This should not be fucking patentable. It's a fucking notification LED.
No it's not. Apple is patenting a logo, with on top of that an electronically controllable tint/haze/opacity/mirror, with on top of that a dialectric stack to make a thin-film interference filter, and on top of that a transparent layer.
A notification LED satisfies the same end-goals, sure. But patents aren't about end-goals; they're about how the device is constructed. The construction that Apple is proposing is completely unrelated to LEDs.
Stacking things which exist on top of each other and putting it in the shape of an Apple logo is not a patentable invention. So it may be unrelated to LEDs, but it sure as heck is still related to the topic.
And yet we know that Apple would also know that whatever they're doing is prior art or not unique enough to file a patent for, so I think that we must be misunderstanding something about the patent. It's not that I think Apple wouldn't try to patent something obvious, but I do think that they're likely not to waste their own time by constructing a patent for nothing. I tried reading the patent application and it is boring af, and I don't trust the summary is giving the whole story. It seems like it would be a way to give any piece of trim on a device, including a logo, a way to change its appearance, and not just by flashing, but also by changing its opacity or reflectivity. But I'm honestly not sure. Like I said, I gave up partway through.
Give Apple some credit. They usually make these applications for a reason that is genuinely, if marginally, patentable.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
This should not be fucking patentable. It's a fucking notification LED.
Re: (Score:2)
This should not be fucking patentable. It's a fucking notification LED.
No it's not. Apple is patenting a logo, with on top of that an electronically controllable tint/haze/opacity/mirror, with on top of that a dialectric stack to make a thin-film interference filter, and on top of that a transparent layer.
A notification LED satisfies the same end-goals, sure. But patents aren't about end-goals; they're about how the device is constructed. The construction that Apple is proposing is completely unrelated to LEDs.
Re: (Score:1)
Stacking things which exist on top of each other and putting it in the shape of an Apple logo is not a patentable invention. So it may be unrelated to LEDs, but it sure as heck is still related to the topic.
Re:No (Score:2)
And yet we know that Apple would also know that whatever they're doing is prior art or not unique enough to file a patent for, so I think that we must be misunderstanding something about the patent. It's not that I think Apple wouldn't try to patent something obvious, but I do think that they're likely not to waste their own time by constructing a patent for nothing. I tried reading the patent application and it is boring af, and I don't trust the summary is giving the whole story. It seems like it would be a way to give any piece of trim on a device, including a logo, a way to change its appearance, and not just by flashing, but also by changing its opacity or reflectivity. But I'm honestly not sure. Like I said, I gave up partway through.
Give Apple some credit. They usually make these applications for a reason that is genuinely, if marginally, patentable.