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 notice that the Editor's pick comment notes how Microsoft have one for the Xbox and Lucas Arts has one for Yoda. Both are in fact original designs, the iPad on the other hand doesn't fall into that category. This is another case of the USPTO failing for me.
The system works! The underdog's vital and unique IP, heretofore unimaginable and unprotected, has been safeguarded! We've ensured the creative process will continue unabated!
> 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.
"A design patent may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture." [Source: http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html]
I really try to be objective when reading things about this as I'm fairly negative when it comes to Apple and Patent discussion but can someone possibly more impartial explain the validity of this application to me? The quote above itself seems pretty clear that neither a new or original idea has been presented here.
I completely agree. A quick image search for "Star Trek tablet" shows rounded corners, not to mention that many books for young children (babies and toddlers) feature rounded corners.
It seems an obvious design, especially since screens are currently rectangular, for ergonomic use. Even my laptop screen has rounded corners (purchased 2009).
I can understand if they filed for specific dimensions. I would agree that copying the dimensions of an iPad (within 1/8 inch or so) would be blatant patent infringement. I didn't read the patent, so I don't know if this is, in fact, what the patent details.
It makes more sense in the context of the top post referencing how narrow design patents are. It also makes more sense to think of them as being more about branding/trademark than patent.
So it's novel in the sense that nothing previously looked literally like an iPad. That narrow level of novelty also defines the narrow scope of the protection.
But this design patent would still make sense (I mean I'd still fight myself to do, but eventually I'll settle with that) if all the lines were unbroken in that. But as you can see, the only solid line there is the rounded rectangle. That means, they've got exclusive design right to make tablets with rounded rectangles. What am I missing (a genuine question).
I still don't understand what's special about that design. Again, as the link says, the only unbroken line is that the front face is made like a rounded rectangle.
It really seems you understand design patents more than many out here. Care to explain, what does it cover more than the rounded rectangle? (I hope you read the patent before commenting).
Sure, I can do that. Design patents are not the same thing as regular ("utility") patents. They are solely to get exclusive right to the form of a functional object so that a 3rd party cannot make a different device with an identical appearance.
What's important is that design patents are really really narrow in scope. A would-be imitator would have to do their best to copy them exactly (like Samsung did with their iPhone copycats) in order to infringe. So no, it would not be enough for a company to have a rounded rectangle device to get in trouble.
I expected it. These are the rhetoric sentences everyone who claims to know 'more' about them seems to be copying on HN, possibly without understanding the fact that NO ONE is talking about utility patents here. That's why I wrote that I hope you read the patent before commenting. Contrary to what iPhone fans would like to believe, most of us DO know the difference. But what you should know is,
(i)They DO sue over design patents.
(ii). This particular patent specifically says unbroken (dashed) lines are not included in the patent. So the only thing that is the basis of this patent is the rounded rectangular front shape (which is represented by the unbroken lines, in fact, that's the whole point of the article, which fanboys don't seem to understand). It'd have made at least some sense if all the lines were unbroken. Then THAT would be a design they'd have to exactly copy in order to infringe. But not with this patent.
It's not a rectangle, it's clearly either an iPad or Galaxy Tab. It's a rectangular slab of particular dimensions/proportions, rounded corners of a particular curvature, and a 4-sided front bezel of a particular, uniform width. In combination it's immediately recognizable as an iPad or iPad mimic.
If it were a rounded rectangle being patented, then the patent would look like this [0], not like that [1]. [0] is not recognizably an iPad.
Considering the ONLY UNBROKEN line in the patent, I don't see much difference in the two images you've shared, except that one [1] is shown in perspective 3D (and some color differences).
Why are you considering only the unbroken line when theres obviously more than that? The patent is for the entire thing.
Considering just the outline, the nest thermostat is just a circle. Considering just the first ten minutes, Up is a movie about a couple growing old together. This isn't a pick and choose thing.
It would have been better if before writing all super-intelligent stuff you had actually read the article or the patent, which explicitly says broken lines are not included in the claimed design. That's the whole point of that article.
I don't see a third dimension, a button, a connector, a camera, a screen, speaker holes, and so on.
The current state of patents, design or otherwise, seems to be at new heights of stupidity. But this article–below the standard Ars usually lives up to, title, body content, and all–makes me wonder if the thoughtlessness of discourse on the subject isn't also setting some new records.
So does this mean Apple will now be competing in the medical plaster market or perhaps going back in time to compete with 1920 Rolex watch's or some other swiss watch maker.
Rounding corners is also staple children toy design mentality and common health and safty.
Does this mean non Apple tablet will now have to have sharp pointy edges as from that perspective, this is again another crazy move in the land of common sence. What next, cars now have to have square wheels as Apple obtains patent upon compressed rounded rectangles. I think I'm joking but had I read this upon the Onion I would of laughed, but nowadays the Onion seems too tame in contrast to actualy happening news, worrying times. I'm now off to sharpen the corners upon my old collectiuon of CRT based TV's, utterly pointless but it is the law (sorry joke just had to get out somehow).
On a related subject, are rounded rectangles so aesthetic to everyone? I think they used to be popular in the 50s, and apple revived them with brushed aluminum, but now we see them all over the web too. They bring to my mind old CRT televisions which is kinda kitsch imho.
For a tablet, rounded rectangle seems to be the best shape in my opinion. Because you wouldn't want sharp corners if you want to be able to hold it comfortably.
I came here expecting a lot of nonsense from people confusing design patents with utility patents. There's a bit of that, but most comments seem to get it.
Well done, HN. I knew there was a reason I deleted my reddit account.
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...