Feeds

back to article Amazon patents hideous Kindle 1 design

On the eve of Amazon's Kindle DX announcement, the online storefront was awarded a US design patent for the awful, terrible look of the Kindle 1. Newer Kindle models may be looking much better, but the e-reader's debuting aesthetic left quite a lot to be desired. Presumably before the USPTO granted its boon, the Kindle 1's look …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Hah hah hah!!!!

It took them three years fiddling about with their etcha-sketches before the USPTO 'handed' them a design patent, whatever one of those is.....

And then They claim.....

"The ornamental design for an electronic media reader, as shown and described"

Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!

Cough, Splutter Gasp. Breath Breath Breath..... Bugger!

Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!

"The ornamental design for an electronic media reader, as shown and described"

I'm not sure how it works, or rather does not, in the US but if it is anything like over here, which it is not, then presumably....

"References Cited [Referenced By]"

Refers to documents Cited by the Authors [Numpties] in the original/modified document or documents Cited by the examiners used to indicate 'Lack of an Inventive Step' or 'Prior Art' such that Numty et Al were finally forced to withdraw all of their 'Original' 'Claims', effectively accept that they are not very inventive and come up with...

"The ornamental design for an electronic media reader, as shown and described"

Oh go on ladz. Lose the embellishments and try....

"Somefink what look this."

At least in

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6867763

Probably worthless as well, cited in the Amazon Patent, actually seem to have tried to produce something that resembles a Patent.

I'm off to get a [US] design patent on a polished turd. What are the chances it will get rejected on the basis of 'Prior Art' and the examiners Cite....

D591,741 May 2009 Whitehorn S. Zehr Greg Z. Amazon Technologies

Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!Hah hah hah!!!!

0
0
Thumb Down

Erm...

Does it really have that hideous font for Fig 1 in the patent document?

0
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Erm...

Hey, at least they didn't choose Comic Sans.

0
0

Re: Erm

<font + MONSTER> YES!!!!!! </font>

It is not a proper patent unless all the drawings look like they were drawn on an etcha-sketch and are properly labeled in arcane fonts with prescribed squiggly lines of the right squiggle pointing to things on the drawings.

The 'proper ' format for claims is....

Claim 1) A splooggle comprises a findle said findle connected to a flurb whereby said flurb may be either connected to said findle at one or multiple points with or without the addition of zars in said connecting points said connecting points reconnecting to other connecting points said connecting points being reconnected via secondary connecting points whereby all said connecting points may be reconnected via said findle or flurb with or without intervening said zars to further interstitial connecting points

Claim 2) A spooggle as claimed in Claim 1) whereby blingdeeplwewe plop fuz wehfow without the addition of zars in said connecting points said connecting points reconnecting to other connecting points said connecting points being reconnected via secondary connecting points hazoiu mgeol with said additional splar comprising multiple spooggles.

Claim 3) A spooggle as claimed in Claim 1) and Claim 2) whereby interconnected spooggles are interconnected via zars incoporating flurbs or findles.........

and so it goes on....

Then... at the end you have to say something like....

Claim 1234) A spooggle as claimed in the previous claims and largely as described in the previous description and drawings.

YOU MUST NOT FORGET to finish your description with words along the lines of.......

"Those skilled in the art will realise that we also own their ideas as well.... blab blab blab

Well, sane people don't get that far. Only patent agents do.

In the mean time I think I have just worked it out....

0
0
Anonymous Coward

is it just me?

or does the entire illustration just look really stupid, cheap, boring? And after looking at it for a couple minutes, it kind of reminded of something you'd see in a "sold only on TV" advert, where they promise to send you two or three additional devices, if you only pay a small shipping and handling charge.

0
0

I don't understand.

It looks like a big Blackberry. How is that original?

0
0

I think I have worked it out....

The References Cited [Referenced By] section IS (probably) the search results of the Examiners

Primary Examiner: Brooks; Cathron C

Assistant Examiner: Lee; Angela J

VERSUS

Attorney, Agent or Firm: Lee & Hayes, PLLC

http://www.leehayes.com/

Looks like they might have rubbed the patent agents nose in the dirt..... comprehensively. I'd be asking for my money back.

It would be nice to see what sort of communications have gone on between the USPTO and Amazon as they knocked the 'ladz', and their 'patent' into shape over three years for a final result of....

"CLAIM The ornamental design for an electronic media reader, as shown and described."

I 'know' that 'over here' the relevant search results get listed at the end of the granted patent publication classified as something like...

X Document indicating lack of novelty or inventive step.

Y Document indicating lack of inventive step if combined with one or more other documents of same category.

There are others but chances are, since Amazons claim has been reduced to 'Something that looks like this' then they do not apply.

I'd really like to see the published patent, or maybe not. The 'real' information will not be there.

Maybe the Examiners 'have' to cite the documents demonstrating 'lack of novelty or inventive step' but, in its present form with its one Claim, they can't reference back to the relevant claims.

That really does not sound right. I would expect the granted patent to be published 'clean' on the basis of it's 'claim' so citing of documents would not be needed. Still, it's a design patent so maybe different rules apply

Maybe the examiners are partying on down.... Cathron sounds a bit like a Girly name as does Angela. Heroines against the 'New Amazons'!

Maybe Amazon should have withdrawn and filed a Design Copyright instead, don't know if the US has one of them. I suppose the management missed the plot along with the deadlines, spent three years trying to argue the toss and got porked.

I'm off to hunt for D/246,293

0
0

Hmmmmm...

Searching US side might be tricky....

ET VOILA!!!!!

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D246293.PN.&OS=PN/D246293&RS=PN/D246293

Claims

The ornamental design for a adjustable bracelet or similar article, as shown and described.

Oh.... looks like the wrong sort of thing. Perhaps I was not very good at doing a search on D246,293

Just a moment.....???

CLAIM The ornamental design for an electronic media reader, as shown and described.

Ooooh...

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D246292.PN.&OS=PN/D246292&RS=PN/D246292

Claims

The ornamental design for a yarn fault detector, as shown and described.

WTF?

FIG. 1 is a front elevational view of a yarn fault detector showing my new design;

FIG. 2 is a right front perspective view thereof;

FIG. 3 is a rear elevational view thereof;

FIG. 4 is a left rear perspective view thereof.

Ahhhhh Sensibility at Last!!!!

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D246291.PN.&OS=PN/D246291&RS=PN/D246291

Claims

The ornamental design for a wattmeter or similar article, substantially as shown.

Inventors: Krolopp; Rudolph William (Palatine, IL)

Assignee: Motorola, Inc. (Schaumburg, IL)

Appl. No.: 05/665,026

Filed: March 8, 1976

Yes But It's Motorola

Somewhere I have missed the point?

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.