The patent system was designed to encourage innovation not to stifle competition. The patenting of rectangular shapes with curved edges is asinine and the support for asinine government bureaucrats here at FR is eye opening.
If you bother to look at the 889 patent, you’ll notice it references several previous designs. This is about trade dress, how a product looks, and the 889 patent is different in key ways from every predecessor. “Curved rectangle” may sound absurd, but overall the design creates a look of a product different from every tablet that has ever been on the market before. Remember, this is as of 2004. That is why Apple got the patent.
These have been around for years. Bottle with a fluted, curved design? Yeah, there’s a design patent for that from about 100 years ago, assigned to the Coca-Cola company. Pretty much every new car that hits the road has a design patent behind it, as do the grilles on them. Kia and others came dangerously close to the designs of Mercedes, Jaguar and BMW, but notice they made sure not to be too close, or get sued.
BTW, these bureaucrats are some of the few constitutionally authorized bureaucrats in the country. Actually, they’re underpaid, overworked examiners who have to put their limited time and budget up against megacorporations that will sue their rejection of a patent to infinity. Speaking of budget, you’d think with examination fees they’d have enough money to operate, but Congress keeps stealing their money for other pet projects.
How many times do you fandroids have to be told THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS PATENTED???? Nor is that what was copied! And finally that was not what the jury found was infringed! In fact, the specifically did NOT find that specific look and feel infringed, because it was not, at the time the claim was made, registered as a Patented trade dress. Incidentally, the US Patent Office is established by the United States Constitution. That is why we support it so strongly and the patenting of designs have been allowed since it opened.
“The patent system was designed to encourage innovation not to stifle competition.”
Are you really so clueless that you don’t realize those are two sides of the same coin?
The patent system is intended to reduce competition, temporarily, so that innovators may profit from their inventions for a bit without copycats getting a cut. Alternatively, the inventor may choose to license the invention and make extra money that way.
At any rate, as others have pointed out the award in this case did not involve the shape of the devices. You might want to research “straw man argument”.