Apple Files For Patent On The Paper Bag

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apple has now filed for a patent on the paper bag. Not just any paper bag though, it must be white solid bleached sulfate paper with at least 60% post-consumer content. And we wonder why so many people complain about the all these stupid patents. :(
 
I have hearby filed a patent on the color of black, I am hereby to collect all the money you owe me.... remove black from the website!!!!!
 
If only I had thought of the paper bag with yarn handles first!

...

Honestly I've gotten these types of bags from my dentist with toothpaste and toothbrush in it. How would this stand in court!?
 
Actually, the snippet in the screenshot doesn't say that it must be solid white etc., it says that it may include a bag of such description... which is so much worse!
 
This is likely do to the ballot measure out here in California to ban plastic bags.
The iBots need something to carry all their iStuff home from the store, and I'm sure a Patented iBag will cost a lot more than the 10 cents per paper bag the other stores will be charging. (the 10 cent per paper bag was how they bribed the grocery stores to support the measure)

However, the jokes on them. If this passes, I won't be buying any paper bags I'll just tell them to put everything back in the cart without a bag.
Good luck figuring out which customer has paid and which has not when nothing in the carts are bagged :whistle:
 
Revolutionary. Well done, Apple. This is genius at work. Absolutely revolutionary and magical.

I'm preordering 5 of them. Should be a grand or so...
 
travisty said:
If only I had thought of the paper bag with yarn handles first!

...

Honestly I've gotten these types of bags from my dentist with toothpaste and toothbrush in it. How would this stand in court!?
Click to expand...
They aren't patenting the idea of a bag but rather a particular manufacturing process.

The patent points out that up until now bags have been able to use up to 40% post-consumer paper but with their new gussets and reinforcement panels they can use up to 60% post-consumer paper.

If my calculations are correct, this amounts to a 1/3 reduction in raw paper or a 1/2 increase in post-consumer paper.
 
mope54 said:
They aren't patenting the idea of a bag but rather a particular manufacturing process.

The patent points out that up until now bags have been able to use up to 40% post-consumer paper but with their new gussets and reinforcement panels they can use up to 60% post-consumer paper.

If my calculations are correct, this amounts to a 1/3 reduction in raw paper or a 1/2 increase in post-consumer paper.
Click to expand...

With an associated real-world environmental impact of 0.000001%, and an increased cost of 10% which will be passed on directly to the consumer.
 
Paper usage in bags, from sourcing through processing and then waste, has a significant impact on the environment.

I'm not sure why or how you pulled those numbers out of your ass but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
 
mope54 said:
Paper usage in bags, from sourcing through processing and then waste, has a significant impact on the environment.

I'm not sure why or how you pulled those numbers out of your ass but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

The number of bags produced and used by Apple stores is vanishingly small compared to all the other sources of paper bags in the world. And this fantastic new process using up to 60% recycled paper will be used exclusively by Apple due to the patent. So the other 99.9999% of paper bags used in the world will continue to use the old process.
 
Applied for. Apple has applied for a patent on a paper bag. The patent has not been allowed or issued yet.

Bandalo said:
The number of bags produced and used by Apple stores is vanishingly small compared to all the other sources of paper bags in the world. And this fantastic new process using up to 60% recycled paper will be used exclusively by Apple due to the patent. So the other 99.9999% of paper bags used in the world will continue to use the old process.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point of a patent.

The other 99.9999% of stores can license the patent from Apple if these bags are as great as Apple claims.
 
Bandalo said:
The number of bags produced and used by Apple stores is vanishingly small compared to all the other sources of paper bags in the world. And this fantastic new process using up to 60% recycled paper will be used exclusively by Apple due to the patent. So the other 99.9999% of paper bags used in the world will continue to use the old process.
Click to expand...
Obviously you don't understand the significance of this development.

BACKGROUND

[0003] Bags are often used for containing items. For example, retail bags may be used to contain items purchased at a retail store.
Click to expand...

[0024] The bag may be a high-end retail shopping bag, and the bag container may be formed entirely of paper (e.g., dried cellulose pulp)
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if they'll have to spend an exorbitant amount of that lump of cash they've been sitting on to create some new technology to create a smooth glossy finish on the paper itself and then polish it with some rare type of sand, I wonder... :D
 
That's not a Patent. It's just a published application. I checked Public PAIR, the USPTO's system for providing public information on applications, and the USPTO hasn't even issued the first Office Action on it, much less a Notice of Allowance.

Don't blame the USPTO's for Apple's stupidity. We have yet to see the USPTO's take on it.

Yes, I am a patent attorney.
 
pcgeekesq said:
That's not a Patent. It's just a published application. I checked Public PAIR, the USPTO's system for providing public information on applications, and the USPTO hasn't even issued the first Office Action on it, much less a Notice of Allowance.

Don't blame the USPTO's for Apple's stupidity. We have yet to see the USPTO's take on it.

Yes, I am a patent attorney.
Click to expand...

The USPTO is basically a rubber-stamping machine for megacorps. They won't even actually read the application before granting it.
 
Skripka said:
The USPTO is basically a rubber-stamping machine for megacorps. They won't even actually read the application before granting it.
Click to expand...
I am a practicing patent attorney, I'd be out of business if that was true.

Go research what Patent Attorneys doing prosecution work (that is, working with the USPTO to get patents issued) get paid. Do you really think applicants would pay for such high-priced help if getting a patent was just a matter of filing for it?
 
pcgeekesq said:
I am a practicing patent attorney, I'd be out of business if that was true.

Go research what Patent Attorneys doing prosecution work (that is, working with the USPTO to get patents issued) get paid. Do you really think applicants would pay for such high-priced help if getting a patent was just a matter of filing for it?
Click to expand...

Considering the laughable joke patents we regularly hear about monthly hear of on [H]...what other possible manner is it possible where companies get patents for rounded corners and the-idea-of-computer-icons and slide-to-unlock....and...and...and....?


All it takes to get a patent is obfuscating an obvious idea, with a plethora of prior art, with convoluted language in enough confusing terms.
 
Skripka said:
Considering the laughable joke patents we regularly hear about monthly hear of on [H]...what other possible manner is it possible where companies get patents for rounded corners and the-idea-of-computer-icons and slide-to-unlock....and...and...and....?
Click to expand...
Given that even a decent tech-oriented site like the [H} sometimes reports a mere application as being an actual issued patent, it's no surprise that people who only know what they read on the internet have a completely incorrect impression of how patents work.

And rounded corners, BTW, was a design patent, not a utility patent. Completely different animal.
 
jfreund said:
Make a bag with 61% recycled material and there is no infringement.
Click to expand...
It's just an application, it can't be infringed. Only the allowed claims of an issued patent can be infringed.

That said, a bag having 61% recycled content also has 60% recycled content, so you're wrong.
Make a bag with 59% recycled content and you don't have to worry about that claim.
 
I still think Apple is just a law firm who happens to make a few devices once in a while.


As for the patent. It shouldn't be granted. This is a trade dress item, not a new innovation.
 
pcgeekesq said:
I am a practicing patent attorney, I'd be out of business if that was true.

Go research what Patent Attorneys doing prosecution work (that is, working with the USPTO to get patents issued) get paid. Do you really think applicants would pay for such high-priced help if getting a patent was just a matter of filing for it?
Click to expand...

apple used the word roughly in terms of measurement.

roughly. as a patent lawyer, how do you define roughly?
 
pcgeekesq said:
I am a practicing patent attorney, I'd be out of business if that was true.

Go research what Patent Attorneys doing prosecution work (that is, working with the USPTO to get patents issued) get paid. Do you really think applicants would pay for such high-priced help if getting a patent was just a matter of filing for it?
Click to expand...

The issue is that the patent system has turned into legalese-driven garbage. It requires a ton of cash to get filed with anything protectable and the only people who make out are the lawyers. Joe Blow can't afford to patent anything anymore, so he has to either sell his soul to Invent Direct like companies or an attorney willing to take 30+% of the company (I've seen it). Or be willing to sit at the patent clerk's desk for a month writing up the most asinine disclaimers so he can cover all his bases.

The perception is that the clerk's are just rubber stamping because they're understaffed. But in reality, it's likely a lack of knowledge and ability to translate the massive patent applications that these legal teams fill with jargon and abstract terms in an effort to push through something that is not novel or innovative in any sense of the word. It doesn't cost Apple (or any large corporation) much to file for this and/or inundate the patent office with numerous filings simply because they likely have the legal staff on payroll. It's supposed to be up to the applicant to explain in layman's terms how the item they're seeking protection for is unique and different from prior art.

And no this isn't a rant about you, you're just jumping on the gravy train that is the screwed up patent system we have and I don't blame you for that. A friend of mine just went back to school to become a patent attorney.

I'm not sure if the patent office does the "Publish for Opposition" like they do for trademarks, but if they don't, it's badly needed. Make the PfO process very public, and elicit comment from leaders in the appropriate field. Watch how fast some of these get rejected.

Master_shake_ said:
apple used the word roughly in terms of measurement.

roughly. as a patent lawyer, how do you define roughly?
Click to expand...

Be interesting to find out. There's been software licenses that have had to be revisited because things like "distributing" don't have legal definitions in a lot of places. A lot of them now use the word "conveying".
 
Last edited:
pcgeekesq said:
It's just an application, it can't be infringed. Only the allowed claims of an issued patent can be infringed.

That said, a bag having 61% recycled content also has 60% recycled content, so you're wrong.
Make a bag with 59% recycled content and you don't have to worry about that claim.
Click to expand...
You may be an expert on patent law, but remember, this is [H]. These people are experts at posting about things that they have no fucking clue about. You lose by default.
 
Spidey329 said:
The issue is that ...
Click to expand...
The patent system has its problems, but you clearly don't understand how it works. You think packing the application with "legalese-drive garbage" matters in presecution? It doesn't. Examiners just ignore it, as they often should.

Sure, there's boilerplate and certain ways of saying things we use and don't use in an application. But that's mainly driven by litigation concerns, not by prosecution. You want to blame someone for how patent applications are written? Blame the system we have for litigating patents, not the USPTO.
 
pcgeekesq said:
That's not a Patent. It's just a published application. I checked Public PAIR, the USPTO's system for providing public information on applications, and the USPTO hasn't even issued the first Office Action on it, much less a Notice of Allowance.

Don't blame the USPTO's for Apple's stupidity. We have yet to see the USPTO's take on it.

Yes, I am a patent attorney.
Click to expand...

I was about to say that as well when I was checking if this was a design patent or invention, turns out it's just a publication...

The thread should be changed "Apple files a patent for the paper bag..."

But, I admit, unless it gets to a good examiner, it will probably have a chance of being allowed.
 
Skripka said:
...All it takes to get a patent is obfuscating an obvious idea, with a plethora of prior art...
Click to expand...
guapo3B%5B1%5D.jpg
pcgeekesq said:
...You want to blame someone for how patent applications are written? Blame the system we have for litigating patents, not the USPTO.
Click to expand...
iu
distortion.jpg
 
Last edited:
We really should be blaming the patent office for allowing this kind of stupidity to take place.
 
HockeyJon said:
We really should be blaming the patent office for allowing this kind of stupidity to take place.
Click to expand...
Note that the USPTO has not "allowed" it, other than allowing Apple to submit an application.

And why not let people submit any idea they want? The cost of the examination process is paid for by the applicant - the USPTO actually makes a profit.
Which Congress then takes and spends on BS, of course.
 
From all the comments regarding the "60% recycled" part, I don't think anyone saw this convoluted and condescending section near the end:
It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that many modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings, and that by applying knowledge within the skill of the art, one may readily modify and/or adapt for various applications such specific embodiments, without undue experimentation, without departing from the general concept of the present invention. For example, in some embodiments, instead of or in addition to reinforcement inserts to strengthen the bag container having high (e.g., greater than 50%, 60%, greater than 60%) post-consumer-content, a matte plastic film may be applied to bag container 200, the matte plastic film having a higher resistance to tearing than the other material of bag container 200. Such film could be applied to one or both of the entirety of the interior surface or exterior surface of bag container 200, or to discrete areas thereof (e.g., the areas corresponding to those reinforced by reinforcement inserts as described in above embodiments).
Click to expand...

Apple is basically saying "This patent (application) doesn't just cover the exact bag we described, it also covers any possible modifications, no matter how obvious"
 
nutzo said:
This is likely do to the ballot measure out here in California to ban plastic bags.
The iBots need something to carry all their iStuff home from the store, and I'm sure a Patented iBag will cost a lot more than the 10 cents per paper bag the other stores will be charging. (the 10 cent per paper bag was how they bribed the grocery stores to support the measure)

However, the jokes on them. If this passes, I won't be buying any paper bags I'll just tell them to put everything back in the cart without a bag.
Good luck figuring out which customer has paid and which has not when nothing in the carts are bagged :whistle:
Click to expand...
Basically this. One of the local markets here has resorted to putting stickers on the produce, lol.
 
sir-gold said:
From all the comments regarding the "60% recycled" part, I don't think anyone saw this convoluted and condescending section near the end:


Apple is basically saying "This patent (application) doesn't just cover the exact bag we described, it also covers any possible modifications, no matter how obvious"
Click to expand...

Similar phrases are there on most patents as well.

A lot of stuff written on patents are generally used as "anti-patent attorney" measure. This one is generally for preventing opposing attorneys arguing that the scope of the patent only covers the embodiments, not any variation of them.

Quite a few patents have vaguer wording on this phrase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top