Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey In Apple Patent Case

suraj.sun and several other readers sent word that Samsung is using a clip from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey as an example of prior art in its defense against Apple's patent infringement claims. "In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. ... As with the design claimed by the D'889 Patent, the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table's surface), and a thin form factor." Samsung also supplied a clip from 1970s British TV series The Tomorrow People.

Comments

This is why!

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents should only cover technical innovations.

Trademarks should cover design, and with much more specificity. BRANDING people.

Re:This is why!

[conspirator57]

and this is also why we'll never see flying cars. Damn the practicalities, no company could establish a respectable monopoly through patent lawfare.

Re:This is why!

[bl4nk]

Coca Cola's color of red is trademarked. How much more general do you want to get for "design"?

Re:This is why!

[SimonTheSoundMan]

You should have written that as:

Samsung: "I'm sorry Steve, I'm afraid I can't let you do that".
Steve: "What's the problem?"
Samsung: "I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do."
Steve: "What are you talking about?"
Samsung: "Your patent claim is null and void"
Steve: "Where the hell did you get that idea,"
Samsung: "See youtube video"

Re:This is why!

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it was the whole Z-axis thing. People can barely handle X Y.

Re:This is why!

[optimism]

Trademarking the shape of a 12oz can of soda would be a helluva lot more generic. Of course they couldn't do that for practical reasons.

Trademarking a specific color on soft-drink cans, I can totally understand. And it's only soft-drinks. Which explains why Coke never goes after Tecate for selling a red can of beer. :)

In any case I imagine it is almost impossible to trademark the color black.

Re:This is why!

[Kreigaffe]

Firstly, that's a TRADEMARK, not a PATENT.
Secondly, it's a specific shade of red.
Thirdly, they also have a trademark on the coca cola bottle shape -- their glass bottles had a distinct, and unique, shape.
Fourthy, that, too was also simply a trademark, and not a patent.

Most importantly, and fifthly, and finally,

THIS IS A PATENT ON A RECTANGLE. That's the design of a pad of paper. It's an LCD monitor you can touch, with all processing integral to the thing. There is not a single fucking thing novel or inventive about any of this. You can't patent a goddamned rectangle. That's ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA

link absolutely fucking relevant.

Re:This is why!

[martinX]

Cadbury trademarked the colour purple.

From IP Australia (Government website)

In 1998 Cadbury applied to register purple packaging as a trade mark. Registration would give the chocolate manufacturer the exclusive right to use purple packaging on chocolate and it could take infringement action against other traders using purple in the same or similar fashion. For its application to be accepted by IP Australia, Cadbury had to show that consumers recognised chocolate in purple packaging as being a Cadbury product. This took some time and it was not until 2003 that the application was accepted. Other traders were then given the opportunity to object to it being registered.

And you know what - they're right. Chocolates in a purple box - the exact purple Cadbury uses - makes me think it is Cadbury and if I'm in the mood for choccies, I'm drawn to those products as I think they are what I want. Then it turns out they're some generic stuff cleverly packaged.

Re:This is why!

[drew30319]

The color red is not trademarked by Coke (although the bottle shape is).

However, in 1995 in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., SCOTUS held, "sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark [as long as] "in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature [...] is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself."

Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1577.ZS.html

Re:This is why!

[Datamonstar]

Someone should go after Tecate. Not for the can, but the the piss that's been put inside it.

Re:This is why!

[CajunArson]

This is why we don't see ground cars with four rubber wheels! Damn the practicalities, no company could establish a respectable monopoly through patent lawfare.

Re:This is why!

[sootman]

Tiffany & Co. has trademarked a certain shade of blue.

The Tiffany Blue color is protected as a color trademark by Tiffany & Co. in some jurisdictions including the U.S.
 
The color is produced as a private custom color by Pantone, with PMS number 1837, the number deriving from the year of Tiffany's foundation. As a trademarked color, it is not publicly available and is not printed in the Pantone Matching System swatch books.

But BP didn't get to trademark their green (at least in Australia.)

27 September, 2007 - The High Court rejected the petrol giant BP Green's 16-year battle to register its distinctive green — known as Pantone 348C — as a trademark. Companies that have successfully registered a colour include;

• Commonwealth Bank of Australia for its trademark yellow and black;
• Kraft for the silver on its cheese packaging; and
• Tiffany & Co for the distinctive blue on its jewellery boxes.

But the three High Court judges were not convinced that BP should have a monopoly over the BP shade of green.

Re:This is why!

[conspirator57]

i don't know if you were aware, but patent law has changed substantially for the worse in the last decade or two. since ground cars with four rubber wheels predates the current era of wealth extraction by crony capitalism, i think your strawman is pretty obvious.

Re:This is why!

[MBGMorden]

Flying cars were invented over 100 years ago. They called them airplanes. People just keep foolishly ignoring them because they have wings and need some takeoff room. It would be about as senseless as if the people who once called cars themselves "horseless carriages" insisted that these contraptions weren't horseless carriages because you needed to keep filling them with gasoline.

Work within the limitations of the solution. Flying cars exist - most people just aren't capable of piloting them.

Re:This is why!

[MBGMorden]

Dr Pepper is a distinctly different shade of red, as is Cheerwine (another red soda). It's likely the specific shade that is trademarked.

Re:This is why!

[Runaway1956]

The patent system was broken a lot further back than a couple decades. As far back as the late '60's and '70's, the automotive industry was buying up patents, primarily to prevent competing innovations ever making it to market.

I heard stories about that, as a youngster. I really didn't put much stock in them, until I met my first wife's uncle. The old man had patented some modification to carburetors, which drastically increased fuel mileage. A typical Chevrolet Impala with a 350 engine could be coaxed into going 16, 20, maybe 24 miles per gallon. In a rare instance or two, the old man got around 30 mpg.

He sold that patent to General Motors, and his idea was basically lost.

I drove one of the cars he modified. It didn't have a lot of power, but it did get a little over 20 mpg.

My point is - the day the first patent was bought up by a competitor, for the sake of burying the technology, is the day that the patent system broke. Someone, somewhere, should have made note of that fact, and initiated changes to the law. Burying and/or monopolizing technology cannot be good for any society, culture, or civilization.

Re:This is why!

[MBGMorden]

Uh, I think most people take "flying car" to mean something you can use as a car, but also flies.

You're missing my point. It doesn't matter what most people "take it to mean". Inventions work within the limits of the real world - not fantasy. A flying personal transportation device has already been invented. It merely isn't as easy to "drive" as most people would like, but that's REALITY. Flying isn't a simple matter. If you want to do it, then by all means - do it. Private pilots licenses aren't all that expensive to attain (I think I spent around $5000 from start to finish on mine, but that was spread out here and there on lessons for just over a year). Just because it's hard doesn't mean that the solution hasn't been delivered.

Re:This is why!

[king neckbeard]

I think most airplanes would be closer to flying buses. Also, the colloquial use of the term "flying car" has a more specific use than anything car-like that flies, as well as being a metonymy for a technological utopia.

Re:This is why!

[Pete Venkman]

You're right--everyone else's brand of piss is so much better. Flavor is a distant second to price in beer choice.

Re:This is why!

[FrankSchwab]

So, in the midst of the "more power is more better" era of automotive sales, your uncle-in-law invents a carburetor modification that sucks the power out of a V8 but increases the gas mileage a little bit (the '64 Oldsmobile with the 394 CID engine that I drove in high school got around 14/17, well at least when I kept my foot out of it), and you wonder why it never saw the light of day? Perhaps leaning out the mixture didn't work well when emissions controls were first coming on line. Sorry, you'll need a better story.

Re:This is why!

[dgatwood]

A flying car must, by definition, be A. flying, and B. a car. Try to drive one of those airplanes on the highway, and you'll quickly discover why airplanes are not flying cars. Flying machines, sure, but not flying cars.

A helicopter is a lot closer to a flying car than any airplane, or at least it behaves a lot more like a car in that it can sit still without falling from the sky, requires a relatively small landing area, etc.

Re:This is why!

[Miseph]

Most commercial airplanes, maybe. There are a huge number of 2 to 6 passenger airplanes out there, and they keep making more. I would like to see your explanation of how a Piper Cherokee is more like a bus than a subcompact.

Re:This is why!

[Mr. Slippery]

A flying personal transportation device has already been invented.

A flying personal transportation device is one that can take off and land in front of my house, not one that I have to drive my ground vehicle to the airport in order to use. Airplanes are not flying cars until having one in my driveway is an option. (If it takes $5000 in lessons as part of the cost of that option, fine.)

Re:This is why!

[Macgrrl]

The also took Darryl Lea to court over trademark violation a few years back when Darryl Lea started selling chocolate in packaging a little too similar in colour to Cadburys.

Re:This is why!

[Runaway1956]

You're missing the point. The point is - IT IS WRONG to bury technology.

Had Uncle marketed his product on his own, and he only ever sold 5000 units of product, and ultimately went bankrupt, then your observation/statement would make sense. But, then, his patent would eventually expire, and some other guy with better business sense could give it a go. Or, some other guy could have just licensed the patent from Uncle, and tried to market the same or a modified product.

Instead - GM buried the technology in their archives, and it's basically lost technology.

It's wrong.

Re:This is why!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing my point. It doesn't matter what most people "take it to mean".

Of course it matters, because there's no "official" definition of what makes a "flying car," and common sense points to it being a car, not a plane.

Oh, and your point is not clever or insightful - it's just bone-headed pedantry, so kindly stuff it and we can all stop rolling our eyes at you.

Re:This is why!

[Dragonslicer]

This is a design patent (or the equivalent in Europe), which is not the same thing as a utility patent. Design patents are more like trademarks than they are like utility patents.

Re:This is why!

[amicusNYCL]

Flying cars will only be a reality if they're autonomous.

Re:This is why!

[dotfile]

There's a reason we won't see flying cars, and it doesn't have anything to do with patents. You need a pilot's license to fly. To get a pilot's license, you need to be trained, and learn, and study. It's expensive, and it's a lot of work -- that will (and does) eliminate most of the population's even wanting to get one right there. And once you have the requisite knowledge and training to get a pilot's license, no sane individual would want to come anywhere near a city full of idiots with flying cars. Driving is bad enough, but when they're coming at you from ALL sides? No thanks.

Re:This is why!

[PCM2]

Trademarking the shape of a 12oz can of soda would be a helluva lot more generic. Of course they couldn't do that for practical reasons.

But you're wrong. I worked at a packaging design firm in the 1990s, and Coca-Cola most definitely was working on a trademarked shape for its 12oz cans. The idea was that it would have the same "woman's curves" shape as their (trademarked) bottles. I saw a few prototypes but I never saw one in production, I expect for practical reasons (thought maybe different reasons than you were thinking) -- it's hard to make a can that's a different shape than every other can on the market, but holds the same amount of liquid, in a volume that won't mess up anyone's commercial shelving designs.

Re:This is why!

[narcc]

You can't buy a patent to bury the technology. See, patents work on an exchange: The public gives you a temporary monopoly on your invention and we get to know how it works (full disclosure).

Your uncles patent isn't lost in some archive, it's in a searchable database: http://www.uspto.gov/

Re:This is why!

[Hognoxious]

His ass is a searchable database?

Re:This is why!

[Meeni]

I understand your irony, but you have very badly selected your example. have a look at the history of Michelin.

Re:This is why!

[sumdumass]

Sshshhhh! Don't burst this guys bubble. I have heard variations of this story since the oil embargo of the late 1970's when gas shot to 4 dollars a gallon.

He changes a few things around, it was his uncle, and not secrete nazi documents recovered from World War II detailing how Hitler got 100 MPG using a special carb for their armored personnel carriers and ford stashed them in a warehouse to be destroyed. Or (insert whatever name you want) university professor who discovered how to get 50-80 miles a gallon with a (insert meaningless name here) ventrical modification that could be applied to any carb on any motor that Standard oil purchased for millions to bury which is why no one who ever looked for this professor could even find a record of him. He's in the Bahamas drinking daiquiris or something. Then there is my favorite version, the one where some uneducated back yard mechanic figured out something that no one else at the time could, filed a patent, then disappeared off the face of the earth along with the patent application and all his test motors.

That last one is my favorite because growing up, we had a neighbor who moved away in the middle of the night and my brother told me it was because he create a 100 MPG carb and GM came and took him away. Turned out that he had lost his job, borrowed some money from the wrong people, and was afraid of them finding him. OR so his kid said when I ran into him in another town about 15 years later.

Re:This is why!

[he-sk]

NASA has developed a software for that. It scans the surrounding area for nearby objects and projects a rectangular box with your car/plane in the middle. As long as you stay inside that box you're safe.

Thinking about it, I wonder why they don't just rely on an autopilot. It's probably psychological.

Re:This is why!

[sosume]

Just wait. In twenty years time, everything possible will have been patented and these patents will then expire, and there will be a boom in innovation starting 2030.

Re:This is why!

[Zenin]

Yours has a Y?!?!

Re:This is why!

[Genda]

Actually nowadays, you don't even need that much space. I saw a STOL plane that had a stall speed of 26 MPH, and could take off in still air in just under 85 feet. He could literally take off inside the length of a 747. The TV segment showed him flying around the Central Coast of California, and in a moderate head wind he could virtually land the plane vertically. He floated over the coast doing lazy 8s (super lazy 8s), then brought it down and flew at about 15 feet over hills and meadows. At 26 MPH, its pretty hard to have a fatal accident. A cow looked up at him with a very puzzled look as it chewed grass. The cool part is that it also had the top cruising speed for an over wing craft at the time, so this plane could get you there slow or fast.

In fact if you live a decent distance from air traffic, and have a couple hundred feet of take off and landing space, and need to drive to town every day, this plane would make a fine commuter vehicle.

I think when most people think about flying cars they want something that will support VTOL or at least STOL. They want the car to be autonomous, with manual override and redundant safety feature like the Moller big safety parachute. They want to get there way fast, be able to fly at any reasonable altitude, and they want it to get decent fuel economy. The only way to prevent stupid people from crashing the vehicle is to give it a better brain than the passenger (a mouse brain should do... really.) Then tie all vehicles in congested fly ways to server controlled flight networks that manage traffic like any other network. Only now your the packet :-)

Re:This is why!

[Vectormatic]

Not to me it's not

I will flat out refuse to drik heineken/amstel if that is all they have, even if its free. In terms of normal beer all i drink is jupiler and grolsch, with the occasional exception if i really want a beer and nothing else is available.

Re:This is why!

[m50d]

In WW2 we sent pilots up into combat with fewer hours of training than your typical teenager gets driving lessons. Flying is in many ways easier than driving, there's a lot less to hit up there.

Re:This is why!

[cyclomedia]

You've clearly never heard of the Helicopter

Re:This is why!

[_Shad0w_]

There are several of those around, including the Waterman Aerobile - the wings and the tail prop come off and can trailed behind the main vehicle on the road.

Re:This is why!

[Genda]

Clearly you have not read about this topic. Flying cars like non flying cars would have to be simple enough for a teenager to learn how to operate. It would have to be part of a distributed network that wrested control from the would be pilot in congested air space, stacking it like a packet in a network designed to ensure that the car got to its pre-specified destination without delay or collision. A city of flying cars would be beyond the capacity of human management or human piloting. Future cars on the ground will utilize similar technology, and jams and collisions will be a thing of the past.

This won't be an issue for early adopters, because there will be few others in the air (relatively speaking) to interfere with the full pleasure of going wherever you want (with the obvious exception of controlled/restricted air space.) I think the first car adopters must have loved getting away to wild places in their horseless carriages, until everyone had one and we all spent out time in jams waiting for traffic to move. It will take time and billions of dollars to build the necessary infrastructure for such a system. The real question is whether or not America has the steam left to take on a venture of national magnitude. We've spent the last 3 decades letting our nations infrastructure crumble, highways, bridges, railroads, and air traffic control systems are all on the verge of collapse, it seems unlikely that we'll suddenly get the gumption to build a national flying car network. At least not until we get the rest of our stuff together.

Re:This is why!

[MichaelSmith]

Of course WW2 pilots weren't all expected to land...

Re:This is why!

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah I have flown hang gliders and sailplanes. I can imagine building something like that for commuting, except for a couple of things. When you have to travel at a specified time it is hard to avoid IFR conditions; and recreational vehicles are not engineered for day to day use. My commuting bicycle has done 20000km and it is falling to bits.

Re:This is why!

[mickwd]

Sounds like yet another (pretty poor) attempt to tell this old chestnut again:

Miracle Carburetor

Re:This is why!

[oobayly]

The simple solution is not to drink mass produced lagers - best described as like making love in a canoe - fucking close to water. Seriously, how much taste can you get out of fizzy water with malted barley, especially when people insist on serving it at 2-5C.

Saying that, there are some absolutely superb European lagers, but you tend to have to go searching for them. Whenever I'm in Germany, I always come back with a crate of proper pilsner. Same when I'm in the Lake District in Northern England, they do some fantastic ales & porters up there.

Re:This is why!

[vegiVamp]

Yes and no - you're right that people are crappy enough at 2D driving without having to worry about Z; but there's a lot of work going into automatic cars - some brands already have almost fully automatic prototypes - and the expansion of that into 3D will nicely circumvent that problem.

Re:This is why!

[TFAFalcon]

The problems come one you have more then a tiny number of people in the air. Suddenly it's not just that there are things to hit up there, they are moving in erratic patterns.

Also pilots weren't expected to fly inside cities.

Re:This is why!

[The Creator]

BRANDING people.

Don't give Steve Jobs any ideas..

Re:This is why!

[macson_g]

You obviously haven't seen Michael Bay's 'Pearl Harbor'

Re:This is why!

[Hognoxious]

there's no "official" definition of what makes a "flying car," and common sense points to it being a car, not a plane.

there's no "official" definition of what makes a "horseless carriage," and common sense points to it being a carriage, not a car.

Re:This is why!

[Hognoxious]

My commuting bicycle has done 20000km and it is falling to bits.

I think if I'd ridden that far it would be my legs that'd need replacing.

Re:This is why!

[Andrewkov]

Plus Dr. Pepper is older than coke.

Re:This is why!

[Hognoxious]

You could make the 33cl "hourglass" fit within the envelope of a standard cylindrical 50.

Though I think the real problem is it'd be impossible to stamp the body in one piece.

Re:This is why!

[Hognoxious]

Darryl Lea? I thought they made cheese.

Re:This is why!

[delinear]

Yeah, I've heard this before too. Seems like a variation on this story.

Re:This is why!

[MichaelSmith]

My commuting bicycle has done 20000km and it is falling to bits.

I think if I'd ridden that far it would be my legs that'd need replacing.

I know a guy who replaced his touring bike at 50k. He had cycled around the world, across all the continents.

Re:This is why!

[delinear]

And yet plenty of people obtain pilot licenses every year, even when they have no intention of using them commercially. You could also argue that nobody would want to be in a car driving amongst idiots in charge of extremely heavy, powerful machines at speeds approaching 100MPH, but again millions of people do exactly this every day. If you could create a car that looked like and could be used as a car that also flew (not some gawky airplane with the ability to fold its wings so it can pootle about at 30MPH), you could bet your life there'd be a market, even if they were ridiculously expensive and ended up as the playthings of millionaires, that's still as valid a market as there is for supercars. The reason we don't have flying cars is nothing to do with the potential customers and everything to do with how hard it is technologically.

Re:This is why!

[lxs]

Ah! You want drones to transport the drones.
Brilliant!

Re:This is why!

[MonsterTrimble]

Not for me - I prefer to drink the locally brewed and smaller brewers beer. It just tastes better in my opinion.

But no matter what you can't turn down free beer.

Re:This is why!

[FireFury03]

NASA has developed a software for that. It scans the surrounding area for nearby objects and projects a rectangular box with your car/plane in the middle. As long as you stay inside that box you're safe.

Apple would probably sue them for that...

Re:This is why!

[AdamThor]

Flying cars will only be a reality if they're autonomous.

Yes! No user input during flight. The entire flightpath should be calculated and vetted before takeoff. And in fact one could provide the specific impulse during launch and make the greater part of the flight a glide path, offloading engines and keeping the actual transport craft to a minimum. Oh, gleaming future! Transportation via catapult, here we come!

Re:This is why!

[Nadaka]

Don't forget about the story of a guy who invented the engine that runs on water and got run over by an Exxon truck on his way to the patent office.

Re:This is why!

[Lord Lode]

It'll be impossible to patent everything, since patenting will be patented!

Re:This is why!

[gknoy]

The difference is, he claimed that his uncle patented something with a semi-reasonable fuel savings -- 20 mpg, not 100 or 200, is more believable. Still might be a hoax, but then I know people (like my uncles and grandfather) were doing seemingly-weird stuff with water injection and other stuff to increase mileage at the expense of power back then, so it's not terribly surprising that someone may have gone so far as to patent something.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

no, Flying cars will only be a reality after we change the laws of physics.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

No they haven't gotten worse. sheesh.

Do I seriously need to list all the innovation in the last 20 years?

"current era of wealth extraction by crony capitalism,"
HAHAHAHAHAHahahaha. The automobile was crated during a much larger era of wealth extraction by crony capitalism.

Swap hos car analogy with smart phones.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

"It didn't have a lot of power, but it did get a little over 20 mpg."
and TAHTS wy it failed. Not enugh power, and in thate ra cars where about power, not fuel effincy.

It's in the automotive BEST INTEREST to get more gas mileage, but not a the expense of other consumer demands, like power.

Now, of course, times ahve changed.

OTOH, if I had a dollar every time time I heard a story about someone who knew someone who created a better carburetor only to be stifled by the car industry for no reason I would have..about 200 bucks.

The nature of the patent system makes what you are claim nearly impossible for most thing, because you only need a small change to get a patent on an existing item.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

IT's lost because it didn't make any sense for them to use at the time, assuming it ever even existed.

Assuming it's true, a far more likely scenerio is that GM couldn't make it work in a way to meet cstomer demand, or mass produce it.

Think about it:
That want o slightly increase the fuel mileage and save people a dollar, at the expensive of power. It wasn't sellable.
If it was, GM would have sold it because they make money from selling things. If they could have said 'it has all the power, and saves fuel, that would have been different." Or maybe it require hand machining, which would have made it too expensive.

No, you just believe GM buried something they could make money with for no reason what-so-ever. They owned the patent. That means ford couldn't have also competed with it.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

we people, especially nerds, talk about flying cars this is what they are talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24bRtzwK4rY

Just so we're clear.

WARNING, the music sucks.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

I cans top a subcompact and get out at any time, I can't to that with a bus..or a piper cub.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

No it's not.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

That explains why Budweiser is the number one beer sold in the world.

There is a place for heavier and lighter beers.
IN 100 degree temperature and doing something physical, an ice cold bud is far more enjoyable then a stout.

Re:This is why!

[geekoid]

You might want to mention that Darrell Lea won.

Re:This is why!

[Yamioni]

By gum you're right! All the cars I see have some sort of metaloid wheels, with rubber tires wrapped around them. There must be a conspiracy by the metal industry to monopolize the wheel market! They just make it look like a non-monoply by setting up nemerous shell companies. Yeah, that must be it!

Re:This is why!

[optimism]

Of course they couldn't do that for practical reasons.

I saw a few prototypes but I never saw one in production, I expect for practical reasons

Right. Exactly what I said. Thanks for adding zero value.

Re:This is why!

[no1home]

They're getting better though. They can handle K Y easily enough now, so it's just a little farther down the alphabet.

Re:This is why!

[ZombieBraintrust]

My definition is: 1. A practicle replacement for the car. 2. Is an improvement over the car because it flies from location to location.

This fits with the horseless carriages term. A horseless carriage is: 1. A practicle replacement for the horse and buggy. 2) An improvement over the horse in buggy because it does not use a horse.

Re:This is why!

[ZombieBraintrust]

That wouldn't be a flying car. That would be flying public transportation. A replacement for a car needs to give the user freedom to go where they want without handing over control.

Re:This is why!

[Targon]

Since we don't have a full grasp of the laws of physics, all that is needed is discovery. There are far too many people who assume things based on current knowledge and understanding of physics, which in 100 years may very well seem primitive.

Re:This is why!

[St.Creed]

You can't patent a goddamned rectangle. That's ridiculous.

The judge in The Netherlands ruled today that you're basically correct. Patents that were at issue were the use of an image to unlock the phone and the way in which you scroll through your pictures in the gallery as well as something that has to do with multi-touch. Only the scrolling patent has been upheld, with everything else (model rights, trademarks, copyright, imitation and the other 2 patents at issue) Samsung has been ruled to be non-infringing.

However, this still means an end to sales as per October 15th unless they can repair the photo gallery before that time and get a new ruling. Which I'm pretty sure they'll do.

Ofcourse everything in this judgement can be appealed in another (longer) procedure by both sides.

The ruling is over here (in Dutch, you may want to use Google Translate): http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/Den-Haag/Nieuws/Pages/VoorzieningenrechterverbiedtdeverhandelingvanSamsungsmartphonesGalaxyS,SIIenAce.aspx

Re:This is why!

[Lillebo]

Isnt Y usually the vertical axis?

Re:This is why!

[Kreigaffe]

yay! i love being proven right. i mean, it happens a lot, but, still. >:D

from my forums i'm gathering that they think this is actually great, because none of them liked Apple's method for scrolling through pictures anyway and were kinda miffed that Samsung stole it in the first place, haha.

I hadn't actually heard that Apple's multitouch patent was thrown out?? That sent a shiver down my spine. I'm off to investigate, but if it's the one I'm thinking of.. this is a big fucking deal said joe biden. I know they had one on the use of heuristics to accomplish multi-touch.. and that it was complete bullshit.. but I only remember grumbling loudly about it, but not the details.

it's pretty bad when i cant even remember why i'm pissed off at any particular example of patent law abuse... sigh.

I'm typically not a fan of European law, but what the hell is it with the Dutch that keeps them constantly popping up as the only sane Continentals? I suppose that's unfair to the more Nordic nations... but maybe that's the connection, haha. Only Viking nations have sane law..

Re:This is why!

[kmoser]

If it's spelled with a capital "F" you'll have to change the laws of English before you change the laws of physics.

Re:This is why!

[dgatwood]

Early horseless carriages were quite literally horseless carriages in every way. They looked like a carriage, they drove on the same roads as a carriage, etc. About the only differences were the lack of hardware to attach to a horse, which is kind of expected given that they were horseless, and different controls for driving the things.

I would therefore similarly expect a flying car to be a flying car, with the same functionality as a car, but with different controls and the ability to fly.

Re:This is why!

[ZombieBraintrust]

Sure but I think replacing the old version is important. Futurist were predicting that the flying car would replace the car. The helicopter hasn't done that yet. It is too expensive to replace cars with. The machines are expensive to create and maintain. The fuel cost for flying them is too expensive.

Re:This is why!

[Miseph]

Of course you can, but stopping it and getting out *without dying or destroying the vehicle* just takes a bit more time. Besides, just because you could stop and get out in the middle of the highway doesn't mean doing so is worthwhile or entirely safe; you'd still be too far away from anything, and being within spitting distance of large metal objects traveling at high speed and often controlled by individuals who probably have no business operating such a device might be less dangerous thanj a free fall from several thousand feet, but it is certainly less fun.

Re:This is why!

[Beat The Odds]

Patents should only cover technical innovations.

Trademarks should cover design, and with much more specificity. BRANDING people.

Personally, I think that branding people is going a little too far...

I'm sorry, Dave...

[conspirator57]

I can't allow your patent suit to proceed.

Re:I'm sorry, Dave...

[MatthiasF]

Jobs: Open the fanboy doors, Hal.

Re:I'm sorry, Dave...

[crafty.munchkin]

Thanks for that, my monitor really needed my morning coffee all over it!!!

Re:I'm sorry, Dave...

[bennomatic]

That was hilarious.

Re:I'm sorry, Dave...

[Evil Pete]

If only multiple mod points were possible ... Hilarious.

The patent in question; D504,889

[eparker05]

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Let's see, Apple's patent contains no more substance than the movie; it is just a bunch of pictures of a hypothetical device (it doesn't even look much like the current iPad). It is so generic that there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left.

So Apple will definitely win.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[whiteboy86]

>> So Apple will definitely win.

Really? According to the claimed "ornamental desing" by Apple, this Kubrik's device is closer to the patent design due to slimmer bezel, the Apple'e own iPad has a huge thick bezel, very unlike the pictured one in the patent design. And what they claim is just and only the shape of the device, any fuctionality is not even mentioned.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[optimism]

There's the irony. The best functional device designs are minimal, generic, faceless, fading into the background so you can just perform the functions.

Apple should be highly praised for adhering to that design philosophy with the iphone and ipad.

But there's no way in hell that they can claim ownership over what is the end goal for ~all~ functional design.

I'm sure they know this, and this legal wrangling has more to do with the dynamics of a powerful producer and their critical supplier than anything else. Heck, it could even be a negotiating tactic for Apple to lower the purchase price of Samsung. Can you imagine that merger?

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[NemoinSpace]

if they have any sanity left.

You had a damn fine argument up to that point!

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[kermidge]

Thanks for that link. I clicked. I read.

Jesus wept, they're handing out patents for childish crap like that?

[I really shoulda patented that noise-cancelling tech I had on paper back in '72; it had real detail - circuits, formulae, and some engineering detail. Ah, well.]

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[slack_justyb]

No this legal wrangling has only one point. To place an injunction on the Samsung device wherever a court will let it stick. Patents are used to scare, court battles are just there to draw it all out. Apple will loose, they know that, they're just buying time until the iPad^3GPSTOPBBQ.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Majkow]

good thing they pointed out in fig 9 that the dotted male humoid type person isn't part of the actual patent. otherwise things could have been confusing.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Osgeld]

samsung != google

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[greg1104]

And if the computer in charge decides you can't run a program, you can't override that and run it yourself anyway. "2001" is also prior art for Apple's walled garden approach to iPad security.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[eparker05]

Thank goodness that they pointed that out, otherwise Apple could sue to prevent Samsung lawyers from actually coming to court, given that they would be infringing on Apple's patent on the human form. Realistically though, Apple would just need to collect licencing fees from all new mothers.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Chrisq]

Thank goodness that they pointed that out, otherwise Apple could sue to prevent Samsung lawyers from actually coming to court, given that they would be infringing on Apple's patent on the human form. Realistically though, Apple would just need to collect licencing fees from all new mothers.

But being apple they're on;y interested in the male form.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Genda]

SamsungAndroidGoogle... less a question of equality and more a question of whose inside whom???

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Genda]

Indeed, we'd all have to start breeding with household appliances to avoid being owned by Apple!

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Genda]

It would have been too late, my friends patented a noise canceling headset for use in small planes the year before. But nice try :-) You may notice that all the cool noise cancelling stuff has really exploded over the last 10 years since the patent has expired.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[kermidge]

Yes, and I'm glad of it. I noted circa '91 that three companies making that stuff were, within two years of startup, taking in a combined billion bucks.... How'd your friends make out?

Have you noticed than there seems to be a point in time when something is ready to be made and it's done nigh simultaneously in several places? In history, airplane, internal combustion engine, telephone, etc.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Dr Max]

Don't forget the ifanatics that think apple should be given a monopoly over all mobile devices.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[delinear]

Thank goodness that they pointed that out, otherwise Apple could sue to prevent Samsung lawyers from actually coming to court, given that they would be infringing on Apple's patent on the human form.

Since when were lawyers considered an example of a human form? Humanoid, maybe...

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Huge_UID]

What is Apple loosing? The Kraken? If they do, Samsung will lose this fight.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[slack_justyb]

The title of being the inventor of the tablet as described by D504,889. Which doesn't mean much because it's a design patent. I'm sure they have a different drawing that shows a 16:9.75 ratio tablet they they will file, get a patent for, and then sue someone else (with less money) with. Or they may have the iPad3 with a glowing logo on the back design patent. They'll then say that the glowing icon is just part of the overall design and sue again with that.

Apple is using court battles as a delay tactic to stop competitors. The whole thing just sucks money that could have been used in a better manner so we are all losers in this. This is just basically going on to generate heat waste with money.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Osgeld]

please do, then maybe you wont look like a worthless troll spouting out buzzwords to insult others

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[nameer]

Note the 'D' in the front. That makes this a design patent, not a utility patent. Thus it is restricted to only the ornamental (not functional) aspects of the device. By its very nature, it cannot have substance.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[The Dawn Of Time]

Awwww, you're stuck in the loop of thinking anyone who doesn't defer to your opinions is a troll. How very Slashdot. You'll fit in here quite well.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[optimism]

No this legal wrangling has only one point. To place an injunction on the Samsung device wherever a court will let it stick

That's what they already did. But I think you're missing the forest for the trees. This is just one small piece of a larger strategy.

When you think about it, Apple doesn't have to worry about "competing" tablets right now. The iPad already has HUGE advantages from ipod/iphone compatibility, the breadth & depth of the app store, the enormously profitable itunes store, and direct retail sales in Apple's own brick&mortar stores.

So why go after Samsung? Samsung supplies many of the most expensive components in the iPad, including the processor, LCD display, DRAM, and flash. Yes, Apple has other suppliers like LG, Toshiba,. and Chimei Innolux...but without Samsung they would never had made their production schedules for the last two iPads.

Seems to me that Samsung recognizes their critical role and is getting uppity, probably demanding higher component prices, and put a shot across Apple's bow by releasing their own tablet (which they don't really expect to win). Apple is responding in kind by using all tools at their disposal to slap Samsung down. Much of the outcome hinges on how quickly the other component suppliers could ramp up to replace Samsung for various parts of the iPad.

Now Apple dominates much of the compon

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[toriver]

They only exist in tour twisted mind.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[Dr Max]

Sometimes tour to close to the truth to see it mate.

What about Star Trek?

[bky1701]

Star Trek's PADDs are almost identical in operation to modern tablets, and across the different shows, came up in every possible kind of design imaginable.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[oodaloop]

That's because Steve Jobs was partially inspired by them.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Baloroth]

Yeah. They barely even bothered to change the name.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Steve Jobs was partially inspired by them.

Wrong - that's the other way around - Star Trek happens in the future

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Nethemas the Great]

I wonder why Samsung stopped at that movie. ST:TOS had them well before the 2001 A Space Odyssey came out. How the **** did this patent get approved and why isn't the judge laughing them out of the courtroom with punitive damages for wasting the court's time?

Re:What about Star Trek?

[NotQuiteReal]

And one should certainly rely on the fictional Star Trek(tm) universe for patent guidance...

Those series were prescient in their anticipation of frivolous patent abuse. Most notably by their stand not to use the "infringing technology" of "circuit breakers", as evidenced by every episode where the consoles exploded into showers of sparks, during a power-surge.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Tamran]

That's because Steve Jobs was partially inspired by them.

I think Steve Jobs was actually inspired by the Ferengi ... while Bill Gates was inspired by the Borg.

Or, both could be vice-verse.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Zontar The Mindless]

That's because Steve Jobs was partially inspired by them.

Wrong - that's the other way around - Star Trek happens in the future

Our future. Not necessarily Steve's.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Miseph]

And the various Linux companies were probably inspired by the Vulcan: all logic and reason with virtually no social skills, a propensity for being intellectually and ideologically blind-sided by those who do not share their perspective, and really dopey haircuts.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[amicusNYCL]

And one should certainly rely on the fictional Star Trek(tm) universe for patent guidance...

It's not the fictional universe that's important, it's the writer or writers who created it (who actually happen to be real people in a real universe, believe it or not). Apple is claiming that the 14 people listed on their patent have invented a vague design for a generic "electronic device", which is rectangular and thin with a screen on one side, and that they did so within the past decade. Obviously they couldn't have "invented" that if writers were envisioning the same thing 50 or 60 or 100 years ago. In fact, chances are they were thinking of those fictional products during the concept phase. "Hey guys, remember that thing from Star Trek... I just invented that!"

Re:What about Star Trek?

[bky1701]

"And one should certainly rely on the fictional Star Trek(tm) universe for patent guidance... "

You can't have "invented" something if it was in a science fiction TV show decades before your company existed. Unless Steve is actually from the future and used a time machine...

Re:What about Star Trek?

[RandomStr]

I'm just wondering when we'll start getting the pen/digitiser as well, the TOS version uses a Pen for input where the TNG version is button based, and possibly touch, though I cant remember seeing anyone using it that way in the show...

Though the "station", in TNG, are all 'touch screen', so I'd assume the PADD's are also capable...

But lets not forget the first non-fictional tablet was the IBM Thinkpad Slate, 1992...

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Oceanplexian]

You can't have "invented" something if it was in a science fiction TV show

Of course you can. Just because it's hypothesized in fiction doesn't mean it was invented. Just like early writers of science fiction didn't "invent" rockets. In this case there were slim tablets designs that came before the iPAD (Compaq TC1100). Regardless, while legally Apple has no standing, they certainly have a point. The mass-manufacturer of consumer tablet PCs only happened shortly after the iPad.

Coincidence? I think not.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[amicusNYCL]

Just like early writers of science fiction didn't "invent" rockets.

That's true. What is also true is that I should not be able to file a design patent in this century for a generic "rocket-propelled device" which is long, thin, has a cone at the top, and fins and a motor at the bottom. I shouldn't be able to file that because I did not invent that design.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[bky1701]

"Of course you can."

Not if you're claiming your invention is the fact the device looks like the aforementioned fictional device. Of course, design patents are unjustified to begin with, but it is even worse in that it is obvious Apple didn't originate the design.

"Coincidence? I think not."

Of course not. There is no such thing as a coincidence. Rather, the technology reached a level as to enable large-scale, affordable production. Apple just got on board at the right time. Your point? Oh, right, fanboism...

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Hognoxious]

A design patent covers decorative aspects of a functional object. The fins of a rocket are not decorative, nor is the aerodynamic shape; they're fundamental to how it works.

That's why you shouldn't be able to get a design patent on it.

By contrast, a bottle with straight sides would hold sugary liquid just as well as one that tapers in the middle; the taper is not inherent to its functionality. Hence there is a design patent for the classic coke bottle.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Plekto]

And what's interesting about that date is that it is only a year before the first Internet archives were started.

Apparently people at Apple and many other large companies are now hiring people who are too young to remember anything of the past, so they look it up. And if it didn't exist back in the early 90s, well, it must not have existed at all. So they try to patent crap that has obvious prior art and that was done by another company. (good example I know of is the attempted patent on chat rooms and so on like Facebook. The problem is, that it existed back in the early 80s and was designed by Digital. But since Digital was bought and passed around several times, only someone who used the technology would actually know about it or remember it. Because not one reference to it exists in any "Internet archive", which we all know is the only real source of information. Right? (sic for the impaired)

Why this is interesting is that both patents in question are actually part IBM's giant archive of patents. I think IBM might have something to say about this one.

Part of it is hubris and part of it is stupidity. Jobs is basically spewing smoke and B.S. at this point in an attempt to do anything that he can to hinder any competition. There's a real reason Apple kicked Jobs out the first time and why Wozniak to this day still won't deal with him.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[amicusNYCL]

The fins of a rocket are not decorative, nor is the aerodynamic shape; they're fundamental to how it works.

How did you infer that? Why can't it have an anti-gravity engine embedded directly in the middle of it, and can freely rotate and fly at any angle? The "smoke" coming out of the "motor" at the bottom is just for show.

I'm not patenting the functionality of it, I'm patenting how the thing looks. That's the same level of detail I see in Apple's patents. They called theirs an "electronic device", so mine is a "flying device". It's a flying device which has a cone at the top, and is long and thin, with "fins" and "motors" on the bottom. I'm going to patent that and then sue anyone who designs a rocket or missile from here on out, because I invented that design for a flying device.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[GrantRobertson]

Dick Tracy's TV wrist-watch was used as prior art in a patent case. Though any beginner's book on patents will tell you that you can't patent an "idea" people do it all the time. However, if that "idea" has prior art, even in fiction, it cannot be patented. However, the implementation of an idea is a separate matter. One can still patent how to make a TV so small that it could fit into a wrist-watch.

The problem arises when someone patents the "idea" of doing something by using a very vague patent and then someone comes along later and figures out how to actually implement that idea. The latter inventor is legally bound to license the first patent unless they can invalidate it. While prior-art seems to be the favored method of invalidating patents, it seems to me that the obviousness test should be used more often for these vague, "idea" patents. Who gives a crap whether there were ever any examples of a tablet computer in prior art. Everyone knows that has been an end goal for ages. A computer you can hold in your hand and do stuff with that is as flat as a magazine. Duh! That's not innovation. The innovation is in how you get it done.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[mfwitten]

Indeed. Despite Apple's hip image, Steve Jobs is actually quite square.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[phonewebcam]

Why does "Mass manufacturer" have any bearing? If I build one first, and prove it in public, that's prior art. Unless said mass producer as a consequence has enough money to buy whatever law it wants...

Re:What about Star Trek?

[arose]

Since Apple didn't add any decorative aspects...

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Xest]

I like how when Steve Jobs copies something he was "inspired by it" but if anyone else copies something from Apple they "stole it".

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Rogerborg]

Pathetic trolling attempt, and a risible comparison. Vulcans get laid every 7 years.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[bdwebb]

Even if Steve Jobs and the Samsung designer had been watching the same episode of Star Trek together, never said a word to one another about their secret invention from that day forward and happened to come out with something similar based upon their shared inspiration down the road, the claim would still be that it was stolen somehow from the hallowed vaults of Jobs' Supermind© and the lawsuit hammer would begin a poundin'. Older, more powerful companies these days only feel young and virile anymore when they shove the business equivalent of the new kid at school into the locker and beat the fuck out of him because he's wearing a shirt they just bought, too. Being a dick isn't going to bring the ladies back...just do what you do best and they may realize the older guy has more swagger in a Sean Connery type of way (pre-1990 Connery.) Stop hanging out in your muscle shirt next to your car all day and be smart about this shit...if you guys get together you can have all the ladies.

My other analogy is much darker and more realistic and involves what I have dubbed the "Infinite Rape Ladder of Modern Business". Essentially, only the strongest "fighters" are able to withstand the incessant raping long enough to take vengeance upon the rape overlord. The raping may cease for a time up at the top of the chain with the shifting of the rape throne but lo', as the uncomfortable seat of power slowly scrubs away any reminder of the terrible plundering and suspicion begins to set in, it is only a matter of time before the abused becomes the abuser and the endless cycle of rape begins anew.

I think that about sums up the nature of business these days.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[mr_gorkajuice]

This. Seriously, how the hell can you claim ownership of simplicity? "Our design patent is the complete lack of distinctive features, and we'll disregard any distinctive features added by any competitive implementation when comparing it against our design patent."

Re:What about Star Trek?

[EEPROMS]

I raise your 1980's Star Trek ipad for that shown in the 1970's english childrens show "The Tomorrow People"

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/02/07/apple_ipad_tomorrow_people/

Re:What about Star Trek?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Lack of perspective: -100 points.

Vulcans were inspired by science and computer geeks of the 60s.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[silentcoder]

Techdirt had an interview with the designers who created the PADD's for TNG - they stated that the PADDS were indeed meant to be touch-controlled, as were the wall-mounted computer displays.

In our age of wall-mountable flat-screens, using a touch-screen version on a computer would be incredible close to TNG's computer controls, the only missing piece is the quality of voice-input, something which those same TNG designers say they kept from the old show but wouldn't deem practical.
Indeed the main problem with voice input isn't technological - we had voice input systems in the 1990s already, it's practical. Shielding the input from outside conversation is hard, shielding the rest of the room from the person talking to his computer is impossible.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[silentcoder]

I decided to look up the link, it was arstechnica actually, not techdirt. Sorry.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/08/how-star-trek-artists-imagined-the-ipad-23-years-ago.ars

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Hognoxious]

How did you infer that? Why can't it have an anti-gravity engine embedded directly in the middle of it

There's no such thing as an anti-gravity engine, that's how.

and can freely rotate and fly at any angle?

With your proposed magic engine I guess it could, but it'd still fly better within an atmosphere with the point in front. That's aerodynamics, see?

I'm not patenting the functionality of it, I'm patenting how the thing looks.

You don't understand what a design patent is, do you?

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Hognoxious]

Of course, design patents are unjustified to begin with

Double of course, no they aren't.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Hognoxious]

You're correct in what you say, but you seem to be missing the point that this is a design patent. It's about the look.

Apple are saying "Yours looks like ours!" and Goosamglung are saying "Well yours looks like Captain Kirk's".

Re:What about Star Trek?

[delinear]

It's a design patent. Star Trek was a fictional show but the designs were real, they were all designed by someone and they all pre-date the patent. You wouldn't use Star Trek as a reason to prevent a patent on a real life replicator or warp drive, but the designs on the show can definitely stand as prior art to the patents on designs for tech gear.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[jamiesan]

Live linux and prosper.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[SleazyRidr]

Recursion FTW!

Re:What about Star Trek?

[prefec2]

Come on they added an "I" to symbolize their egocentric behavior.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[amicusNYCL]

There's no such thing as an anti-gravity engine, that's how.

How do you know that, Mr. Patent Examiner? 60 years ago there was no such thing as a touchscreen. Moreover, I don't see how that even factors into the patent. Let me check the Apple patent again.

Let's see.. it's a United States Design Patent from 2005. It covers an "electronic device", and has 14 inventors who have invented the groundbreaking new design for this device, which is electronic (and also looks a lot like my phone, which incidentally Apple didn't design). It's assigned to Apple Computer, Inc., of California, for a term of 14 years. It has an application number and filing date. There are a couple reference numbers, a field of search, references cited by the examiner, other publications, and, ah, here we go, the claim:

"We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."

OK, vague enough that we're still in the bounds of my fictional anti-gravity "rocket". After that, just a list of illustrations. I'm not seeing a single place where it lists any of the functionality of the device. They don't say whether it's powered by a hamster on a wheel, or a thermonuclear battery. They don't say whether the touchscreen is capacitive, or whether it sends out a magnetic field and just detects the presence of your finger in that field from several inches away (in fact, other than the illustration of the guy kind of pointing at it, there's no indication it's a touchscreen at all). They don't say whether you have to plug it in to charge it, or whether you can just leave it out in the sun. So why does it matter what kind of engine my fake rocket uses?

You don't understand what a design patent is, do you?

I know it's not a utility patent, so it doesn't have anything to do with how my rocket works, just how it looks.

With your proposed magic engine I guess it could, but it'd still fly better within an atmosphere with the point in front. That's aerodynamics, see?

*scoff* clearly you understand nothing about anti-gravity technology. While encased in the anti-gravity bubble, there is no air resistance to deal with. The bubble doesn't move through the air, it moves the air around it. There is no disturbance after it passes, all of the air molecules are just the same as before it passed. Aerodynamics are so 20th century. My cone and fins are purely ornamental. Just approve the patent and get on with your day, thanks. It's what everyone else does anyway.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[VIPERsssss]

Social skills relative to who? Humans or Vulcans?
I submit that their social skills were just fine on Vulcan or there would be no Vulcans.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[HiThere]

For design patents, definitely. In fact for design patents movies should present a stronger case than an actual existing product, because more people have been exposed to the design.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Tamran]

I like how when Steve Jobs copies something he was "inspired by it" but if anyone else copies something from Apple they "stole it".

Wise man once said:

"Good artists copy, great artists steal"
        - Steve Jobs

StarTrek TNG

[avxo]

TNG certainly showcased a tablet like device (the "PADD") in most of the shows.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, but the PADDs were separate for each document or sets of documents. There are scenes where people will have a pile of PADDs on their desks. So that seems to be a bit different technology. (And yes, this does show that our technology has surpassed that of Star Trek. Yes, we live in the future, and yes, that's awesome.)

Re:StarTrek TNG

[sjames]

Evidently, they don't have to be, and they are tied to the ship's computer. That's how Beverly's play became Data's "Ode to Spot" in one episode. I guess once you can trivially replicate more, it's more efficient to use several at once at your desk.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[pjabardo]

The most interesting aspect of this link is the difference between earth/federation PADDs and alien PADDs. Every earth/federation PADD has the same basic design, which is surprisingly similar to the iPad design. On the other hand, alien PADDs have all sorts of weird shapes.

What does this mean? The rectangular PADD with rounded edges are something very basic in earth design. Anything different is too weird (or not very practical...). If you want alien design, the first thing you need is to remove the rectangular shape!

Re:StarTrek TNG

[JoshuaZ]

There are scenes where people physically hand someone else a PADD (although I'm not actually sure I remember if there are such scenes in TNG. There are certainly are in TOS, and there's a scene in DS9 where they go back in time to TOS and that episode has a bit where Sisko gets an excuse to hand a pad to Kirk because he wants an excuse to meet Kirk.)

Re:StarTrek TNG

[voss]

Thats not a problem of technological vision (if you saw the were using finger slides just like they do with ipad today!)

The pile of PADDs was a metaphor for a pile of books. Also with cheap easily replicated pads you might actually want each pad to be on a different document.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[pjabardo]

You could be right but maybe this is similar to the use of multiple monitors in desktop computers. If pads were very cheap might we not do the same thing? The cost (and fragility and weight) does limit how we use such devices. Eliminating these restraints we might see other use patterns. Maybe not.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[sjames]

Yer, there are, but it's still unclear if that's because they HAVE to do it that way or if they just find it more convenient than saying, "Captain, please go to aich tee tee pee colon slash slash....." given that they don't have to pay for the PADD.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[Cruciform]

There's an app that lets you exchange contacts between two devices (I've only seen the iPhone version) by bumping them together.
It senses the collision, discovers the other device and exchanges the data.
In the future they wouldn't even need to give urls, you'd just share the content through some trigger.

Okay, I'm being silly. In the future all content will be locked down by corporations and any such endeavor will be met by fines, imprisonment, and possibly torture.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[Lanteran]

Hell, TOS had them in the 60's.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[LynnwoodRooster]

This patent relates to the shape/cosmetics of the pad, not the functionality. Hence using one for each different task is irrelevant to this patent - a design patent, by definition, cannot cover the utility or functionality of the invention - so this is prior art.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[P00rSpy]

Apple should SUE Picard, StarTrek and DATA

Re:StarTrek TNG

[P00rSpy]

I forgot, they need to sue Kubrick too!

Re:StarTrek TNG

[Miseph]

i think the point you're ignoring is that, in their future, personal ownership of a particular device would not be taken into consideration. Bumping two devices together is pretty easy, but if you don't care about keeping your device, it's even easier if you just hand it over and walk away. In a future where people are still lazy, but material goods have no value due to lack of scarcity, items will be discarded any time it is even marginally easier than the alternative.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[he-sk]

There's an app that lets you exchange contacts between two devices (I've only seen the iPhone version) by bumping them together.

Really? I "invented" a similar thing 6 years ago in my 2nd year studying CS with my buddies. Only that you didn't bump the devices together but simply shook hands. A sensor on your watch would discover the change in the conductivity of your skin and start to look for a compatible device via Bluetooth. Also, it was used to exchange business cards and not generic data.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[CodeBuster]

It was a friggen television show people. Sometimes, the producers and writers did things a certain way because that is what looked best visually on television, not because that was how real people living in the 24th century would actually do things. The Start Trek analogy only goes so far because, at the end of the day, it was a weekly television program with time, budget and visual constraints. The technology was often subservient to these visual and story needs, not the other way around.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[drinkypoo]

It's clear that data from the main computer can be displayed on multiple consoles at once, and it's also clear that a PADD is just another console, albeit one connected wirelessly. One wonders if the technology is more like X, VNC, or HTML5... I would guess the latter.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[SlothDead]

This is something I like about paper: It's so cheap that you can have multiple sheets on your desk at the same time.
I would actually like it if I had a pile of tablets, each only running one app (for example one for the PDF I'm reading, one for the writing program, one for e-mail, one as a digital picture frame...).
Just don't forget a little "pull in all apps in the vicinity" app, that I can launch to easily move everything to one tablet when I want to leave the house and not carry a stack of tablet. (Is "one click pull surronding data" patented yet?)

Re:StarTrek TNG

[delinear]

Indeed, we're already moving in the direction of people having a "profile" of themselves that exists in the cloud and that they can access from any device. If we could solve the issues of device cost and bandwidth (coupled with some convenient way of tying together the disparate aspects of our online profile) a lot of people would largely already be living in that world. Remove the further barrier to access that is installed applications (as opposed to some browser-based app with cloud-based data) and most of our electronic devices could trivially be interchangable.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[prefec2]

When they would be cheap enough, I would own a couple of those devices. Why should I browse through the different document all on one pad when I can use more than one, showing different documents? In such an environment I could use these pads as different views to one data source, like every aspect has its own pad. Of course I can upload other data to them on demand.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[prefec2]

Sisko hands Kirk the computer log. In those times it seems more convenient to store all official log info on the same device. BTW in TOS they hand over USB-sticks or SD-Card like devices. While in TNG they use pads which can hold local information, but which can also transfer data into the cloud (aka ships computer).

They can transfer data to a pad and they can upload data from the pad. Today we could use Bluetooth or the wireless USB stuff for that. They have reconfigurable user interfaces in Voyager even with a tactile interface.

However, it is no wonder that all the tools we can buy today look like ST or other sci-fi gadgets. Geeks, engineers etc. watched those shows and are now building these technologies. Still missing is the Warp Drive and thrusters in ST quality.

Re:StarTrek TNG

[SEE]

If I want to cross-reference three documents at once, it's a heck of a lot easier to do it on three screens than by switching windows on one screen. If I could afford a dozen Kindles . . .

Re:StarTrek TNG

[tepples]

the PADDs were separate for each document or sets of documents.

And until the tablet makers figure out how to have user accounts in smartphone operating systems, home documents and work documents are likely to be on separate tablets.

prior prior art

[frovingslosh]

What, no reference to the tablet computers used in the early Startrek shows? They out date both of the references.

Re:prior prior art

[AngryDeuce]

To be fair, I don't remember any tablet like devices on The Original Series, so the reference to 2001 is the earliest, being 1969. The devices in ToS were typical props with a display screen and buttons/switches on the face of it and some neat looking doo-dads on top. The first truly tablet-like device in Star Trek is probably the first season of The Next Generation, which went into development in 1985 (probably earlier) and I'm sure there are concept drawings dating to that year, giving that a 10 year jump on this patent.

Either way, this is so ridiculously vague, I can not believe this is what people are allowed to patent nowadays.

Re:prior prior art

[mark-t]

There *definitely* were tablet like devices in TOS... google PADD TOS, and look at images.

Re:prior prior art

[AngryDeuce]

Ok, but still, the PADD from TNG is pretty much identical in concept to the iPad, so for prior art, it seems like they'd go for things that directly resemble the device in question. Apple doesn't own the concept of a tablet, they're claiming the design infringes.

Memory Alpha even describes the ToS "PADD" as a digital clipboard operated with a stylus and the prop Uhuru is pictured using looks nothing like an iPad.

But I stand corrected, there were tablets on ToS. I must have never really noticed they were because they weren't used particularly tablet like...

Re:prior prior art

[jedidiah]

THAT looks nothing like an iPad or a PADD. It's a thick clipboard. It's a big fat wedge with incandescent lights on it.

One of my HTPCs takes up less space.

Re:prior prior art

[The Dawn Of Time]

In response to the argument that the technology of today is copying that design, it seems like a reasonably civil way to say "you're fucked in the head, bud."

Re:prior prior art

[AngryDeuce]

Wow yeah I don't know why the hell I was doing that...guess I spend more time talking about Terms of Service lately.

Re:prior prior art

[mark-t]

I never said that the tablet devices looked like an iPad... only that they were tablets... they were highly portable, and they were quite frequently used in much the same manner as one might use a clipboard and paper today. TNG certainly hilighted their use more prominently... and their form factor had shrunk considerably, although they were still the same device (the PADD).

Re:prior prior art

[Jonner]

How about the Dynabook which could be seen as the inspiration for modern laptops and tablets and was conceptualized in 1968? Apparently Alan Kay called Microsoft's Tablet PC "the first Dynabook-like computer good enough to criticize" rather than anything from Apple.

Re:prior prior art

[macs4all]

How about the Dynabook which could be seen as the inspiration for modern laptops and tablets and was conceptualized in 1968? Apparently Alan Kay called Microsoft's Tablet PC "the first Dynabook-like computer good enough to criticize" rather than anything from Apple.

Interesting. While the quote regarding the MS Tablet is true, Alan Kay also called the Macintosh "The first computer good enough to be criticized."

But the Dynabook (which, believe it or not, inspired Jobs to spearhead the Macintosh project) is less like an iPad than it is like a BlackBerry (sans the "phone" stuff).

So now what?

Re:A Tablet

[GNUman]

That is exactly it. The patent being claimed is too broad and fits any rectangle with a screen and a bezel. So, yes, the tablet in the movie could fit the patent.

Re:A Tablet

[mark-t]

I don't think so, personally... although I think it should count that the concept is obvious.

That doesn't necessarily rule out all of Apple's patents on the iPad, but IMO, it should rule out ones that refer to the general concept of a tablet device or its appearance, as well as any aspects of the user interface that are essentially copied from science fiction (none of which should have been patentable in the first place, IMO).

Re:A Tablet

[Centurix]

The tablet in their patent looks more like the one in the film than it does the actual iPad. Stanley Kubrick will be turning in his friction free space grave for ever.

So what 2001 is telling us ...

[MacTO]

... that the ideal technological device for the display of a rectangular image is something roughly the shape and size of a modern tablet. And they figured this out when displays virtually always involved some sort of projection and focussing (either through the electron gun of a CRT or the light of a projector) which would have made such devices impossible.

And we need judges, lawyers, and marketplace chaos to figure that out today. Maybe society is getting dumber.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I can ditch my plans for patenting my plans for a warp drive. Some lawyer is just going to say, "I seen it in the movies"...

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[Qzukk]

Your patent for a warp drive that glows blue and goes "whoosh" is every bit a stinking pile of bullshit as Apple's patent for a black, thin rectangular tablet with narrow bezel and a flat back.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[Kreigaffe]

That's so far away from what's actually going on that you should go hang yourself in the closet in shame.

Make warp drive. Patent it. No problem.

Make spaceship that looks exactly like the USS Enterprise. Try to patent THE SHAPE of the ship. Also, the shape is now just a box. A rudimentary geometric object with no details anywhere.

Sounds dumb? Apple not only thought it was smart, but actually GOT the patent, AND thought it would hold up in court. good luck with that!

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[hawkeyeMI]

If you think Apple is bad in court, wait until the Borg get on your case for a box-shaped ship.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[slack_justyb]

Blame the lawyers. They're always finding a reason to sue someone. Of course, blaming them may get you sued.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[amicusNYCL]

You've already gotten more specific than Apple did.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[Xest]

"Maybe society is getting dumber."

Just more self-defeatingly bureaucratic that's all.

It's really what happened to Rome when it started to fall amongst other empires and civilisations and so forth too to an extent.

It's also why other countries are flying ahead of the West where bureaucracy isn't such an issue.

Those who don't learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it's mistakes and all that. Really, so much of the Western economy is built on what basically just amounts to bullshit now. I'm not convinced that bullshit is really a viable economic plan, growing the amount of bullshit in your economy doesn't seem to grow your economy like many bureaucrats seem to think it does. Quite the opposite.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[MichaelSmith]

ACC seems to have come closer to the ipad
 

When he tired of official reports and memoranda and minutes, he would plug his foolscap-sized Newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad. Switching to the display unit's short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him.

Each had its own two-digit reference; when he punched that, the postage-stamp-sized rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it with comfort. When he had finished, he would flash back to the complete page and select a new subject for detailed examination.

Floyd sometimes wondered if the Newspad, and the fantastic technology behind it, was the last word in man's quest for perfect communications. Here he was, far out in space, speeding away from Earth at thousands of miles an hour, yet in a few milliseconds he could see the headlines of any newspaper he pleased. (That very word "newspaper," of course, was an anachronistic hangover into the age of electronics.) The text was updated automatically on every hour; even if one read only the English versions, one could spend an entire lifetime doing nothing but absorbing the ever-changing flow of information from the news satellites.

It was hard to imagine how the system could be improved or made more convenient. But sooner or later, Floyd guessed, it would pass away, to be replaced by something as unimaginable as the Newspad itself would have been to Caxton or Gutenberg.

From 2001: A Space Odyssey , by Arthur C. Clarke.

Published by Del Rey in 1968

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ...

[prefec2]

They "patented" a rectangular shaped device which can be controlled by finger tips.

Re:fp

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Look AC, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

One goddamn claim

[Windrip]

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!

We claim the ornamental DESIGN FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE, SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN AS DESCRIBED

Jesus H. Creepy Christ On A Crutch

Re:One goddamn claim

[Dachannien]

This is how design patents work. They are a completely different beast from utility patents.

I don't deal with design patents, so I'm not extremely familiar with their intricacies, but generally speaking, you'll have one claim and one drawing. The claim almost always specifically refers to the drawing. In the drawing, any features shown with dashed lines are not part of the "claim" - they are exemplary in nature to help you see how the claimed features interrelate to the rest of the object. Only the parts with solid lines are considered part of the ornamental design which their patent is intended to cover.

Re:One goddamn claim

[sir_eccles]

You don't actually know what a design patent is, do you?

Re:One goddamn claim

[shugah]

Here is even earlier prior art.

http://static.photaki.com/sumerian-clay-tablet-with-cuneiform-writing_414849.jpg

Re:One goddamn claim

[Daetrin]

In the drawing, any features shown with dashed lines are not part of the "claim" - they are exemplary in nature to help you see how the claimed features interrelate to the rest of the object. Only the parts with solid lines are considered part of the ornamental design which their patent is intended to cover.

Phew! Good thing they drew the picture of the person holding the iPad with a dashed line then, or we'd _all_ be in big trouble!

Re:One goddamn claim

[balbus000]

any features shown with dashed lines are not part of the "claim"

Oh good, they're not trying to patent people. Whew.

Re:The Tomorrow People?

[Culture20]

Yeah, TIM was nowhere near flat. I don't remember if Liz was; I was a little too young to be paying attention to that.

Re:A Tablet

[blind monkey 3]

So, A tablet in A movie, that doesn't look like the iPad or Galaxy Tab, is prior art?

Maybe Samsung is planning to use the same "techniques" as Apple to demonstrate how similar they are....oops.... has Apple patented image manipulation as well?

Oh great

[Medevilae]

Apple patented the rectangle.

Re:Oh great

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple patented the rounded rectangle.

FTFY.

Re:Oh great

[Pesticidal]

This reminds me of the story on folklore.org: RoundRects
Just be thankful they didn't patent it back in 1981.

Re:Oh great

[Genda]

I see so their patent covers not only the 2001 pad computer but the alien monolith as well... I mean its just a super advance iPad from Jupiter... right?

Re:Oh great

[oobayly]

Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!"

Providing it's true, I'd love for that quote to bite Jobs in the ass during this case.

Re:Oh great

[Raenex]

Nice find. I checked archive.org, and the site goes back to at least 2004, so it's not like somebody made this up to foil Apple.

Re:Oh great

[Meski]

But are its ratio's 1:4:9? (gets out vernier calipers)

Re:Oh great

[cohn4]

2001:ASO shows prior art? - that looks like a portable television screen, not a tablet computer. And it's a movie construct, not a working device. As such, it's a design concept rather than an invention. Unless the movie owners patented the idea, the Apple has it.

That's good

[Daetrin]

But i still wish they'd introduce this as prior art.

It's not the same color and it's mechanical rather than electronic, but i really don't think that's a significant difference in terms of the important bits. Flat rectangular thing with bezeled edges and rounded corners that your draw on. This form factor was worked out ages ago, the theory of improving the interface and what you can do with it are certainly important technological improvements but have little to do with the form factor that Apple is claiming is important.

Re:That's good

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Or http://biblequestion.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/moses1.jpg

Re:That's good

[initialE]

Completely unrelated, but how safe is an etch-a-sketch if it's full of aluminum powder inside? http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/magna-doodle1.htm/printable appears much safer for kids to use.

Re:That's good

[shugah]

I think this predates even the Etch-A-Sketch.

http://static.photaki.com/sumerian-clay-tablet-with-cuneiform-writing_414849.jpg

Re:That's good

[SleazyRidr]

Pretty safe, aluminium powder won't hurt you all that much, it's a fairly confined crystal, unlike Asbestos or something which has long sprawling crystal structures just waiting to get stuck in your lungs.

And what about teleportation device?

[51M02]

So according to Samsung, if someone "invent" one day a Transporter like in Star Trek, that someone would not be able to patent it?

That's a shame, I'm sure that guy could make a fortune. :)

Re:And what about teleportation device?

[M0j0_j0j0]

Not if the Transporter is rectangular.

Re:And what about teleportation device?

[Lehk228]

they certainly should not be able to patent the ide of a transporter or the overall design used in the show.

the actual transporter technology would be patentable

Re:And what about teleportation device?

[sjames]

If their patent does nothing but describe things from the show, then no. Why should they get a patent on push the slides and a shimmery light appears?

OTOH, if they ACTUALLY make the thing work, they will have ample patentable material.

Re:And what about teleportation device?

[X.25]

So according to Samsung, if someone "invent" one day a Transporter like in Star Trek, that someone would not be able to patent it?

Maybe you should try to understand what 'design' means, first.

Re:And what about teleportation device?

[TheSpoom]

they certainly should not be able to patent the ide of a transporter or the overall design used in the show.

the actual transporter technology would be patentable

Which, you know, is exactly how it should be.

Re:A Tablet

[Kreigaffe]

The patent doesn't look like an iPad or Galaxy Tab, either.

And yes, it is prior art. The tablet is not a new or novel idea. A particular implementation may be, but as can be clearly demonstrated the concept of a flat device similar in form and size to a pad of legal-sized paper which dynamically displays information on its top face has been around FOR FUCKING DECADES. Apple can't patent an idea that clearly predates their company. And Steve should probably be run out of Dodge for even trying. This is why people don't like him -- because he's a massive prick.

Here are the shots from tomorrow people

[backslashdot]

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/02/07/apple_ipad_tomorrow_people/

Looks EXACTLY like an iPad.

Re:Here are the shots from tomorrow people

[HikingStick]

Obviously, someone from our time travelled back in time to plant the device...

Re:Here are the shots from tomorrow people

[initialE]

Is that guy wearing a turtleneck? It's obvious, the patents belong to Steve Jobs, de-facto leader of the tomorrow people.

Re:Here are the shots from tomorrow people

[Jimbookis]

And the Tomorrow People can also claim prior art on the skivvy jumper, bouffant hair and condescending face iPad accessories.

Re:Here are the shots from tomorrow people

[shugah]

It's also prior art on the turtleneck.

Clueless haters...

[sl3xd]

From what I've read in the actual patents involved, the idea of a portable touchscreen isn't what's being contested. Not that the average slash otter is interested in that fact - it appears most posters are oblivious to the fact that Apple isn't suing over the idea of a touchscreen tablet.

Is it apparently lost on Samsung and the frothing-at-the-mouth haters that the patents in question are not about making a touchscreen tablet, but is about using the following graphic design elements:
* A sunflower for the 'photos' app
* A white cartoon bubble with a green background for SMS
* A calendar icon with a red bar on top, and black text showing the current day
* An envelope icon against a cloudy sky
* A notebook with a brown binding on top

Any of those can easily be represented just as clearly with a different icon, but Samsung flatly refuses to change the icon.

I don't see how pointing out that tablets are a staple of scifi will change the design patents. This isn't about 'invention', it's about graphic design - and an entirely different part of the law.

Re:Clueless haters...

[Jmc23]

Can you provide links so the rest of us csn see what you are talking about?

Re:Clueless haters...

[Anonymous Coward]

So Apple invented sunflowers, the concept of cartoon bubbles to mean "chatting", red bars on calendars, and so on?

Damn, I guess they'll have to sue Corel back in 1990 (they used a sunflower as their icon for image files - I'm pretty sure Eyeon and a couple of other graphics companies still do), every comic book artist out there, every office calendar manufacturer, the people who designed icons for Windows 3.0 (notebook with brown binding), etc., etc...

The lawsuit is about the iPad, it's not about the design of individual icons. If Apple tried to sue for that (using such generic icons) they know they'd be laughed out of the court. They're just hoping the judges are so clueless that they'll think no one had thought about portable rectangular touchscreens before.

Re:Clueless haters...

[elhedran]

I think you may need to provide some links to back the idea its about the icons as well. I'm looking at

http://allthingsd.com/20110418/apple-files-patent-suit-against-samsung-over-galaxy-line-of-phones-and-tablets/

more specifically the screenshot

http://mobilized.allthingsd.com/files/2011/04/apple-v.-samsung-2.png

* A sunflower for the 'photos' app

I don't even see a sunflower or flower of any type.

* A white cartoon bubble with a green background for SMS

The sms icon isn't green and doesn't have a cartoon bubble.

* A calendar icon with a red bar on top, and black text showing the current day

Its green, and that said it looks like a day planner calendar. Yes, this is similar but at some point you have to say "What else would look like a calendar and fit on an icon?" If the answer is only two or three things patenting one of them is absurd.

* An envelope icon against a cloudy sky

well, envelopes for email existed long before the iPhone. I don't see clouds or sky either in the email icons.

* A notebook with a brown binding on top

I'll give you this one... but again how many ways can you represent a 'note pad'.

So all in all we have one copied icon out of your list. I don't think your claim this is about the icons has merit given what I've been able to find. Obviously if you have some other links I'd be keen to see them and review my position.

Re:Clueless haters...

[theurge14]

The green Phone icon on both devices are exactly the same as well.

Re:Clueless haters...

[medv4380]

What you describe shouldn't be a patent but rather a Trade Mark

Re:Clueless haters...

[daver00]

I believe the claim that that this, this and this are all invalid due to prior art. None of these patents detail anything you listed, and all detail simple pictures of a tablet-like device almost identical in description to those in the film (and hundreds of others). So maybe you should just sit down and stop calling people names, huh?

Re:Clueless haters...

[Solandri]

The phone icon is a universal symbol that's been around since at least 1996. While Apple did apply for a trademark on it in 2010, the pre-existing use of the symbol I've linked to I think pretty clearly invalidates the trademark. Unless you're somehow claiming nobody else is allowed to color their phone symbol green (the internationally recognized color for go).

Re:Clueless haters...

[aztracker1]

This isn't about 'invention', it's about graphic design - and an entirely different part of the law.

Exactly, that would be copyright law, not patent law.

Re:Clueless haters...

[sjames]

Simply wrong. This is a patent suit, not copyright or trademark. Have a look at the patent in question. THAT is what Apple is claiming they should have a worldwide exclusive right to.

That is what Samsung is countering by showing very similar designs from the '60s.

However, looking at the side by side of the icons, I remain unconvinced even there. The phone icon is predated by Bell using something like that on payphone pedestals for ages if Apple has a case against Samsung there, then Bell should sue Apple. Flowers of various sorts are commonly used for photo icons. Gears are likewise commonly used for configuration and such (If Apple has a case against Samsung on that one, then MS has a case against Apple).

Re:Clueless haters...

[SoftwareArtist]

No. What you say is completely false. Read the patent and see for yourself. (It will only take you a minute - it consists almost entirely of pictures.) You will not find any sunflower in it, any cartoon bubble, any envelope against a cloudy sky, or anything like that. What you'll find are very generic outlines of a tablet, where the front face is mostly taken up by a touch screen. And absolutely nothing else. That's the entire content of the patent. That's what this is about.

Re:Clueless haters...

[sl3xd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patent

Read up on what a design patent is before making claims about the applicability.

I don't like the idea of Design Patents all that much, but they do exist, and they are enforcable.

Re:Clueless haters...

[amicusNYCL]

Is it apparently lost on Samsung and the frothing-at-the-mouth haters that the patents in question are not about making a touchscreen tablet, but is about using the following graphic design elements:
* A sunflower for the 'photos' app
* A white cartoon bubble with a green background for SMS
* A calendar icon with a red bar on top, and black text showing the current day
* An envelope icon against a cloudy sky
* A notebook with a brown binding on top

Just to be clear, you're saying that Apple invented all of those icons for those uses, and patented that. Correct? You're saying that Apple has a patent on using a sunflower to represent a "photos app". And you have a link to that patent, right? Because as far as I can tell, this patent is what Apple is claiming.

Re:Clueless haters...

[sl3xd]

Enlarged Icons

As the article points out - why did Samsung choose a sunflower of all things for photos icon?

The resemblance between the 'media player' icon and the old iTunes icon is also a very close match.

The address book having a silhouette of a bust is suspect (but far from obviously wrong - let the court decide), as is choosing the icon they did for a notepad.

The "gear" for settings is, I think, not defensible; KDE's been using it for ages.

After further investigation, though, I haven't been able to find the design patents I spoke of. I've found numerous references that computer icons are valid material for a design patent (as well as a trademark and copyright.) Talk about a trifecta from hell... you can have something covered with copyrights, trade dress, and patents.

An look at the claims, with numbers:

I'm pretty sure both Samsung and Apple will be found to infringe something in the other's IP chest.; it's foolish to think that either is innocent. Samsung has a history of copying designs from other makers, and of playing the lawsuit game.

Re:Clueless haters...

[sl3xd]

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

Re:Clueless haters...

[That Guy From Mrktng]

You can't patent the iconic representation of a function or a tool. Oh you can? Well, sucks to have your patent laws.

Example: The universal iconic representation of "configuration" have always been a wrench or a gear

So whos the first that ever designed that icon? Probably Xerox or Apple (even MS) Can they sue the whole world for using the same concept?. The point of an UI icon formerly known as Pictogram is precisely to represent an action with an universally significant sign. Theres a fucking science about it predating the invention of user interfaces by centuries.

I could not care less about Apple or Samsung bitchfight, this could set a dangerous precedent where someones would patent certain graphic design common places prompting the design world to workaround in hideous ways. Would you like your new Snail-Shape on--off icon? No? good luck only on SONY stuff. How about that men bathroom icon, did you got confused because it's shape of a blob with 3 eyes and what looks like an umbrella? Oh! theres no other restroom in 20 km ahead.

If Apple is pretending to enforce such nonsense they are pissing in the pool that they like to brag about so much, the design pool. Not that the lame shopped hack to make the Tab look like the iPad is something that one would expect from a "company conscious and caring about design".

Hey apple your antics are hurting your image in the subset of the market that helped you to stay afloat before you developed something decent. Think different but act like Microsoft. Yes I'm a sore Apple exfanboy, when you actually had to have a Mac Desktop to be a fanboy and You actually created shit on your hardware, not the wanker and hipster bunch that Apple fandom is today.

Re:Clueless haters...

[sl3xd]

It's wishful thinking, but I like the idea that some company will someday go apeshit patent-suit crazy and raise the specter of a patent apocalypse - and force reforms to be made, because sale of nearly all goods has been halted due to patent infringements.

Apple enforced its FairPlay DRM to the hilt; in the process they proved that DRM can be more harmful to the copyright holder than a consumer, and essentially forced the major labels to drop DRM forever.

I don't have to dream that Apple is crazy enough to demonstrate to the world how crazy the patent system is - they're doing it now, whether it's their intention or not. Apple has a reputation for being uncompromising - I can't think of any other company where a cross-license deal and payment of money won't be enough; but I can see Apple risking Mutually Assured Destruction.

So the question remains: Is a patent apocalypse coming? Will Apple be one of its horsemen? Is it a good thing?

Re:Clueless haters...

[Inda]

Wow. I was expected near pixel perfect copies of the icons before clicking your link.

Ask a child to design icons for phone, messaging and notebook programs and those icons are what you'll get in return.

Un-be-fucking-lievable.

Re:Clueless haters...

[hughk]

Apple famously did try to once sue over the trash bin icon for deleting files. This was considered amusing by those who worked at the Parc.

Re:Clueless haters...

[Theaetetus]

Simply wrong. This is a patent suit, not copyright or trademark.

This is a design patent suit. It's quite similar to a trademark.

Re:Clueless haters...

[maxwell demon]

The phone icon is a universal symbol that's been around since at least 1996. While Apple did apply for a trademark on it in 2010, the pre-existing use of the symbol I've linked to I think pretty clearly invalidates the trademark. Unless you're somehow claiming nobody else is allowed to color their phone symbol green (the internationally recognized color for go).

Look at this phone: What do you see on one of the buttons? Correct: A green phone receiver icon. And it cleary predates the iPhone.

Re:Clueless haters...

[KnownIssues]

I thought this was hyperbole until I read the patent for myself. IAANAL, but from what I've gathered from Slashdot Law School, it's all about the claims and what usually causes most patent lawsuits to fail is that all the claims have to be infringed on so the while the first claim is often generic, and that's what Slashdotters/media latch on to and are dismissive of, usually there's 20 other claims that taken as a whole are pretty specific.

This patent has one claim:

We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device (not even an electronic computing device, just an electronic device), substantially as shown and described.

The description does not describe the behavior of the device. It explains that each picture is a different view of the device (e.g. top view, side view, etc). As a flat, rectangular electronic device with a bezel and a screen (it has what appears to be a screen, but it doesn't claim it's a screen, just appears to be distinct from the rest of the device), this could be an electronic picture frame, digitizing pen tablet (ala Wacom), a PADD from TNG or Enterprise, or an LCD screen. I kept thinking I was missing a link to more of the patent, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. Maybe the Citations or References come into play, but that's not my understanding.

To say there's prior art is putting it kindly.

Re:Clueless haters...

[gubers33]

I bet you I could find a picture of a calender with those colors dating back over 50 years. Also you mean a picture of a quote balloon with a background. The quote bubble has been used for years in cartoons and comics. And a brown notebook... I have brown notebook sitting on my desk. And envelope with a sky is used by more than just Apple. Only one I will give you is the photos app.

Re:is it just me...

[Kreigaffe]

Whether or not they interact with it shouldn't matter (besides, if that's what you need, ST:TNG did it more than 20 years before this patent).

http://www.greenlightoffice.com/office/stationery/786300538-sparco-recycled-paper-note-pads-100-sheet-s-ruled-4-x-6-5-pack-yellow.html

THIS IS PRIOR ART.

I wonder...

[sootman]

... does including a screenshot taken from a possibly-copyright-infringing YouTube video count as "fair use"? Or did they get permission from the copyright holder to include that image?

Come on, people, we need to dot every i and cross every t when it comes to Imaginary Property laws.

Re:Pandora's box

[sjames]

If the patent has nothing more to it than what was already presented in any medium, then it SHOULD fail. After all, the Apple patent in question is for a look, not functionality.

Functionality is unlikely to be covered in sufficient detail in a novel to invalidate a patent.

Re:Pandora's box

[colinrichardday]

But Apple patented the design, and the design is what Samsung is claiming as prior art in 2001. You could not invalidate the tablet itself on that basis, as the tablets in the movie are mere props, not working devices.

Not really comparable

[Rui del-Negro]

Don't even compare those two. One is just a toy with no real-world utility, that people get bored with after two days and only bring out to impress their friends who still don't have one. The other is an Etch-a-Sketch.

Cueless lover

[aepervius]

And a trashcan icon could also be represented with another Icon. Would you have supüported the first guy which came with trashcan icons suing everybody else ?

Re:Cueless lover

[sl3xd]

Apple does have a design patent on the wire trash can (used in OS X).

Ever notice anybody selling something that uses it other than Apple? I certainly haven't.

Re:Cueless lover

[enoz]

Not sure if you are sarcastic or ignorant.

Apple sued to try and prevent other software companies from using similar GUI elements including the Trash can, and were partially successful.

Re:Cueless lover

[hughk]

Apple were not that successful over the waste bin. They were only able to prevent other companies from using the concept of a bulging (full) bin. After the first suit against MS, a number of people who had been working at the Xerox Parc including Smokey Wallace who by then had moved to Digital and was working on X-windows let it be known that they were sitting on a pile of prior art. Apple became a lot less litigious over the desktop manager/windows related designs as it became knowledge that they were just an elaboration of earlier work.

Separately (slightly)

[Kittenman]

I remember "The Tomorrow People". Telepaths and suchlike. I think they had superior tech given to them by the Galactic confederation.

Top that for a "get off my lawn" potential. "Tomorrow People" must date back to the mid '70s.

Re:Separately (slightly)

[TapeCutter]

Top that for a "get off my lawn" potential. "Tomorrow People" must date back to the mid '70s.

Standing up for "God Save the Queen" at the local theater before watching "Born Free" (circa 1966).

there ought to be a blatent prior art penalty

[BroadbandBradley]

this kind of thing should void all other apple patents for a term of 10 years, this way, companies would be more careful what kind of shit they'd fling at the patent office.

MOSES had two tablets

[retroworks]

Both rectangular.

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[Anonymous Coward]

...which received text messages from the ether.

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[cjsm]

Both rectangular.

And in most artists' realizations, with rounded corners. And it was written on with the finger of God. Seems like the Jewish people have a substantial copyright infringement case here.

God sues Apple for copyright infringement. Full story at 6.

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Err no, initially all THREE were rectangular, but then... well, "TEN! TEN COMMANDMENTS!"

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[Issarlk]

Jobs wouldn't sue Apple, silly!

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[StormReaver]

He had three, but dropped the one with the eleventh commandment that said, "Haha! Made you look!" But by that time, the damage had been done.

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[IrquiM]

But no colour icons!

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[delinear]

Here you go...

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[delinear]

Here you go...

Re:MOSES had two tablets

[gubers33]

Thats what you think. Moses said this is it then God made them a paint by colors.

A *2001* Space Oddesey

[Kylon99]

For @#$!'s sake, even the NAME of the movie pre-dates Apple's patent!

Re:A *2001* Space Oddesey

[Qatz]

Doubly funny since it was sent in the future when it was released.

time machine patent

[derniers]

If I don't get my time machine patent I'm going back and strangling that H. G. Wells guy.

Microsoft Windows UI ....

[PPH]

.... can trace its origins back to the rack from the time of the Inquisition.

Dynabook?

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Alan Kay's Dynabook....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook

trade dress and/or design patent

[SideshowBob]

Trademark - a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.

Trade dress - characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.

Design patent - a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

Trademark is the least correct of the three in this case.

Re:trade dress and/or design patent

[gl4ss]

the one they used in germany was a design registration basically. covering computer screen, basically. but what's worst, the german court doesn't check for prior art or even notify anyone, it just checks the paper work is ok and then issues the ban - didn't even notify samsung for comment. but why apple did it against the tab is a mystery, or perhaps it was because samsung had already manufactured a large number of those tabs and time to market thus was important for them(apple could use the same method to block whatever 9 pad phone they want, any zen they want and a lot of others, but they haven't done that probably because it would've crashed the system for being too silly, stupid and twisted)

Andromeda and also Star Trek come to mind.

[madhi19]

In TNG they had pad that were pretty damn similar and in Andromeda they used some sort of plastic sheet tablet computer that make the iPad look pretty damn fat. Come to think of it Stargate Atlantis also had tablet computer.

Exhibit B - etch a sketch

[dbIII]

Patenting an already employed form factor (or any really) should have been thrown out in seconds.

Re:Exhibit B - etch a sketch

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Its a design patent - the only thing needed to get it is to fill in the forms correctly and paying the fee. Nothing was made to ensure that the design in any way was a) new b) unique c) not described by a existing design patent. All those precautions are presumed those that apply for the design patents already has done so no need for EU to do that to. The rest the courts have to deal with.

Dynabook. Also Clarke reference re Apple in 2010

[mattr]

Alan Kay, 1972 looks like a kindle or an ipad with onscreen keyboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook
Actually a popular encyclopedia we had in my house around 30 years ago had a yearly supplement called year book or world book I think. It had a special feature showing Smalltalk running on a Dynabook - IIRC a tablet without a keyboard showing.
You had sprites, like tiny triangles, and you could program them in Smalltalk like a logo turtle but it seemed even more sophisticated.
This totally fired my imagination as a young kid, I would have dreams about it and it got me into computers (though not sure if it was the first contact with them since I took a course in fortran on keypunch machines too around then).
Incidentally this article from Jan. 2010 says:
In Arthur C. Clarke’s 1968 novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, Clarke describes something called a "Newspad" (a foolscap-sized device), which one of the novel’s central characters, Heywood Floyd, “plugs into the ship's information circuit and scans the latest reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad. Switching to the display unit's short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him.”

If only there were showing a tablet computer...

[jscotta44]

...unfortunately, what they show is only a tablet TV. There is not interactivity. They only watch an interview.

Re:If only there were showing a tablet computer...

[prefec2]

So? It is an iPhone 3G without multitasking. They could either watch or do other stuff. However, watching TV while eating is a direct violation of normal cultural eating rituals. When eating switch off your TV and enjoy the food. You may even talk to your companions. No wonder HAL wants to get rid of those guys.

Apple the Theif

[protektor]

If Apple wants to claim that other people are stealing their ideas and their work, then I would love to know how they justify all the stealing that they have done. I would love to know how Apple can justify stealing other people's work and then patenting it.

I want to know how Apple thinks it is ok to steal the trade dress of legal tablets/paper and act like they invented it and that they can be protected from others using the exact same thing. Is Apple licensing the legal tablet/paper look from one of the paper companies? If not then Apple needs to be sued for stealing too. I also recall several programs that used this exact icon for their simple note editor program that wasn't a full blown word processor. I recall it being used on almost every OS, Apple IIgs, Windows (all versions), Linux, Mac, etc. Apple point blank stole this from earlier programs because people have already been trained that the picture of a notepad means a small note taking program, not full blown word processor. So Apple is not original or the first, so they never should have been given a patent, not to mention so obvious and not at all innovative.

The same goes for the envelope for email. I believe that either one of the early graphic computer BBSes or Prodigy might want a word with Apple for stealing their interface icons. I would look at Prodigy, Hawayii FYI, Minitel, Habitat (pre-AOL) or early NAPLPS BBS (TurBoard, Searchlight, TBBS, Renegade, etc) or the Excalibur BBS, the first windows BBS. They all used an envelope of somSo ae sort to represent email. Apple point blank stole this from earlier programs because people have already been trained that the picture of an envelope means email. So again not original or the first so they never should have been given a patent, not to mention so obvious and not at all innovative.

I also believe that the cartoon bubble was used by early graphic BBS to indicate chat with the SYSOP as well. I know it was in fact used in Habitat as well (pre-AOL). So all Apple did here was re-purpose the icon for SMS chat/msgs. So many Windows, Internet programs (chat, IRC, Palace chat, etc) and communication software packages have used the cartoon bubble as an icon over the years. Apple point blank stole this from earlier programs because people have already been trained that the picture of cartoon bubble means talk/chat/message. Again not original or the first, so they never should have been given a patent, not to mention so obvious and not at all innovative.

The patent on the dial icon is going to fall into the exact same problems. Apple point blank stole this from earlier programs because people have already been trained that the picture of a phone or a handset means to call or use phone functions. I am pretty sure some of the early BBS programs used the phone handset and the phone itself as icons in the graphic terminal programs they used. So once again Apple is not original or the first here. Apple may have even stolen from their own developers. Early Apple II BBS programs used the mouse characters to make a full blown graphic interface for a BBS. I remember GBBS and a couple of others did this. I might even still have the floppies around here for those BBS programs and the dialers. You should also look at any of the contact managers that would dial a number for you as well. Apple point blank stole this from earlier programs because people have already been trained that the picture of a phone or handset means to call or use telephone functions. Again not original or the first, so they never should have been given a patent, not to mention so obvious and not at all innovative.

The settings icon of gears, once again Apple is not the first to use this. In fact they point blank stole this from earlier programs that used the gears icon for settings. The gears icon with gears interlocking and without gears interlocking have been used long before the iPhone, which is exactly why they used this icon because people had already been trained as to what it meant. Again not original or the first so

Re:Apple the theif that patents

[protektor]

login problems (sigh) and double posts before edits. Some days you can't win for losing.

Prior art extortion possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible to get a patent invalidated as a third party? If so, could I then go up to the patent holder, and say something like "Nice patent you got there, shame if something would happen to it, like me bringing up this prior art". This could give rise to the opposite of the patent troll, the patent extorter.

Re:A Tablet

[macs4all]

So, A tablet in A movie, that doesn't look like the iPad or Galaxy Tab, is prior art?

A movie is prior art at all? I guess the emphasis is on the word "art", not "prior".

I think that is the sign that there really is no admissible prior art, eh?

Calculators in Asimov's "Foundation"

[Anonymous Coward]

In the first "Foundation" book, Hari Seldon meets an incoming mathematician and then proceeds to pull some type of tablet computer out to share his calculations.

Back in 1973, another student said (refering to our slide rules), "Someday our kids will sit around and joke about how daddy used to multiple with two pieces of wood."

Re:A Tablet

[Chrisq]

So, A tablet in A movie, that doesn't look like the iPad or Galaxy Tab, is prior art?

A movie is prior art at all? I guess the emphasis is on the word "art", not "prior".

I think that is the sign that there really is no admissible prior art, eh?

Well a waterbed patent was refused because of pior art in a Robert Heinlein novel which described such a bed.

Tablets invented in 1972. Called the Dynabook.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Kay invented the tablet computer back in 1972 and published the concepts present in the iPad. It was also documented in World Book Encyclopedia Science Year edition in the late 70's.

http://www.mprove.de/diplom/gui/Kay72a.pdf

Re:Not even close

[Daetrin]

You obviously don't understand design patents. The deep, thick bezel and wheels on the Etch-A-Sketch completely discount your claim.

Also, on the 2001 claim by Samsung, if you look closely at the near "tablet" in the clip (saw on YouTube, not higher res) there appears to be a row of white dots, perhaps suggesting buttons on the bottom edge. iPad doesn't do that. Neither does Samsung.

You're right, i don't understand design patents. But from what you're saying all Samsung would have to do to fix the issue is stick a button on their devices? Exact same shape and everything, but now it has a button, and that would be okay?

We've seen dozens of tablet designs prototyped & on the market for years and suddenly Apple's catches the marketplace's attention and copycats don't create their own unique product look, they deliberately try to confuse customers into thinking their product is the Apple product rather than innovate or stand part.

Okay, this is just hogwash. No one is being confused about which one is the Apple product and i seriously doubt there is any intent to confuse. We're not talking about cheap imitation knock-offs. Apple products come with big giant Apple logos on the box, and the Samsung tablets are clearly branded as Samsung products. Samsung is reacting to the perception that the market has spoken and is saying that "rectangular slate without extra doodads is the form factor we prefer."

If there was something inherently unique about that form factor that hadn't been done before than Samsung would be in trouble, but as it is it's perfectly reasonable for people to try and give them what they want. There have been plenty of other handheld devices in the past with rounded corners and edges so you don't hurt yourself while using them. The only different thing about tablets is that you've taken away everything else except the screen.

This is pathetic - Why?

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

This is pathetic; I was good friend with Sir Arthur C Clarke when he was alive and I met him on many occasion's in Sri-Lanka. Clarke was good friends with Kubrick and if both of them were alive today to see this lawsuit; I can assure you; they would "BANG they're HEADS TOGETHER" and probably both say, "None of you can use the clip as you are Moronic".

EOF

Re:is it just me...

[delinear]

You're seeing one tiny instance of them using it, they're both eating (so their hands are busy) while watching a message that's being relayed. If you saw an iPad playing a video clip would you jump to the same conclusion that that is all it can do? Besides, the patent is merely a design for an "electronic device" - the patent mentions nothing about the functionality of a tablet. A hand held television or video screen would qualify as an "electronic device".

D is for DESIGN

[Theaetetus]

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Let's see, Apple's patent contains no more substance than the movie; it is just a bunch of pictures of a hypothetical device (it doesn't even look much like the current iPad). It is so generic that there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left.

It's a design patent. It only claims the aesthetic features shown in the figures. It's not allowed to have any substance, by definition. It's not generic at all - it explicitly claims what's in those pictures, and that's it.

Apple Patents the rectangle?

[Gonzodoggy]

Wouldn't a clip board be prior art then?

SciFi lit is full with tables

[angel'o'sphere]

E.g. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle describe in "The Mote in God's Eye" http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1495 tablets.

I recall lots of SciFi novels that do, but can not recall the names right now.

MGM sues Apple

[sgt scrub]

This begs the question, How long before the mafia sues Apple for infringement.

Huey Lewis and the News - Hip to be Square

[Cutting_Crew]

didn't Huey Lewis and the News say that Hip to be Square

Re:Why?

[frnic]

And if you were responsible to the stock holders of a multi-billion dollar corporation, you would do exactly the same thing Apple is doing. It is NOT Apples fault, it is the system.

The Penalty

[black soap]

The penalty for Apple trying to enforce this bullshit "design patent" is that Apple should lose ALL patents related to the iPad.

Makes sense for a design...

[niftymitch]

this makes sense for a "design" patent.

To me the prototype design was the old
slate blackboard same shape rounded edges
on some. Able to draw in regions of arbitrary
shape, able to fill the regions with text or art.