Conan Lampoons Apple's Bag Patent

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I don't care if you are the world's biggest Apple fan or a die hard Apple hater, you have to laugh at this video. The whole video is funny but the line at the end "We don't even know what you want anymore....and we don't care" cracked me up. :D
 
Should have been called iBag but Conan was probably afraid that Tim Cook would come after him for leaking info on a future product.
 
A corporation consuming itself. Apple is following the seven stages of an empire. It's now in the 7th stage.

Managed to do several stages in around 10 years. Not bad going.
 
Steve, do you really not understand the huge difference between a Application for Patent and an issued Patent?
If so, you don't belong working for the [H]. You're embarrassing the site.
 
-PK- said:
Why apply for a patent if you're not serious about getting the patent?
Click to expand...
Because Apple employees probably get paid $$$ for the filed application, regardless of whether a patent ever comes from it, just I like I did when I was inventing stuff for a top tech company. If you have enough influence to convince the decision makers to file an application, you can make a bit of extra cash that way. And frankly, Apple's decision makers don't seem very intelligent.

Note that from the over one hundred applications that my company filed where I was a named inventor, something over 50 patents were issued.
Yes, I'm not only a patent attorney, I used to invent stuff too. And the money I got for the applications paid for a few nice vacations.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Steve, do you really not understand the huge difference between a Application for Patent and an issued Patent?
If so, you don't belong working for the [H]. You're embarrassing the site.
Click to expand...

And you don't understand a joke?
 
infinitywulfy said:
I just wish I could believe our patent system wasn't so broken and silly that someone could patent a freaking paper bag.
Click to expand...

You can apply for a patent for anything, which is what apple did. No patent has been granted. However, team coco might want to submit one for their bag idea jsut for grins. At least it has distinguishing features form your average paper bag.
 
Shmee said:
And you don't understand a joke?
Click to expand...
I understand that Conan was poking fun at Apple. But the continued misrepresentation of Apple's application for a patent as an issued patent by a site like the [H] that should know better is a joke of a different kind entirely, one that's causing thousands of internet illiteratati to perpetuate a view of intellectual property that is completely incorrect and that is damaging to those who create the intellectual property which makes the internet possible in the first place.

Go find a tech venture capitalist, and ask them what they think of the difference between an an issued patent and a mere application for a patent. It's often the difference between getting that 7-figure+ investment check and not getting it.
 
pcgeekesq said:
I understand that Conan was poking fun at Apple. But the continued misrepresentation of Apple's application for a patent as an issued patent by a site like the [H] that should know better is a joke of a different kind entirely, one that's causing thousands of internet illiteratati to perpetuate a view of intellectual property that is completely incorrect and that is damaging to those who create the intellectual property which makes the internet possible in the first place.

Go find a tech venture capitalist, and ask them what they think of the difference between an an issued patent and a mere application for a patent. It's often the difference between getting that 7-figure+ investment check and not getting it.
Click to expand...
Listen, even applying is absurd.
THAT is why people don't care about the difference in this instance.
Its plain absurd either way.
 
pcgeekesq said:
I understand that Conan was poking fun at Apple. But the continued misrepresentation of Apple's application for a patent as an issued patent by a site like the [H] that should know better is a joke of a different kind entirely, one that's causing thousands of internet illiteratati to perpetuate a view of intellectual property that is completely incorrect and that is damaging to those who create the intellectual property which makes the internet possible in the first place.
Click to expand...

wow thats quite a stretch of the imagination. tell us more of these strange 'illiterati' folks and why you should be in control of what they read or think. oh and i like how you tagged the internet's success with IP, dramatic.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Steve, do you really not understand the huge difference between a Application for Patent and an issued Patent?
If so, you don't belong working for the [H]. You're embarrassing the site.
Click to expand...


Steve embarrassing the site?



:D



I'll tell ya what's embarrassing here... it's the number of peeps getting trolled by your pseudo-intellectual bantering about semantics.
 
atp1916 said:
Steve embarrassing the site?


:D

I'll tell ya what's embarrassing here... it's the number of peeps getting trolled by your pseudo-intellectual bantering about semantics.
Click to expand...

Yep, pcgeekesq either did a good troll or hes got a masters in baiting apple.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Listen, even applying is absurd.
THAT is why people don't care about the difference in this instance.
Its plain absurd either way.
Click to expand...

Apple applying is their right. They want to waste the filing fees (for Apple, $1600 minimum, plus the cost of the attorney/agent to prepare, which is typically more) let them. It makes Apple look stupid.
But actually granting a patent for that application, at least for the original claims, would make the USPTO look stupid.

And not understanding that difference (Apple is stupid vs. the USPTO is stupid) makes you and the [H] look stupid.
 
-PK- said:
Why apply for a patent if you're not serious about getting the patent?
Click to expand...

Two reasons:

1. Uncertainty about existence of Prior Art (or novelty). If you have no idea whether or not if your invention is any good, or if what you are claiming is actually novel/non-obvious, the applicant, depending on which patent system, can either file a provisional application or apply for a patent but without paying for prosecution. Both of these are cost saving measures in case that if the company decides not to spend the money down the line, they would have lost less money than going for a full application would give. Plus there is a factor of frustration when you paid all that money for prosecution, you suddenly realised that a disclosure made by someone else (that you may or may not have seen, or more importantly, able to see) made your patent application entirely worthless.

2. You want your invention to be possible prior art for later inventors, without having to disclose the invention too early. An application, if not granted within 18 months, would automatically be published as a patent application document after 18 months, regardless of prosecution history. This is useful if you have no intention of applying for a patent (possibly due to prior art), but you want to leave your invention out there as a potential to use as someone else's prior art. Rather than disclosing it immediately, going via the patent system, you can delay that disclosure by 18 months and still enjoy the benefit of priority as you first applied, which someone else may instead apply for a similar thing, but cannot see your prior art and thus made no effort in their claims layout to avoid your disclosure.

For patent holder, the more prior art you can see, the better, since you can claim something that avoids those prior art, applying patents without prosecution is a counter to that, since the applicant cannot see anything that has been filed in the previous 18 months, unless the holder discloses it early (some countries, like China, allows for early publications, the earliest I have seen is 3 months from application date).
 
Far too many nonsense patent applications get approved. The publicity on this one just might mean this one won't be. That's worth all the possible misunderstandings of patent filling process, imo.
 
Logan321 said:
Far too many nonsense patent applications get approved. The publicity on this one just might mean this one won't be. That's worth all the possible misunderstandings of patent filling process, imo.
Click to expand...
Problem is, 'non-sense' is extremely subjective.

Some patents that might look impressive could be total and absolute garbage to the field in question.

The paper bag application and rounded corners designs are getting all the publicity because the average Joe and Jane can understand them, where as even these may not be nearly as bad as some things that actually get patented.

Lastly, getting a patent means very little if it is going to be ignored or get invalidated immediately during a re-examination or during the litigation, it only serves to waste money on the patent holder's part.

Patent isn't always a "right to sue" document, a badly written patent, like a badly programmed game, is simply going to be ignored or laughed at regardless.
 
Last edited:
pcgeekesq said:
Apple applying is their right. They want to waste the filing fees (for Apple, $1600 minimum, plus the cost of the attorney/agent to prepare, which is typically more) let them. It makes Apple look stupid.
Click to expand...
Yes, you get the point now. Now open your mouth, push air out your throat until it makes a "ha" sound - that's called laughter. ;)
 
chenw said:
Problem is, 'non-sense' is extremely subjective.

Some patents that might look impressive could be total and absolute garbage to the field in question.

The paper bag application and rounded corners designs are getting all the publicity because the average Joe and Jane can understand them, where as even these may not be nearly as bad as some things that actually get patented.

Lastly, getting a patent means very little if it is going to be ignored or get invalidated immediately during a re-examination or during the litigation, it only serves to waste money on the patent holder's part.

Patent isn't always a "right to sue" document, a badly written patent, like a badly programmed game, is simply going to be ignored or laughed at regardless.
Click to expand...

But that is not true either.. Maybe some patent experts here can weigh in, you know with their expertise on bags.
I know one thing though, even with 'garbage patents' patent trolls can wreak havok, specially to small companies.
So we hate patent trolls, yet big corporations have the power to be both, but we don't hate them I guess.
So, what is to say Apple is above it, above acting like a de-facto patent troll.
Say it gets approved, what's to say they are not going to use it against the bag manufacturer for Samsung?
You know, just to fuck a little with Samsung having them switch bag supplies and shit like that.

I've read the process is complex, and costly.. if it goes against you, no matter how absurd it is the decision.. then what? court and shit, more money, more burden.
Litigation yeah, gets tossed in there like its nothing.. yeah its nothing- to Apple, so many others, could be their demise.
The patent might not get approved only 'cause of attention.. even then it might get approved, in the 'approve and let them deal with it' stance Government has taken.
Gotta be honest the Government's stance is not illogical in my view, but it is damaging for sure.
 
Uvaman2 said:
But that is not true either.. Maybe some patent experts here can weigh in, you know with their expertise on bags.
I know one thing though, even with 'garbage patents' patent trolls can wreak havok, specially to small companies.
So we hate patent trolls, yet big corporations have the power to be both, but we don't hate them I guess.
So, what is to say Apple is above it, above acting like a de-facto patent troll.
Say it gets approved, what's to say they are not going to use it against the bag manufacturer for Samsung?
You know, just to fuck a little with Samsung having them switch bag supplies and shit like that.

I've read the process is complex, and costly.. if it goes against you, no matter how absurd it is the decision.. then what? court and shit, more money, more burden.
Litigation yeah, gets tossed in there like its nothing.. yeah its nothing- to Apple, so many others, could be their demise.
The patent might not get approved only 'cause of attention.. even then it might get approved, in the 'approve and let them deal with it' stance Government has taken.
Gotta be honest the Government's stance is not illogical in my view, but it is damaging for sure.
Click to expand...

Samsung has one of the more capable legal departments, Apple will not go after Samsung with utility patents like this (this is different from the rounded corner design patents, since those patents are less objective and more subjective of whether something is 'similar' or not). For them forcing to switch bag suppliers, I think that's the least of Apple's worries, since SS rarely use outsources for their production chain, whereas Apple is entirely dependent on outsourcing, so having them switch suppliers might work AGAINST Apple as now they have to compete for production lines, so I doubt Apple's main goal is Samsung.

Plus, Samsung has one of the more capable legal teams in their organisation, I am more than confident that they'll be able to wiggle their way through the bag patent, if it EVER gets patented. This application, if ever patented, will not even be on the radar for them.

Big corporations tend not to be perceived as patent trolls, because one of the biggest aspect of a Patent troll is that they do not practice their patents (IE they don't make products relavant in their field).

If Apple came around and decided to patent say, doors (which they don't make), and starts asking around door makes for royalties, that'll easily make them being a patent troll. Apple patents stuff they make, so asserting them for against other companies, they have more legitimate grounds for defending against IP.

I don't consider them to be any bigger troll than say Intellectual ventures (which physically makes nothing), which exist solely to acquire patents and throwing it around asking for loyalties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top