> So am I keeping my slabtop? ... it’s OK for now; I’m having a great time watching videos, reading articles, and, yes, pricing out a Mac Studio with Studio Display, all from the comfort of my couch.
I have my MBP hooked up to a TV on the wall, and I control it via a bluetooth keyboard and trackpad on a lap desk. It's great!
It is an application for a patent, not a grant of patent. It's not clear if it makes any exclusivity claims on the basic concept or is just about the specific implementation details. That is one problem with patents, it's hard to interpret their scope unless you speak the particular patent dialect. I do wish that the patent system would require references to prior art and specific callouts about how this application is different.
- companies file a lot of patents for products they never build.
- patents sometimes sound like generic "patent on a thing" when they are really "patent on a thing done in this particular way". Yes, we know that there have been a lot of computers built into keyboards in the past.
The law is like the points on Who's Line is it Anyway?, it doesn't matter unless you have money. It drives me mad that one can read the law, which reads plain as day, and then you see it directly violated in the most obvious ways possible. What is even the point of patents these days besides giving more power to our corporate oligarchs?
5 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 25.0 ms ] threadI have my MBP hooked up to a TV on the wall, and I control it via a bluetooth keyboard and trackpad on a lap desk. It's great!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-imagines-mac-insi...
Patent disclaimers:
- companies file a lot of patents for products they never build.
- patents sometimes sound like generic "patent on a thing" when they are really "patent on a thing done in this particular way". Yes, we know that there have been a lot of computers built into keyboards in the past.
(edits for formatting)
Not only does this exact thing (not something similar) already exist:
https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-400/
But patents are supposed to pass a novelty criterion, not something obvious to someone in the industry.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103
That patent is for a laptop without a screen.
The law is like the points on Who's Line is it Anyway?, it doesn't matter unless you have money. It drives me mad that one can read the law, which reads plain as day, and then you see it directly violated in the most obvious ways possible. What is even the point of patents these days besides giving more power to our corporate oligarchs?