Apple Seeks Patent on Fused Glass Enclosures for Use on iPhones, iPads, iPods, Displays, and Televisions

[macs4nw]

.....So next time Coke poisons a water supply in India does that mean we're all cool for Apple to just dump some heavy metal in the Chinese drinking water? Because you know, other companies are doing it.....

For the record, and I'm sure you know, it wasn't APPLE dumping heavy metal in Chinese rivers.

.....I have applied for a patent in the past, actually. It's a painfully slow and antiquated system that needs to be heavily revised and streamlined.....

Please explain what you mean by "heavily revised and streamlined?"

.....It also has a nasty side-effect, as it brings your invention to the attention of thieves.....

Isn't that why there is an 18-month confidentiality period on applications?

You then have the problem of enforcing that patent - not so easy when the people copying you are 10,000 miles away, and couldn't give two hoots about a patent anyway.

The difficulty in enforcing patents is an acknowledged fact, but what is your solution to that problem? It certainly can't be throwing up your arms, and giving up on the idea of IP altogether?

For any company, who've invested (sometimes considerable) time and money, doing their research and innovation, and who have subsequently applied for, and received, a patent on their IP, the only recourse against theft of that IP, is the courts.

 

[Alfred.Woodden]

It's probably the upcoming Apple iTV.

It's gonna be an all glass TV. No plastics.

 

[cube]

Ugh. Glass on computer and TV screens.

 

[Ries]

Anyone else look thru all of the sketches on the patent? It looks like apple has hired a bunch of Elementary students to make their patent drawings. I'd think Apple would at least make the sketches look a little more professional, but then again I don't know much about the Patent Process. Maybe the Patent officers only understand cartoon sketches, which is why they approve garbage most of the time.

We had nice drawings in our first patent, the patent lawyers sent it back and told us to make crude drawings with thick lines and big fonts, because i kid you not, it has to be clearly readable after faxing it.

 

[3282868]

Great. It's only a matter of time before a tech company patents oxygen or DNA. Oh, wait.

Natural DNA Cannot Be Patented, Supreme Court Rules

So, only "unnatural" DNA can be patented. Good to know.

----------

It's probably the upcoming Apple iTV.

It's gonna be an all glass TV. No plastics.

Now THAT would be immensely impressive

 

[asthamapheo]

so, apple is going to continue their tradition, their products have the most premium finish, this thing would further strengthen their lead. i wish we see it in the upcoming ipad

 

[KazKam]

We had nice drawings in our first patent, the patent lawyers sent it back and told us to make crude drawings with thick lines and big fonts, because i kid you not, it has to be clearly readable after faxing it.

Not only that, but I'm sure they want the images to be as broad and ambiguous as possible so that the patent is not tied to specifics, both for defendability and the protection of trade/product secrets and detailed design intentions.

 

[Maschil]

All the companies patent.... for example, here's a new one of Google's...

Google patents the launching of apps when you unlock your screen! Draw a triangle, launch the camera app - draw a square, launch the phone app. So much different than clicking icons, huh?

http://vr-zone.com/articles/google-patents-functionality-to-launch-apps-through-pattern-unlock-on-android/49728.html

Tell me that this is a novel idea, and 'worthy' of a patent unlike the Apple patents.

The thing is - we just hear of Apple patents on here, not other company patents.

got no issue with patents. i have issues with suing..

 

[CountryBobs]

I notice that all they are patenting is the end result, not the manner in which the glass is fused together. In other words, it seems like a difficult to enforce patent when anyone can glue stuff together. It's not very novel. It's like trying to patent a cardboard box.

 

[egoistaxx9]

this is gonna b great! i love the glass on devices, it makes them 100x beautiful

so, which product will get this awesome tech first.

 

[cmChimera]

Great. It's only a matter of time before a tech company patents oxygen or DNA. Oh, wait.

Natural DNA Cannot Be Patented, Supreme Court Rules

So, only "unnatural" DNA can be patented. Good to know.

You can create synthetic genetic material and patent it. Your attempt at sarcasm fails....

----------

got no issue with patents. i have issues with suing..

So your plan would be to let people infringe upon your patents without recourse?

 

[Glideslope]

Ok. I'm a big Apple fan but is fusing glass to make an enclosure really a novel idea?

Perhaps credit card thick enclosures you could stand on?

 

[sound]

waaait ...

aquarium?

 

[0x0x0x0]

aquarium?

That's exactly what I thought when I saw it!..

 

[carlgo]

Stretching things out, it turns into layers. Layers of fused-together glass of various kinds and with different properties would have a lot more uses than glass boxes.

Or, the sides of something, like a phone, could be molded to have curves. And then the top part that you touch would be flat and made of suitable materials for that.

I have always thought that a curved glass phone would be really nice looking and comfortable to hold.

But, like someone said it seems the machine and process is more patentable than the mere idea of doing...

 

[Daze & Confuse]

For the record, and I'm sure you know, it wasn't APPLE dumping heavy metal in Chinese rivers.

I know. It was a theoretical scenario.

Please explain what you mean by "heavily revised and streamlined?"

Isn't that why there is an 18-month confidentiality period on applications?

Streamlined so that when the 18 month confidentiality agreement runs out the patent will actually have been granted/rejected, rather than still be pending, and thereby making the point of the 18 month confidentiality redundant!

Also the 2 or 3 years it can take to have a patent granted is a long time to wait for small companies whose whole business may rely on 1 or 2 patents.

Revised, so that, for example, when you submit the documents with the names A. Smith and B. Jones and get assigned a unique reference number, and then later provide additional requested information with the same reference number from the names B. Jones and A. Smith, it doesn't get returned to you because that reference number is already being used by A. Smith and B. Jones! (Seriously - happened to a colleague. And no, the order of names on the form doesn't matter - it was an admitted mistake on their behalf. The patent officers are too pressurised, and being asked to make decisions on extremely complex matters, so start to make silly mistakes.)

Software patents is another major area of concern, as essentially patents are being granted on mathematical equations .

The difficulty in enforcing patents is an acknowledged fact, but what is your solution to that problem? It certainly can't be throwing up your arms, and giving up on the idea of IP altogether?

For any company, who've invested (sometimes considerable) time and money, doing their research and innovation, and who have subsequently applied for, and received, a patent on their IP, the only recourse against theft of that IP, is the courts.

Yes, but that means that the patent system quickly becomes relevant to only a few massive corporations (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, etc.) who can afford to enforce their patents. It is often impossible for smaller inventors to afford to sue the thieves, and, for them, for all intents and purposes the whole patent system becomes a pointless exercise.

Making wilful and blatant patent infringement a criminal, rather than civil, matter (as it is essentially theft) along with bringing multiple small inventors together to provide some sort of patent protection (Edited for clarity - 'protection' replaced 'enforcing') umbrella group might well be steps in the right direction.

Thanks for the sensible questions, by the way, rather than the blind fanaticism that any discussion that doesn't 100% praise Apple is so often greeted with on this forum. And anyway, my beef isn't with Apple solely - it's with the flawed patent system being abused by anyone.

 

[e-coli]

Television and new displays. Hot!

 

[Daze & Confuse]

You seem to have the misconception that Apple just throws out patents for ideas it comes up with. That's not the case. Somewhere on Apple's campus, this has been invented. It may not ever release, it may look significantly different. They may have to file a new patent for the final product. But somewhere in Cupertino, the subject of this patent was worked on and created in some prototype form.

I don't really know how you can be so certain that Apple have made a working prototype of every patent application they've ever submitted. I'd be very surprised, and impressed, if they have.

Either way, there is no requirement of physical proof for a patent application.

And just because you can make something doesn't mean that it should be granted a patent.

I expect that nobody has made a cat basket out of fused glass before. If I make one, do you think I should be granted a patent? How is that any different to a fused glass box for electronics? Or a plastic cat basket? Or a wicker one?

People need to really think about what the patent system is for, and realise that it is being abused in its current form by Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft and many more! I love Apple products, which is why it hurts so much to see them stooping to this level.

People need to see the bigger picture - until the patent system is reformed this is short term gain for these companies leading to long term loss for us all!

 

[drblank]

And talk about difficult to service...

I don't know if this would be a product that would require servicing of what's being fused together.

This could turn out to be nothing, or this could turn out to be exciting. I'll wait to see an actual product before passing judgement. I've seen a lot of patents from Apple and many don't materialize into anything, but some do. many times, they just submit the patent just because they are still in R&D and it's a way to protect something, should it materialize into something.

 

[cmChimera]

I don't really know how you can be so certain that Apple have made a working prototype of every patent application they've ever submitted. I'd be very surprised, and impressed, if they have.

I'm sure, because I don't think that Apple's engineers sit around and think of ideas, and then send them to the patent office.

Either way, there is no requirement of physical proof for a patent application.

Hence why your application needs to be so thorough.

And just because you can make something doesn't mean that it should be granted a patent.

Which is why there are requirements, the most important of which are that it must be novel, useful, and non-obvious.

I expect that nobody has made a cat basket out of fused glass before. If I make one, do you think I should be granted a patent? How is that any different to a fused glass box for electronics? Or a plastic cat basket? Or a wicker one?

That would depend on the differences from the prior art. Is it so different from the prior art that it is novel, useful, and non-obvious? Because if it is, then yes it should receive a patent.

People need to really think about what the patent system is for, and realise that it is being abused in its current form by Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft and many more! I love Apple products, which is why it hurts so much to see them stooping to this level.

The patent system is to encourage innovation. The way the patent system works is giving inventors a 20 year monopoly on their inventions. I do not see how the system is being abused by Apple.

People need to see the bigger picture - until the patent system is reformed this is short term gain for these companies leading to long term loss for us all!

I don't think you even see the picture. How would you reform the patent system, specifically?

Making wilful and blatant patent infringement a criminal, rather than civil, matter (as it is essentially theft) along with bringing multiple small inventors together to provide some sort of patent enforcing umbrella group might well be steps in the right direction.

That's an absolutely terrible idea. Want to stifle innovation? Threaten would be sellers with jail time for not being careful with patents. And then granting enforcement capabilities to the very people that seek to benefit? No. Your ideas are terrible.

 

[Daze & Confuse]

I'm sure, because I don't think that Apple's engineers sit around and think of ideas, and then send them to the patent office.

You're sure, because you don't think it would happen.

A certain Mark Twain quote is coming to mind.....

That would depend on the differences from the prior art. Is it so different from the prior art that it is novel, useful, and non-obvious? Because if it is, then yes it should receive a patent.

Taking my fused glass cat basket example, let's make the assumption that there is no prior art in terms of glass cat boxes. All others are the plastic/wicker/cardboard types you see today. Would you grant it a patent?

The patent system is to encourage innovation.

Indeed that is its purpose, and it's an absolutely vital one, but I feel it is failing to achieve this in its current form.

How would you reform the patent system, specifically?

An obvious start would be to set the bar higher when enforcing the useful and non-obvious parts of:

Is it so different from the prior art that it is novel, useful, and non-obvious? Because if it is, then yes it should receive a patent.

Also:

Seriously curtailing software and business methods patents.

Shorter terms for patents in fast moving and cheaper development areas (like computing, which is fast and cheap compared to pharmaceuticals, where a drug may need years upon years of clinical trials before being released to market) - just as similar distinctions are made in other areas of intellectual property law.

A clearer, faster way to challenge bad patents and have them re-evaluated.

How's that for a start?

I don't think you even see the picture.

I hope this comment makes you appreciate that I absolutely do see the picture....

----------

Threaten would be sellers with jail time for not being careful with patents.

Can you clarify? I don't see how that relates to my comment about manufacturers who are wilfully (i.e knowingly) violating patents being liable under criminal law. There would of course be due process - a violator would be informed (to prevent innocent mistakes, even though, of course, not knowing that one is committing an offence is not a valid legal defence), and only if they continued would they be prosecuted under criminal law.

And then granting enforcement capabilities to the very people that seek to benefit? No. Your ideas are terrible.

I think you may be using a different synonym of 'enforce' than the one intended. I have clearly edited my original comment to clarify. The umbrella body would compel observance (i.e enforce) of the law by having a combined budget to allow them to take perpetrators through the civil courts, or identify perpetrators and pass their details to the authorities. The actual criminal enforcement would of course be handled independently by the police and judicial body. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[cmChimera]

You're sure, because you don't think it would happen.

A certain Mark Twain quote is coming to mind.....

Do you really not understand that Apple's engineers do not sit around and just send whatever they think of to the patent office? Are you seriously going to assert that they do, or can we just move on?

Taking my fused glass cat basket example, let's make the assumption that there is no prior art in terms of glass cat boxes. All others are the plastic/wicker/cardboard types you see today. Would you grant it a patent?

It's not just about whether there is a previous glass cat box. I don't pretend to know all the prior art that comes with cat boxes, nor do you have an actual patent to discuss. Your hypothetical is worthless.

Indeed that is its purpose, and it's an absolutely vital one, but I feel it is failing to achieve this in its current form.

How? There are plenty of companies making new inventions every day.

An obvious start would be to set the bar higher when enforcing the useful and non-obvious parts of:



Also:

Seriously curtailing software and business methods patents.

Setting the bar higher for usefulness means that someone subjectively gets to decide what is useful and what is not. That will not help innovation, it will stifle it. What I find useful and what you find useful are two very different things. I'm not a fan some method patents, particularly business methods. That's one thing I would agree could be reformed.

Shorter terms for patents in fast moving and cheaper development areas (like computing, which is fast and cheap compared to pharmaceuticals, where a drug may need years upon years of clinical trials before being released to market) - just as similar distinctions are made in other areas of intellectual property law.

First, we have international obligations to comply with when it comes to patent length. Secondly, other areas of IP do not make the distinctions you just stated. Trademarks don't have terms at all, and copyright may have exceptions as to what is fair use, but not as to term lengths.

A clearer, faster way to challenge bad patents and have them re-evaluated.

I'd be ok with this as it would reduce litigation. But the likely result is that most people will still litigate. Every day that a company doesn't bring a product to market because of a patent that they feel is invalid is money lost. Why wait for an administrative solution when they can just bring the product out, and then litigate?

Can you clarify? I don't see how that relates to my comment about manufacturers who are wilfully and knowingly violating patents being liable under criminal law.

Willful infringement is not easy to determine. If you think a patent is invalid, and then you consult with an attorney and he agrees, that is typically a defense to willful infringement. If you were an attorney would you be willing to tell your client that a patent is likely invalid if it meant they could receive jail time? Would you be willing to be sued for malpractice for getting it wrong? Criminal penalties for patent infringement would be disastrous and would not promote innovation at all. It would scare people.

I think you may be using a different synonym of 'enforce' than the one intended. They would enforce them by having a combined budget to allow them to take perpetrators through the civil courts, or identify perpetrators and pass their details to the authorities. the actual criminal enforcement would of course be handled independently by the police and judicial body.

How would the police officers know if the patent was infringed? They have no knowledge of patent law, or the necessary abilities to determine infringement. Without a court determining whether or not there was even infringement, arresting someone for alleged patent infringement is ridiculous.

Are you aware of the DMCA? Could you imagine being sent a takedown notice, because someone thought that you were infringing their copyright, but instead of just having the option of taking it down you got arrested? That's essentially what you're proposing for patents.

 

[techwhiz]

Unibody Glass? Awesome.

----------



No it's an invention.

They haven't invented anything.
They thought "how cool would it be to make a fused glass box".
This *IS* an idea.

So you saw it here first. This will be prior art.
Use CVD or some other plating/printing technology to put a transparent nano-coating on the inside of the box to reduce emissions. An ultra thin coating will be transparent and provide a skinning effect to reduce radio emissions. You could also embed ultra this wire in the glass.

Anyway, it's not an invention.
Patenting a fused glass box, yeah right.
Like I said, patent the process to make the box. This is an idea.

This should be denied.

 

[cmChimera]

They haven't invented anything.
They thought "how cool would it be to make a fused glass box".
This *IS* an idea.

So you saw it here first. This will be prior art.
Use CVD or some other plating/printing technology to put a transparent nano-coating on the inside of the box to reduce emissions. An ultra thin coating will be transparent and provide a skinning effect to reduce radio emissions. You could also embed ultra this wire in the glass.

Anyway, it's not an invention.
Patenting a fused glass box, yeah right.
Like I said, patent the process to make the box. This is an idea.

This should be denied.

Oh ok, so you've been in the Apple labs? How was it?

 

[sanook997]

So basically this.

You know this is the end game, its a technological race to get to a phone similar to what you show here, ipads as well. Every hi tech movie out today uses this future look of clear glass devices....hope its in the next five years.