The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed new rules that would effectively end the public’s ability to challenge improperly granted patents at the Patent Office itself. We need EFF supporters to file public comments opposing these rules this week. The USPTO is moving quickly, and staying silent will only help those who profit from abusive patents.
  • chaogomu@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    2 days ago

    The point is that design patents are fucking stupid and should not exist in the first place.

    Apple has sued other phone manufacturers over them making a rectangle with rounded corners.

    And it’s fucked.

    • FatCrab@slrpnk.netEnglish
      26·
      2 days ago

      Design patents effectively work like brand protection. They literally only protect new aesthetics and ornamentation. The reality is that the iPhone did start the trend of rounded corner rectangular touchscreen phones. When it first came out, it was a fairly novel form factor for a phone. It didn’t prevent other form factors from being released. Like, the fact that it is now so ubiquitous that we take for granted smartphones look this way is a testament to its success. And, actually, plenty of phones did right angle screen corners. Design Patents are extraordinarily narrow things and, among the many issues with the current USPTO and the US IP system in general, it is probably the absolutely least problematic piece.

      • Devial@discuss.onlineEnglish
        5·
        21 hours ago

        “They’re extradonarily narrow” whilst literally talking about an apple patent that covers ANY type of digital display device whatsoever that has rounded corners.

        That’s not even close to “extremely narrow” in scope.

        Extremely narrow in scope would be defining a certain radius of curvature (within a small +/- range), in combination with an aspect ratio (again, with a small +/- margin) and for a specific class of screen.

        That would be an adequately and acceptably narrow design patent.

        And on top, there needs to be a limitation on design patents (any patents, frankly) that makes them unenforceable if the holder of the patent hasn’t had a product matching the patent on the marker for several years, and isn’t currently and actively working on R&D to develop such a product. (With some common sense clauses to prevent abuse, such as ordering one employee to spend 5 minutes a month working on a concept so that you’re technically perpetually engaged in R&D, or listing a depreciated product for an absurdly high price that no one will ever pay, so you can say technically it’s still on the market without needing to actually still manufacturer/support it).

        Though I’d be happy to hear counter arguments for why this would be a bad idea.