Whether or not you think the
Zune is a
fairly ho-hum media device, the one thing that's pretty agreeable is that its relatively subtle "doubleshot" casing -- where the edges have a translucent or different color than the rest of the plastics -- is unique, and the closest thing to an iconic aesthetic the Zune has right now. Potentially unfortunately for Microsoft, three days ago the USPTO published Apple patent application 20070048470, for "Housing of an electronic device formed by doubleshot injection molding". Filed August 16, 2005 by, among others, Johnny "iPhone" Ive himself, the process details a multiwall plastic-injected enclosure which, among other things, can be useful for for "forming internal features on the inside surfaces" -- like, say, alternate edge colors in the Zune, or the white and black-yet-clear plastics as seen in MacBooks and iMacs and iPods. So, in addition to that
per-Zune tariff Microsoft pays to Universal, is Apple about to join the list?
[Via
PC Pro, thanks Brian]
Update: As some of our more astute readers have pointed out, we don't yet know that this patent has actually been fully granted. It is, however, definitely published, and is still currently the only published patent in the USPTO database for the doubleshot plastic molding process.
posted Mar 4th 2007 1:49PM
i loathe microsoft and its ilk with all my heart, but seriously, can anyone say patent system overhaul? why don't apple/creative/microsoft/etc just all swap equally sized truckloads of hundred dollar bills and be done with it already....
That looks like a pre-grant publication, not a patent.
pretty much you'll be able to patent your breathing patterns...
Hmm.. Has this moulding technique not been around for some time?
http://www.toolingmaker.com/03_products_01.html
Prior art anyone?
well they may aswell just sue sony aswell as they also use this type of casing on their psp
If you noticed the date that Ryan says this patten was filed. The PSP came out prior to that date.
That's really mean of Apple. That's one of the things that I like on my black Zune, the whole blue doubleshot effect. It gave itself something at least unique. Now Apple stole the feature, and yeah I mean stole it. Zune had it first, and Apple liked it enough to actually put a patent on it before Microsoft could. Sure Microsoft might steal some ideas kind of, but they don't steal it directly and patent it before the other company can do something about it. That's just mean Apple. Please don't steal any more feature off of other players and patent them as your own.
michael, i would point out that apple filed for this patent half a year before microsoft even revealed that it was working on its own mp3 player; additionally, apple had been using the technique on ipods and imacs for some time prior. calling apple the rip off artist is pretty inaccurate.
@michael: Doubleshot unique to the Zune? Apple stealing it? 'pshaw. Let me make a short list of Apple products that have used the doubleshot molding before the zune even existed.
- iMac G5 - and all the way until today's Core 2 Duo iMacs - August 2004
- iPod - dating back to even the FIRST generation - October 2001
- iBook G3 - May 2001
- Macbook - November 2006 (technically existed after the zune, but on the list for completion).
- Apple Cinema Displays (polycarbonate design) - 1999
Microsoft design originality? Never heard of such a thing.
michael you fuc*ing dumba$$, Apple had the doubleshot on the first gen iPod (thats right you prissy little douche bag, the 1G iPod came out in 2001; thats right, 5 years and 2 months before the Zune was even an idea at Micro$oft)
Next time get your facts straight. And oh yeah, the iMac G5, which came out in August 2004 also had the doubleshot, and so did the iPod nano, September 2005, and the 5th generation iPod (october 2005) so clearly you have no clue what you are talking abou.t
-brad
Yeah, sorry folks. This isn't a patent. The number referred to is a publication number, meaning that the pending application in this case being examined for patentability has been published. There is no patent here. In fact, the last action taken by the USPTO was to reject the application. Apple will assuredly respond, and it may become a patent at some point, but it isn't right now.
Apple is evil Inc. If they were as big as Microsoft, we would be paying $3000 for 500Mhz G4s.
I'm sorry. Can you accept my apology. I'm really being sincere. At least you weren't bad as some of the other commenters were on me.
http://review.ascii24.com/db/review/ce/mp3/2004/08/25/651208-000.html
I have one of those, and there was also a 128mb version in 2003.
Oddly, it was just another-ipod-clone back then...
Even if Satan, I mean Apple, did manage to patent this the fact that it has already been used in the Zune would mean MS wouldn't have to pay out a dime. In fact, as I beleive someone already stated, the fact that other people have already used this method would render any patent application useless.
The other reason the idea that Apple will enforce patents on Microsoft is irrelevant: Microsoft and Apple signed a comprehensive patent cross licensing agreement. They each can use each other's patents freely without paying a license.
This is what people should focus on in the patent debate: large companies can cross license each other, leaving only the smaller and very innovative companies "out in the cold." Large companies already get a free pass in an "old boys' club."
Most of the lobby strength against patents in D.C. are large tech companies who want an even better deal at the expense of universities, inventors, and small companies.
As another commenter mentioned, the doubleshot technique has been used by Apple on the old Apple Cinema Displays, iMac lamp, first gen iPod, Power Mac G4 towers, and keyboard and mice.
I've always loved the technique for the way it captures and refracts light. Every sunset, my display is aglow with the sun's light being trapped in the edges.
What you are describing is created by a double shot but it is not what the patent is for. The patent is a specific method, using inserts and 2 shots to create a seamless box with thin constant thickness walls. The patent is very specific to this task.
"As another commenter mentioned, the doubleshot technique has been used by Apple on the old Apple Cinema Displays, iMac lamp, first gen iPod, Power Mac G4 towers, and keyboard and mice.
I've always loved the technique for the way it captures and refracts light. Every sunset, my display is aglow with the sun's light being trapped in the edges."
I admit that I'm wrong. But about the whole "Microsoft design originality. Never heard of such a thing" comment, you're absolultely wrong. Take for instance Windows Media Center, it looks very similiar to Front Row, and Apple TV UI, yet it came out just before them. Hmm. Do I feel a sense that Apple might have copied them on this one? So that is a case where they did design originality. Have you seen Office 2007? Notice that neat aesthetic ribbon they've included? It's made using office suites much more easier and prettier. Can you say that Microsoft created originality in making the Office suite better? How about Xbox Live Marketplace. Before, the PS2 and the GameCube had no such way to do any of that kind of services on their consoles. Now the Wii and the PS3 seems to have been taking a hint, and they've done so too. Can you say originality again? So you may be right about some stuff, but that last comment shows what a true fanboy you are, exactly something that we don't need.
Just brace yourselves, you're going to have every Apple Fangrrl from all around swarm the comments section declaring Apple, once again, invented everything.
I've never seen anything like this on a Mac, I'm surprised by such claims, the iPod as well, but Apple patents numerous things it claims to have used or is currently using, the only real difference between Apple and NTP in terms of patent-whoring is Apple actually uses them - Maybe.
I hate to but the apple fanboys, but I have some old glasses that had this. It has been around FOREVER.
The problem is you didn't know what it was called. They've been double shooting polycarbonate for a long long time. They have tons of patents for the old imacs that never came into fruition. Hell, 80% of the patents out there are just being sat on until someone actually figures out how to use it in a product or can actually manufacture it in a real world situation. Just like the first MP3 patents or anything out there...Apple isn't the one suing everyone for patent infringement it's the other way around...so, this is Apples only course of action. They won't sue MS but know will have some more straws it can bring to the party. Apple, got the shaft with the original GUI(and don't tell me xerox had it...anyone can dream but it takes a visionary to implement it)Now they are making sure every t is crossed and i dotted. If Apple would have actually patented the GUI wake back when and really hammered it home, everyone would be using the MAC OS or a version of it. Unfortunetly the lawyers decided that it would basically bring the world to a screaching halt if Micorosoft lost, just think of the implications at that time!!!!!!! Almost every computer company, software designer, bank, school... everything in the world would have to change over to Apple or at the very least. Apple would have received Royalties of probably close to 100 Trillion Dollars!!!! They would have been able to rule the world.
Thank God that didn't happen.
@mrsalty:
Saying "don't tell me this" when you know of an obvious flaw to your argument doesn't make this flaw any less valid. Xerox DID invent the original GUI and they DID implement it in the Alto. The Alto was never intended for mass production because Xerox weren't (and still aren't) a consumer-targeted company. It is well known that senior Apple employees visited Xerox and then copied the idea, and their original attempt to market it (the Lisa) was a commercial failure. Sorry, but there is simply no way that Apple have a claim to having invented "the GUI". Your rant about "the lawyers decided this" is nonsense- had Apple somehow sucessfully patented the GUI "wake back when" [sic] then it would simply have become the standard in the same way Windows is today and we'd be in pretty-much exactly the same situation we are now only paying money to a company with a different name.
Well.. this is a bit evil from Apple if they file a lawsuit. I'm an Apple fanboy, but I think they should leave the Zune alone regarding this patent.
If you actually read the patent and look at the drawings, you will realize this idea was developed for the first generation iPod Shuffle. What ends up as a one piece white housing was actually created in two shots in order to keep the walls thin and constant thickness. This is a very specific idea, they are not patenting the general idea of double shot parts. It's about molding a 5-sided box where the open end is on one of the smaller sides. In normal molding, the draft required to get the part off the core would make the walls much thicker at the closed end. Apple is able to have constant walls with no draft by reframing the problem. It's actually pretty clever.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070048470.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070048470RS=DN/20070048470
Thanks, S1mon, for actually bringing this into perspective.
A few points I want to add:
1. Apple is a defensive patenter. They patent as much as possible to try to avoid being sued by offensive patenters.
2. The Zune is very likely immune to this patent. While it may use the doubleshot technique (most toothbrushes are doubleshot), it is different than what is described in the patent. As S1mon mentioned, plastic parts normally need drafted surfaces so they can be ejected from the mold. The Zune has a 2 piece shell so adding draft is not an issue.
Here's a little info on drafting of plastic parts: http://www.protomold.com/Design_Tips/UnitedStates/2003/2003-07_designtips/default.htm
I'm going to patent the human body design. I sue everyone.
i wonder.....
if you get some of bill gates or steve jobs DNA and patent it
would they have to pay you a royalty for their existence?
Look like someone have been reading their Michael Crichton. :)
The doubleshot effect is actually used most strongly in the current iMacs. It enables you to see where the DVD drive is in verticle space on the side of the machine without having to move from the front of the machine. Truely ingenious. I highly doubt they'd chase after the Zune for is jelly outter coating. Zune lovers calm down.
This is so ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to patent an aesthetic design. This is like an artist trying to patent the color blue.
If Apple invented a machine that created double shot molding, they can patent that machine, not a design concept itself - which if anything should be copyrighted like a work of art, not a patent. This patent this is so unbelievably out of control.
no, it's like an artist patenting a good method to create the color blue.
I absolutely agree with you!
Apple & Microsoft have a cross-licensing deal for patents, so this will in no way affect the Zune.
First of all, if you're going to throw a comment at me, you don't use words like "dumba$$" and "Micro$oft". At least spell the darn words right, and use some better grammar. Now I admit that I might be wrong, but I'm not as bad as the iPod fanboys that throw malicious false lies about the Zune. I at least have the honor of saying that I'm not one of those stupid commenters.
Michael, I have no idea what just happened, I wrote out this long thing, and when I clicked add, it dissapeared. I am not retyping what I had said, but to sum it up....
I have been using Macs my whole life, and you could consider me an "Apple Fanboy" but I am proud of that, as I am not a late comer to game, like many users are these days. I got an iPod in 2001, when I was 10 years old, and they are great because they integrate so well with iTunes, iCal, iPhoto/Aperture, and Address Book. I am sure you Zune can do great things, but the iPod has 4-5 more years of experience, and for that alone, I think its ahead of the Zune. That doesn't mean Microsoft cannot innovate, but Apple clearly has something going.
Anyways, I didn't mean to rude (well, maybe I did) but I am sorry as well. The thing is, you shouldn't make supposititons and think that Apple *copied* Microsoft because the fact is, they clearly didn't.
-Brad
Have you ever thought it could have been from the radiation? You know, the sun and Sony's batteries?
I could care less if the idea was original or not.. It's retarded to patent something like this.. Until I read this article I could've cared less about double shot injection moulding. Now however, this just seems like patenting water and shaking a finger at anyone bottling it. Why protect stuff that's already stolen? It's like the honeymooners getting mad at the flintstones getting mad at the simpsons getting mad at family guy. MS might make the exterior look hot, but people can still argue about what's on the inside.. Just because it's iPod white with clear casing doesn't it's shit doesn't stink - why even fret? I thought Apple had confidence in their market and abilites. Part of a patent is the fear that your product isn't as good as someone stealing it.
I accept your apologies. At least we set aside out differences. You're right in some ways and I'm right in some ways. The thing is, is that it doesn't really matter. These are just silly comments.
I don't know if that last comment was directed at me, and if it was I have no reply for it, but to the one before that...about the whole Windows Media Center/Front Row argument, sure Apple "copied" Windows Media Center, but then you also have the argument that Microsoft copied Apple with Gadgets, (which yes, Apple copied Konfabulator on) and Microsoft copied the whole idea of an operating system. It is undeniable that Macs were the first computers with a modern OS, and microsoft copied that straight from under Apple.
Not to mention, the whole Windows Vista GUI, that is a complete knock of Aqua in OS X. Also, in Office 2007, that bar at the top is very reminicent of Pages, from iWork. Clearly, both companies copy eachother.
Does this mean that Apple is trying to copy what MS does and patent it as well?
please, if you are going to comment, read the whole thread first.
"no, it's like an artist patenting a good method to create the color blue."
Which is almost equally retarded when the end result looks identical, but folks still come in and pay a $40 premium for cobalt blue because it has REAL Lapis Lazuli in it (oooooooh) even though the imitation is only imitation because they artificially create the lapis.... Same chemical structure, $40 difference.
It gets even better when artists insist on the literally deadlier colors over their identical counterparts for the sake of their art. My point is that it's just a color, nature makes it, not man. It's easy to duplicate, and easy to discover without direction but yet it's patented to protect someone's wallet. You can't contain ideas.. you can only sue like a bitch for em.
correction: ultramarine, not cobalt blue.
I can absolutely see someone coming up with this idea after nights of thought; only to discover it already has a name and a patent, and biting their lip in chagrin.
you didn't get my point. If M$ had done something like this, there would be plenty of ppl ready to jump in a comment that M$ is trying to copy Apple. I'm no M$ or Apple fan btw!!!
I don't think Apple will sue MS over this because (1) it's a waste of time and money (2) Zune is not a threat at the moment (3) cause unnecessary strain to MS-Apple relationship
So lets add up what apple has patented shall we?
1. Graphical environments.
2. The wheel.
3. All rectangular touch screen phones.
4. The lower case letter "i".
4. Double layered plastic.
"4. Double layered plastic."
They aren't patenting double layered plastic.
It's called Prior Art ... and Microsoft has nothing to worry about considering the Zune has been available for nearly a year now.