http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apple-patent-store-shanghai-glass,news-14913.html

edit : whoops that is supposed to be "patent", not "aptent"

hmm...

this is what happens when you let a ridiculous concept such as intellectual properties get carried away. you can't own an idea, this is like claiming a patent on the shape; square.

You can own an idea, that is why we have patents.

and patents have restrictions against the ridiculous. such as preventing ford from patenting the automobile.

the gaul and stupendious sense of entitlement some one must have to think they have any right to own and control what shape in which some one constructs a building is mind numbing.

Did you read the article?

I already own space, I make nonillions each year because of such a great idea

... They are patenting a glass cylinder with a store below the ground, I'm pretty sure someone did these before Apple, or at least on or the other.

I think Apple are single-handedly demonstrating why the US patent system is in such desperate need of reform. How many really very generic ideas have they patented now? I've seen quite a few in The Register where they seem to like to poke fun at them.

irrelevent, there is no good reason why i can't legally be allowed to construct a building with in those parameters (minus an apple logo) should i choose to.

its a joke. things like intellectual properties are stymieing the development of new ideas by directly blocking the exchange of thoughts and building new ideas from old ones.

Also arguing that such legal procedures are to protect the financial well being of the creator of the idea is ludicrous. so what if some one uses the same idea but offers it at a lower prices, that is called competition and generally how economies have worked for thousands of years.

no should be any more entitled to be legally protected against lossed assets simply because they create something. For example; just because i open a mexican themed restaurant in an area which has never had one before does not protect me from some one taking my popular and successful idea and opening a similar restaurant next door to me.

What you're saying is it would be okay to reconstruct Disney Land with the exact same rides, just without the Disney characters, names, or logos. It's called completely ripping off someone's hard work for personal gain. If you're okay with that, that's fine too I suppose. Some people just don't care about IPs. I can understand why with a lot being wrong with the current system but I think the system needs to be changed; we shouldn't do away with IP protection and give everyone access to ripping off each other's ideas. And in this case the IP is a very specific blueprint and the building has already been made, it's more than just an IP now, it's art.

I guess there will no longer be drinking glasses for they be eerily similar.

Only if the drinking glass is made of monolithic glass to support a building... Wait I think Apple is about to sue all glass manufacturers.

There have been so many fake Apple stores in China they are probably grasping at anything that will help deter this. A lot of customers shop at the fake stores without realizing it.

Maybe those manufacturers of those glass blocks used in home construction commomly used in bathrooms.

Not that I don't think it's a little over the top, but Apple is only patenting the very specific design, construction methods and materials of their store. I see nothing wrong with this. They're not saying nobody else can build a glass cylinder, just not one identical to theirs.

so, it would be a jerk move to rip some one off but thats called competition. Also sorry but i would not be sorry in the least if some one did rip off disney land and gave out tickets for a cheaper prices since disney uses the hopes and dreams of children to [censored] parents wallets for no other reason than its disney.

same thing with microsoft word. they claim that they own the idea with IP and then charge a ludicris amount of money for it. people get tired of being ripped off by legally sanctioned price fixing and eventually some one makes an open source program that meets the same needs. Then companies loose money because people do not buy the over priced product, and falsely label open source software as an act of piracy claiming it hurts their business. When in fact their own greed and callus abuse of dumb practices such as "intellectual property" drives people away.

It is well-established law that you cannot patent categorically. Apple is not, and will not be granted, a patent for all cylindrical glass buildings. If someone wants to make one that is substantially similar, then they will be able to.

You can patent specific, particular manifestations of a thing if
1. They are novel (nobody has done it before and there exists no such thing in nature currently)
2. They are useful (not in the practical sense, in the literal sense. "Can it be used... at all?")

I don't have a problem with apple getting a patent on this building if there is something particularly novel about it that their clever engineers had to sit down and think up. Perhaps no glass structure has ever been as strong as this one, by virtue of its novel design? Nothing wrong with patenting that.

You claim that intellectual property protections stymie the development of new ideas. Have you considered what would happen to new ideas if we gave their creators no such protection or opportunity to profit from their creations? There would be no incentive to innovate, because as soon as you spent all the money to research and develop something, someone could just copy you and profit from your investments.

Innovation costs money. You have to protect people in such a way that they can at least get all their money back, and preferably then some on top of it. If you don't protect that, nobody will do R&D because it costs too much.

More thinking.

Lol, vandals galore!

So they are trying to patent a cylinder? Bye bye soda cans.

Not it's not, it's called six flags..


Taa-dum, tish.

He said Funky Cold Medina.

I think the situations are different, a fairly generic idea versus much more detailed IP; though I think Disney are a poor example considering how rich they got off other people's stories and ideas, many of which they didn't pay for.

It's not a generic patent, see post #6:

I see your point: that wasn't what I'd assumed. I'll admit that I tend to not give Apple the benefit of the doubt having seen some patent filings that are very generic; unfortunately, the whole subject of IP law seems to have become at least as much about hobbling the competition as it is about encouraging innovation.

Just something to think about:
Germany did experience a cultural explosion over the time where it had no copyright.