Wait, Did Apple Just Patent the Ultrabook?

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Oh, I'd love to see Intel get pissed over this when Apple starts torching their customers.[/citation]

For x86 the Macs account for around 3-4% of Intel cpu sales, macs barely have a tad over 5% of the world PC market. And for those that can't do math - That leaves just one single mac among TWENTY other computers before starting arguing how huge customer they are to Intel in the x86 arena, sorry to say this to the mac lovers but their computers are barely a niche market for Intel!

 

[w0_od]

i really would like to read how the US Patent office granted this, a thin lid and keyboard seems rather fundamental design to well any laptop, as an evolutionary process rather than a significant improvement. Lids have been getting thinner and thinner and keyboards have become more mobile and detached from the overall design...

this smacks of bribery

 

[rantoc]

"PC makers and Intel, as well as AMD in the not so distant future, have a considerable advantage in that they can exploit the design of ultrathin notebooks borrowing elements from an idea Apple had first."

Yeah sure, Douglas sure. Everyone who care to even scratch the surface know it's not apples idea - As pointed out by hotchick69. Apple stole that idea and now even patented it, is it just me who sees the trend here with some of the Toms "journalists" who get caught up in the reality distortions rather than do accurate articles?

Here is a link if you want to read up on the FACTS, not blind belief! http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/01/sharp-actius-mm

Cheerios!

 

[randyt1101]

Wow, since Steve Jobs died Apple turned into power mongers. They are trying to stifle the P.C. market. They already sued Samsung and won, now this. We will be seeing Apple suing all the Ultrabook makers next.

 

[teh_chem]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]This is not the same. They may have patented the design as to what the grill may do. For example, I would agree with a patent for Ford on the 2013 Fusion that has a grill that at high speeds will close to allow for better aerodynamics.But what Apple did was they patented a shape then they doctored photos of the Samsung Galaxy SII nd Tab and presented them as evidence. That alone is foul play:http://www.techspot.com/news/45097 [...] -suit.htmlNotice how in the image the look pretty similar but the Samsung Tab has a different aspect ratio, by .16 to be exact. Apple sued based on the fact that it looked similar and with the proper picture, it doesn't. But just suing alone because it looks the same is crap. All tablets are going to be rectangular. Even better:http://translate.google.com/transl [...] msung.htmlAlso notice how it doesn't even look the same as the photo presented by Apple as evidence. It doesn't have the glossy dark black border, its more of a grey than black.[/citation]
I'm not disagreeing with you in principle that showing manipulated pictures as evidence in a court case is misleading. But IIRC from those stories, the goal of the lawsuit wasn't blocking the tab because it had the same aspect ratio as the ipad, but because at the same aspect ratio, its UI was apparently "too similar in appearance" to iOS because of square app shortcuts and the launcher that was present on the stock tab--that's why the pictures were actually altered to reflect near-same aspect ratio, was to show just how similar the UI appeared (in their opinion. But in mine it's nothing alike). The lawsuit was more to do with the UI than form-factor and aspect ratio. And also had something to do with other stuff like photo management and other things.

That's why nothing came of the "doctored" photos beyond the sensationalist stories when the pictures were leaked--because the specific physical dimensions were not part of the explicit lawsuit, rather it was about the alleged similarity of the UI at the same aspect ratio. Not only that, but the judge used actual side-by-side appearance with actual tablets to determine whether the suit was appropriate to keep going.

All that being said, I'm not defending Apple, only pointing out that most people mis-understood what was going on in the case and what the photos were trying to convey.

 

[halcyon]

Even if Apple enforces this patent and it hurt Ultrabooks...is the market for a non-Apple ultrabook large enough that consumers would really care (en masse)? Outside of the Asus and Dell ultrabooks, the Air is the only thing that is really attractive to me.

However, I'm getting tired of Apple being a bully. ...its just not necessary.

 

[omega21xx]

[citation][nom]AppleIsATroll[/nom]Problem is, Apple wasn't the first to design the thin and light notebook. I believe Sony first came up with the design. Apple is just the first to patent it. Apple = patent troll.[/citation]

You are correct sir, quick search through google comes up with under an inch thick ultraportable sony laptops in 1997. The Macbook air came out in 2008 correct?

 

[Guest]

funny since sony was 10 years earlier with the Z series ultrabook (even surpassing the ultrabook specs since the 90's)

 

[BlazingStudios]

Macbooks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_VAIO_Z_series
Tablets: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/mar/17/tablet-visionary-roger-fidler-lot-what-ifs/

I could not find the picture or article about the 1994 microsoft phone (I saw it somewhere before) so if someone has it please send it to me

 

[gorfmaster1]

Typical apple move, whats next are they going to patent electricity and air?

 

[billgatez]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]I wouldn't put it past them Yuka. Look what they did to Samsung. They used to use Samsung CPUs in the iPhone. Then they pretty much took the same design and started making their own CPUs, threw Samsung to the side then started suing them and currently the SG Tab is banned from being sold in the US because it "looks" like a iPad, even though Apple doctered photos.Apple could easily decide to do the same thing to Intel although they would be messing with some very hot fire.[/citation]

Apple would not be-able to make a intel CPU clone. as they dont have an x86 liance. If intel said bye to Apple. Apple would be screwed as it would take them a year to build a replacement chip and chip set. no to mentionall the changes to there OS.

 

[bspatial]

APPLES FOR PIGS, still more in the basket.

 

[ceteras]

[citation][nom]Console_Gamer[/nom]I wonder if the Patents and Trademark Office uses Apple products... [/citation]
I wonder if they pay for them! )

 

[Idonno]

The day Apple goes belly up the world will be a better place.

 

[Guest]

How long till Apple patents the color white?

 

[GreaseMonkey_62]

Apple may sue itself into oblivion when they sue one too many companies and find a pile of lawsuits on it's hands that they can't balance.

 

[TechnoD]

Here is the very short conversation between apple and the patent office:
Apple: We are applying for a patent for our new laptop.
Patent office: It's a laptop.
Apple: but it's REVOLUTIONARY!!!
Patent office: It's a laptop
Apple: (offers huge sum of money)
Patent Office: It's Revolutionary!!!

 

[Javier Fernandez]

In the future, water is patented.

 

[Idonno]

I'm not really sure why my Samsung galaxy s2 has even 8mp. 12mp is just kind of retarded.

 

[davschall]

Well lucky for me my days of caring about laptops are over..and lucky for us...apple will never win the bnchmark!!!!!!

 

[mynith]

Patents get granted far too easily. The MacBook Air was hardly innovative, just thin. It's not such a hard thing to do and, arguably, Intel deserves more credit for it than Apple does, because they designed a special thin CPU for it. What exactly this entails I don't know, because as far as I know, laptop chips don't come with an IHS, but yeah, that's what Apple themselves said at the time. Maybe it was a Core 2 Duo on 32nm lithography. There weren't too many of those, if memory serves me right.

 

[CommentariesAnd More]

I hope that Microsoft doesn't have a ad in mind which says that "Who wants Thin Notebooks when you have tablets and smartphones" , to reply this move.

 

[cbrunnem]

Patents get granted far too easily. The MacBook Air was hardly innovative, just thin. It's not such a hard thing to do and, arguably, Intel deserves more credit for it than Apple does, because they designed a special thin CPU for it. What exactly this entails I don't know, because as far as I know, laptop chips don't come with an IHS, but yeah, that's what Apple themselves said at the time. Maybe it was a Core 2 Duo on 32nm lithography. There weren't too many of those, if memory serves me right.

ummm im pretty sure that the cpus in ultra books are the same thickness as all of them. maybe i am wrong but id like to see an article that explains that if thats the case though.

 

[Nuclear101]

Why can't someone sue Apple stating that they can't patent anything else?