-
The iBag
-
[Andrew Kimery] “but if it’s a unique solution to the problem that no one else has thought of yet then why not?”
[Oliver Peters] In my mind, it depends on whether you are patenting the end result or the industrial process to create it.Patenting was intended to protect original innovation or genuine invention. By allowing patents to apply to adaption rather than invention it is being used to restrict trade practices. A bag development is hardly a new invention or even an original bit of innovation. Not sure about the glass because it might actually be a whole new chemical or physical process. This is just a heavy duty bag.
-
[Michael Gissing] “A bag development is hardly a new invention or even an original bit of innovation. Not sure about the glass because it might actually be a whole new chemical or physical process.”
Other companies make ‘hardened glass’ but Gorilla Glass is the name for Corning’s version. So Corning has a patent on it’s own process, not on hardened glass in general. Even Apple has a patent for it’s own brand of hardened glass, but it continues to use Corning’s product.
[Michael Gissing] “This is just a heavy duty bag.”
I’m in no way a bag expert, but sounds like it’s a heavy duty bag made out of materials that, prior to this, weren’t strong enough to be used in a heavy duty bag. If Apple’s bag is indeed stronger than other bags “…formed of white solid bleached sulfate paper with at least 60% post-consumer content” thanks to its unique construction why shouldn’t that be patentable?
-
[Andrew Kimery] “If Apple’s bag is indeed stronger than other bags “…formed of white solid bleached sulfate paper with at least 60% post-consumer content” thanks to its unique construction why shouldn’t that be patentable?”
If they have indeed developed a new material to use then that should be patentable. For a mere development of existing materials then I don’t see the point other than making it difficult for others. It is part of my general dismay at how patenting is used to catch out other people’s innovation or force other manufacturers to have to spend a lot of time and money to make sure there ongoing development doesn’t suddenly leave them liable for an ambit claim.
I remember my father, who developed microwave technology, saying that patenting was often a waste of time as it stifled co-operative development in the electronics world and chewed up heaps of development time doing the applications. He felt many patents were useless as almost everything can be designed around. In his opinion it suited lawyers and management but was just a pest to real invention which is what it was designed to protect.
-
[Michael Gissing] “If they have indeed developed a new material to use then that should be patentable. “
Patents extend beyond just creating of new materials though. Apple’s patent takes existing material (bleached paper that contains at least 60% post consumer material) and says it has figured out a way to build a bag that is significantly stronger than other bags made of the same material. If Apple has developed a new/novel, non-obviously method of constructing these bas (not just something obviously like just making the bag out of thicker material and/or putting enforcement in obviously areas) I think it should be patentable.
For an extreme example, if I developed a new and unique weaving method that allowed me to make bullet proof vests out of single ply toilet paper I should be able to patent my process, right? I shouldn’t be able to patent toilet paper, or bullet proof vests or even bullet proof made out of toilet paper, but I should be able to patent the novel/new, non-obvious process that I created.
I have no idea of Apple’s patent should be valid or not (I don’t know enough about the patent, the patenting process or bags bleached bags made out of at least 60% post consumer waste), but conceptually I have no problem with someone building a better mousetrap and wanting to put a patent on it.
[Michael Gissing] “I remember my father, who developed microwave technology, saying that patenting was often a waste of time as it stifled co-operative development in the electronics world and chewed up heaps of development time doing the applications.”
From a developers perspective I agree with your dad. From the stand point of a business owner who has to generate sufficient revenue in order to pay the salaries of the developers on staff I agree with the need for patents and other laws protecting IP (and the business owner and developer could certainly be one in the same person). The system isn’t perfect, and it could certainly use overall (though no more overall from Disney) but I think it’s needed because some people are power hungry, greedy dicks that want to horde everything for themselves at all cost and that spoils any sort of altruism the rest of us want to put forth. Even IP laws, which were supposed to be used as shields for the little guys, too often get turned into swords by the big guys.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Even IP laws, which were supposed to be used as shields for the little guys, too often get turned into swords by the big guys.”
And I see this as one of the big guys wielding that sword. In previous posts bout patents I have expressed the opinion that software shouldn’t be open to patenting and I feel that companies like Apple and Microsoft in particular have used patents on both software and hardware to crush smaller entities. I remember when Microsoft were threatening users of Linux with punitive licensing demands as somehow Linux infringed one of their patents.
So when I see Apple patenting a bag I suspect it is about control and stiffle rather than a real need to protect their IP. Perhaps the bag is legit but the fact that this thread was raised as a bit of a piss take maybe means it is sword wielding and not entirely legit.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up