IBM Patents Putting Handprints On Laptops

theodp writes "You can still leave your handprint in cement at Grauman's Chinese Theater. But as of Tuesday, you best not do the same on a laptop, lest you infringe on IBM's new patent for the Portable Computer with a Hand Impression, an 'invention' that Big Blue explains makes balancing the portable computer on a user's hand easier."

I don't get it...

[ivan256]

It's in "Your Rights Online", so clearly kdawson wants us to be outraged... Is it because he thinks the idea is dumb, or that the patent is dumb? It's hard to tell in this case, since it seems to be a reasonable idea, and a reasonable patent...

just another take...

[bsDaemon]

How is this anything more than just another take on ergonomic grips on other products -- for instance the finger grooves on the grip of a pistol?

Not that I can say I've had a problem performing this task WITHOUT their little patent, but interesting IBM would want it, seeing as how they've sold their laptop-making division already anyway.

Re:just another take...

[getto man d]

FTA:
"A hand impression is disposed on a bottom surface of the chassis base unit.

Though this begs the question of how many people actually use a laptop in this fashion. I myself cannot see it entirely useful (e.g. typing) or comfortable.

I call right hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Their picture shows an impression of a left hand, I want to claim rights to an impression of a right hand.

Re:I don't get it...

[Timothy Brownawell]

it seems to be a reasonable idea, and a reasonable patent...

Well, it depends on what effect patents are supposed to have. If you think they're supposed to encourage people to publish what they'd otherwise try to keep as trade secrets, then patenting something which is very obvious when inspected isn't reasonable. If you think they're supposed to let people hold progress hostage by recording their daydreams, it's very reasonable.

Re:Not obvious?

[Uncle Focker]

This is the USPTO we are talking about right? Since when has the obviousness of an invention stopped them from granting a patent?

Re:I don't get it...

[reebmmm]

NOTE*

publish what they'd otherwise try to keep as trade secrets

Not everything that is patentable (or ought to be patentable) must also be trade secret. This is a perfect example (actually most any mechanical invention is a good example). Once it's sold, used, displayed, demoed, described, photograph, etc. it would lose any and all protection.

Now, arguably, one of the purposes of patents is to encourage people to disclose EARLIER rather than later. Here, you probably see this disclosure before you've actually seen it sold, used, displayed, demoed, described, photograph, etc.

obvious when inspected

Just about EVERYTHING seems obvious once you see it. That's the whole reason why the patent law painstakingly tries to AVOID doing your above analysis.

hold progress hostage by recording their daydreams

I don't know what this means. Patents have been around for 200 years and progress hasn't slowed by anyone's account.

Moreover, this is hardly a "daydream" which seems to imply fanciful idea. There's probably almost NOTHING stopping them from implementing it right now. There are probably lots of real estate agents, contractors, etc. that would love to have a laptop that they could hold and show when there is not a table nearby.

Finally, nothing stopped someone from introducing this idea (without patent protection) before this patent. So as far as I can tell, to the extent this moves progress forward and giving other people ideas, the publication of the patent has done it's job.

* Like a good slashdotter, I have not actually looked at the patent or RTFA.

Re:just another take...

[gnick]

feh. It brings up a question which is begging for an answer. It does not beg the question.

This seems like a petty peve. It seems obvious enough that by:

this begs the question of how many people actually use a laptop in this fashion.

the esteemed "getto man d" meant:

This begets the question, "How many people actually use a laptop in this fashion?"

Double feh.

Re:I don't get it...

[Timothy Brownawell]

Patents are supposed to promote progress, by imposing restrictions for a couple decades. This only makes sense if what's being restricted would have been restricted for longer/forever (trade secrets), or wouldn't have existed at all. Given that people like to invent things just for fun, and that there was plenty of innovation before patents were invented, I suspect that that second category is close to empty.

Re:I don't get it...

[skarphace]

I don't know what this means. Patents have been around for 200 years and progress hasn't slowed by anyone's account.

How could you possibly know this? Industrialization is younger then 200 years and normal 'inventionalism'(yeah, I pulled that out of my butt) never really started until then. There were the occasionally blacksmiths but nothing really all that interesting.

How could you possibly know that progress isn't moving slower because of patent law?

I may even like to bring up the booming asian bootleg market. Their level of innovation is skyrocketing by leaping off of other people's patentable ideas and improving them. That alone may be a good argument that patents are not helping innovation.