5 ms·

This was back when steve jobs was suing anyone making rounded corner phones right? The apple watch patent seems like an actual thing.

stouset 3y ago
Design patents are an actual thing and they cover extremely specific features of an object’s physical design.
skygazer 3y ago
Maybe? The two violated patent claims are "a protrusion comprising opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping" and "one or more chamfered edges" of the protrusion, on a patent titled “User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user.” It doesn’t appear anything that HN users would consider technology related was involved, and despite the palpable sense of Schadenfreude here, if it had happened to a company other than Apple, we’d probably be more sympathetic. The patent’s claims seem likely to be further invalidated once it gets to court, but the timing unfolded to Apple’s disadvantage. (Or maybe not, as they managed to hold everything off until after Christmas sales were completed, and maybe managed to get a bump out of the pending ban.) I generally feel no sympathy or outrage for Apples patent strife. They are often a target not so much because of their bad acts but because they’re wealthy and a big potential payday, but they’re also wealthy enough to defend their interests and the expenses are just the cost of doing business. (Although they are usually much better at preventing this level of chaos, but they pissed off a billionaire by hiring his top staff, so there’s that.)
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Patent titles have no effect on anything. I have several with the exact same titles, and they're all different.
  - skygazer 3y ago
    Yes, they’re always vague. Maybe I should have omitted it so as not to confuse. To be clearer, the cited claims are the issue.

5 ms·

This was back when steve jobs was suing anyone making rounded corner phones right? The apple watch patent seems like an actual thing.

by Racing0461 3y ago

stouset 3y ago
Design patents are an actual thing and they cover extremely specific features of an object’s physical design.
skygazer 3y ago
Maybe? The two violated patent claims are "a protrusion comprising opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping" and "one or more chamfered edges" of the protrusion, on a patent titled “User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user.” It doesn’t appear anything that HN users would consider technology related was involved, and despite the palpable sense of Schadenfreude here, if it had happened to a company other than Apple, we’d probably be more sympathetic. The patent’s claims seem likely to be further invalidated once it gets to court, but the timing unfolded to Apple’s disadvantage. (Or maybe not, as they managed to hold everything off until after Christmas sales were completed, and maybe managed to get a bump out of the pending ban.) I generally feel no sympathy or outrage for Apples patent strife. They are often a target not so much because of their bad acts but because they’re wealthy and a big potential payday, but they’re also wealthy enough to defend their interests and the expenses are just the cost of doing business. (Although they are usually much better at preventing this level of chaos, but they pissed off a billionaire by hiring his top staff, so there’s that.)
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Patent titles have no effect on anything. I have several with the exact same titles, and they're all different.
  - skygazer 3y ago
    Yes, they’re always vague. Maybe I should have omitted it so as not to confuse. To be clearer, the cited claims are the issue.