The application also sets out the processes for shipping and using the adaptor, which can be summarised as "if the adaptor is expanded, collapse it and then pack the disc and adaptor" and "expand adaptor, fit disc into centre of adaptor, then use disc."
That seems pretty obvious to me. Doesn't prior art in a variety of industries (including flat-pack furniture and telescopes) have these concepts covered?
I have no fundamental problem with the idea of patents, but to my mind the degree of innovation behind this application is too trivial to deserve protection.
”The developers implement features which they later decide not to deliver due to fear of Apple.“Of relevance to us is the fact that Linux is sometimes a victim. Consider Compiz-Fusion (this one used to speak about a an Aladdin lamp-like effect) and AWN (implementing stacks from Leopard) get crippled due to Apple patents, regardless of prior art. The developers implement features which they later decide not to deliver due to fear of Apple. It is worth appending a list of patent stories which we've collected about Apple.
Examples from the past year where Apple is seemingly abused:
Comments
Jim Powers
2007-11-23 16:30:13
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-23 20:32:35
From a humble perspective, Apple barely fits the story about Microsoft and its 'partners'.
I used a Mac for over a year at work (that was several years ago) and I had no trouble with Apple at the time. I do, however, have heaps of material which shows they are no better than Microsoft (just smaller). I'm unlikely to bring it here because I don't need the wrath of Mac users and it's off topic anyway.
ete
2007-11-23 21:46:51
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Yuhong Bao
2008-11-01 05:14:20