Slashdot Mirror


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.

64 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. This is why! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patents should only cover technical innovations.

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

    1. Re:This is why! by conspirator57 · · Score: 2

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

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    2. Re:This is why! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    3. Re:This is why! by optimism · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:This is why! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    5. Re:This is why! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:This is why! by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    7. Re:This is why! by narcc · · Score: 2

      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/

    8. Re:This is why! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      His ass is a searchable database?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:This is why! by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:This is why! by Zenin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yours has a Y?!?!

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    11. Re:This is why! by cyclomedia · · Score: 2

      You've clearly never heard of the Helicopter

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    12. Re:This is why! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

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

  2. I'm sorry, Dave... by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't allow your patent suit to proceed.

    --
    "If still these truths be held to be
    Self evident."
    -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    1. Re:I'm sorry, Dave... by MatthiasF · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jobs: Open the fanboy doors, Hal.

  3. The patent in question; D504,889 by eparker05 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The patent in question; D504,889 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      So Apple will definitely win.

    2. Re:The patent in question; D504,889 by optimism · · Score: 2

      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?

    3. Re:The patent in question; D504,889 by slack_justyb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:The patent in question; D504,889 by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      samsung != google

  4. What about Star Trek? by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What about Star Trek? by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:What about Star Trek? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. They barely even bothered to change the name.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:What about Star Trek? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:What about Star Trek? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    5. Re:What about Star Trek? by Tamran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:What about Star Trek? by Miseph · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    7. Re:What about Star Trek? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      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!"

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:What about Star Trek? by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 2

      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."

    9. Re:What about Star Trek? by delinear · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:What about Star Trek? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:What about Star Trek? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  5. StarTrek TNG by avxo · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    1. Re:StarTrek TNG by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      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.)

    2. Re:StarTrek TNG by voss · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. prior prior art by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

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

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:prior prior art by Jonner · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. Re:A Tablet by GNUman · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Re:A Tablet by Centurix · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Task Mangler
  9. Re:fp by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  10. Oh great by Medevilae · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple patented the rectangle.

  11. That's good by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  12. And what about teleportation device? by 51M02 · · Score: 2

    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. :)

    --
    --- Bouh !!! ---
    1. Re:And what about teleportation device? by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  13. Re:A Tablet by Kreigaffe · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  14. Re:One goddamn claim by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  15. Clueless haters... by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    1. Re:Clueless haters... by Jmc23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:Clueless haters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Clueless haters... by elhedran · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Clueless haters... by medv4380 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    5. Re:Clueless haters... by daver00 · · Score: 2

      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?

    6. Re:Clueless haters... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      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).

    7. Re:Clueless haters... by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    8. Re:Clueless haters... by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

    9. Re:Clueless haters... by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  16. Not really comparable by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  17. Cueless lover by aepervius · · Score: 2

    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 ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  18. MOSES had two tablets by retroworks · · Score: 4, Funny

    Both rectangular.

    --
    Gently reply
  19. Dynabook. Also Clarke reference re Apple in 2010 by mattr · · Score: 2

    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.”

  20. Apple the Theif by protektor · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  21. Prior art extortion possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    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.

  22. Re:A Tablet by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  23. Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

    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