Hacker News Reader

Comment by jondubois | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft should not have been allowed to patent this particular design because it is made up mostly of elements which are in the public domain. For example, the 'plus' and 'minus' symbols are universal symbols. Circles and straight lines would also fall into the public domain.

I don't think you should be able to patent designs which are just basic compositions of symbols/motifs which have existed for thousands of years.

Besides, lots of old remote controls use plus/minus symbols to indicate volume-up/volume-down in a similar fashion. This design is obviously derivative.

View on HN

You are analyzing design patents as you would utility patents, which I doubt is correct. These patents are more about "look and feel". You don't break down a design into its components (else taken ad absurdum, everything would decompose to curves and straight lines and combinations thereof), but instead analyze it as a whole. I believe prior art searches for design patents look for almost exact matches of a given diagram.

Patents are (supposedly) a power granted to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and it's rather hard to see how patents over mere ornamentation can further that goal, even in principle.

I'd say UI design is an "useful Art". If somebody is forced to come up with their own designs rather than ripping somebody else's off, is that not progress? If there is no conceivable alternative way of doing a design (which I find extremely improbable) the solution is well-known: license it.

I agree good UI design offers utility, but often those "forced to come up with their own designs" are simply forced to kludge together a workaround rather than do what would come naturally. This hardship may sometimes spark innovation, true, but in other cases the effort and frustration might have been better spent pushing the envelope elsewhere.

And if the "invention" is obvious, developers (and users) really shouldn't have to pay the cost to license it.

Thing is, in the world of design patents even trivial changes are sufficient to avoid infringement.

Two things that make me feel design patents seem stupid in general.

1. What if the design is trivial itself? So trivial that there are no trivial changes to make?

2. If trivial changes is all that's require to avoid the patent, such as change a solid line to dotted line, then why have the stupid design patents in the first place?

I could maybe understand such a thing for the entire application, but just a small insignificant part of the overall design? It's stupid.

Not a big fan of design patents either, but...

1. Not sure if something trivial (e.g. an empty circle for a button) would be eligible even for a design patent.

2. The solid and dotted lines are just to indicate the claimed design vs the rest of the product respectively. Potentially the dotted lines in one patent maybe claimed as solid lines in a separate design patent.

I have seen designs I would consider trivial, such as a slider made up of two circled symbols, a solid line, and a small box for an indicator.

I wasn't referring to the lines in the claim, but in the design. I was saying; for instance, if changing a solid line in the design to a dotted line may get you past the design patent, then they are worthless to begin with.

They're actually saying that the lines indicate what's claimed in the patent. While it may be true that you just have to not match the solid lines of the patent, when you have a minimal design that's barely anything but a rounded rectangle (as posted below), the design patents become a farce.

> Thing is, in the world of design patents even trivial changes are sufficient to avoid infringement.

The Samsung case showed us that even a trivial match like rounded corners was enough to establish infringement, though.

No, it didn't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10807369

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/07/30/strong-design-patents-t...

I never said there weren't other elements, only that it took little more than rounded corners. The complaint uses a lot of words to say very little, as there sure aren't many solid lines other than those rounded corners when you look at the patent. Note that the dashed lines aren't counted. And this minimalist design is apparently worth nearly $1 billion, something I simply don't agree with at all.

It just doesn't seem fair that you should be able to patent things based on how they 'feel' - The mood of something is highly subjective and usually has cultural roots (and culture is in public domain).

> Microsoft should not have been allowed to patent this particular design because

...it is a design, not an invention. It is as simple as that. Patents should only apply to things that advance technology and/or science.

That's why it's not a utility patent, but it instead a design patent.

And such things should not be patentable at all.

If you want to go the route of people using the idea of things that have been used for thousands of years in patents, no one should be able to patent a wheel design because wheels have been around for a very long time and every wheel is a derivative of the original wheel design. Sure, wheels are a utility, but the design of a wheel is using pieces from other people's ideas.

Patents are silly anyway, imho.

> I don't think you should be able to patent designs which are just basic compositions of symbols/motifs which have existed for thousands of years.

I don't think you should be able to patent anything which is written in english, as it is a basic composition of letters which have existed for thousands of years.

You can't patent written things, that's copyrights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com