states, "The only unbroken line in all the figures is the outline of the flat, rounded rectangular front face of the device. All the other identifiable features, such as the speaker grille, round home button, display size, Dock connector, or even its curved back, are not covered by this design patent."
So the problem is what design elements are shown, exactly, in this highly-minimalist design? I see a rectangle with rounded corners and a black border with a camera in the top center. I'm not quite sure about the camera, though, it's so small I can't see if there are dashed lines or not, so it might or might not be claimed, but there are only so many sensible places to put a camera--you'd naturally put it in the middle of one side or another and if you expect it to take pictures of people, the short side is the only reasonable side. We've previously mentioned that the rounded corners are not quite purely ornamental--they help keep the device from breaking when it's dropped on the corner. So that leaves us with what, just a black border? And even that has some arguable utility because you want a neutral color so as not to clash with whatever is on screen.
Its just easier for people to go "Apple got a design patent for a ROUNDED RECT?!" rather than understand the actual situation. Design patents aren't all that bad compared to some of the more ridiculous ones that get thrown out, and if you're making hardware or something with a unique design they're useful.
I think most people don't understand what it means that this is a design patent - it's not the same thing as a "regular" patent (a utility patent). Design patents allow a company to get an exclusive right to the form of a functional object so that a 3rd party can't make a different device with identical appearance (well, not legally at least). Almost every company that puts the time into making a distinctive shape for their devices gets one: Microsoft has one for the Xbox, George Lucas got one for Yoda etc.
Design patents are extremely narrow - you have to do your level best to copy them exactly in order to be found in infringement. Plus, they specifically cannot cover functionality - that has to be covered by a utility patent, if it's going to be protected. This design patent only protects a "portable display device" (that's the wording in the Patent itself), and only one with those specific design elements that are shown in the Patent Figures.
I'd be shocked if Apple hadn't applied for design patents for all of its devices. This really isn't an issue."
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-pa...