Meet The Man Who Designed a Tablet Computer 15 Years Before the iPad

Doofus writes "The Washington Post has a profile of Roger Fidler, who 'invented' the tablet computer in the 1990s, while working as a visionary for newspaper firm Knight-Ridder. He is now embroiled in the Apple/Samsung legal war, as an expert witness. Fidler admits that other prior art influenced him, such as the tablets being used as computing devices in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Prior prior art."

Comments

Knight-Ridder

[Nick Fel]

They also invented talking cars.

Re:Knight-Ridder

[philip.paradis]

Yep, as soon as I read the summary, I got this little tune stuck in my head. Now everybody else can, too!

Re:Knight-Ridder

[EnsilZah]

Must be talking cars with a speech impediment then.

iPad

[wisnoskij]

What does the iPad have to do with it? There were commercial, mass-produced, tablets way before the first iPad.
I would think, either this guy owns tablet tech and has been making money of it for decades or has missed his chance.

Re:iPad

[Kreigaffe]

This is ALL about the iPad. Apple is claiming that they own the patent and/or copyright to a rectangular tablet with a screen on the front -- all of 'em. Especially Samsung's, because they look similar. Their position is that nobody else ever before thought of or created anything like the iPad, and hence, everything else is a copy of the iPad.

Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on, and that this has gone on so long is an embarrassment.

Re:iPad

[UnknowingFool]

Apple has never claimed that they invented the tablet. They claim they own the design patents of their tablet in that Samsung's phones and tablet looks too much like theirs. Notice that they have not sued others for design patents and they are specifically suing Samsung for certain models. As for the rectangular tablet thing, Apple like any claimant must describe in detail every single aspect in legalese. The rectangular tablet is one of the many details they had to spell out. They cannot say to a judge "Well look at it, it looks like our product."

Re:iPad

[JazzHarper]

I would think, either this guy owns tablet tech and has been making money of it for decades or has missed his chance.

Or neither. He's a witness for the defendant in this case, not a litigant, himself. Perhaps he missed his chance, but it seems his point is the idea wasn't particularly novel or original (or patentable) when he described it 18 years ago. Picard was certainly not impressed.

Re:iPad

[Morty]

The guy's video came after the Newton, but his (documented) push for a tablet dates back to 1981, per TFA. That's well before Apple came out with the Newton. The two companies were next door neighbors and collaborated on this tablet concept.

Re:iPad

[medcalf]

Not sure why that was rated informative, when it completely misstates Apple's legal position. When Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the devices apart in court, there's a problem of trade dress, which is basically the IP equivalent of fraud.

Re:iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

What's embarrassing is that you, and people like you, continue to perpetuate the idiotic notion that these cases are only about a rectangle with rounded edges. As another person has mentioned Apple are suing specific manufacturers over specific models, not every tablet manufacturer. But I bet you already know this, it just doesn't fit your narrow worldview where everything Apple does is wrong, and they are just a big bully beating up on the little kid (despite the fact that companies like Samsung are huge in their own right).

Re:iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

They are suing Samsung because they think or thought they could win. Generally in cases like this the company sues someone they think they can win and then use that case to set a legal precedent. They then take that precedent and threaten other companies with it. It has nothing to do with believing in the next guy and only protecting their patents. Its all about protecting their monopoly and profits.

Re:iPad

[Americano]

Apple is claiming that they own the patent and/or copyright to a rectangular tablet with a screen on the front

Except that's not what they've claimed at all. They have a specific "design patent" on a specific design, look, packaging for a specific device. And when somebody (ESPECIALLY SAMSUNG) copies that design in extreme detail, Apple alleges in court that Samsung has infringed on its design patent.

Their position is that "Samsung, specifically, is using a suite of design cues covered by our patent to make their tablets look like knockoffs of ours - confusing customers into thinking they're buying an Apple device."

You might try understanding the legal issues before you spout off about them - whether or not you agree with Apple's arguments that the devices are "too similar," or with the idea of design patents in general, misrepresenting the actual facts of the case just makes you look rather slow and dim-witted. Do try to keep up.

Re:iPad

[WebCowboy]

What does the iPad have to do with it? There were commercial, mass-produced, tablets way before the first iPad.

The iPad has VERY MUCH to do with it. When the iPad was released, Mr. Fidler's concept was so similar to the new product that it moved people to recall his video from years ago. He wrote an essay on the topic when Apple was still pushing out Apple ][+ micros and took inspiration from a sci-fi movie from the 60s.

But in particular the iPad has very much to do with Mr. Fidler because his work from all those years ago has been submitted as prior art by the combatants in the Apple-instigated patent war. Furthermore Fidler claims he approached a few tech companies after departing from Knight-Ridder in an effort to bring his ideas to fruition. One of those companies was Apple. Apple did not respond to his offers but could have sat on the idea for awhile. If there was evidence presented that Apple did indeed receive and retain Fidler's correspondence it would be very damaging to Apple's case.

When Apple was just pushing its first Newton MessagePad, with its half-baked handwriting recognition, monochrome screen and stylus control Fidler's team at Knight-Ridder showcased a tablet that would be immediately familiar to us today. Fidler started writing about the concept ten years before that even. I think it is pretty obvious that as fantastic as the iPad is, that there is little to no validity at all in Apple's design patents filed many years later.

Re:iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

They are suing Samsung because they think or thought they could win.

I thought they were suing Samsung even though they know that it's a giant waste of money and they have no chance of winning, because that's what corporations do.</sarcasm>

Re:iPad

[MisterMidi]

What I'd like to know is how they could confuse customers into thinking they're buying an Apple device when "Samsung" is printed on the device and the box it comes in.

Re:iPad

[LordLucless]

As for the rectangular tablet thing, Apple like any claimant must describe in detail every single aspect in legalese. The rectangular tablet is one of the many details they had to spell out.

No, no they don't. Design patents are illustrative, not descriptive. And it's very hard to think of anything this design patent shows that isn't "rectangular. round corners": USD627777S1

Re:iPad

[WebCowboy]

Apple has never claimed that they invented the tablet. They claim they own the design patents of their tablet in that Samsung's phones and tablet looks too much like theirs.

Have you even seen the 1990's video? Nobody is disputing that tablets have been around for a long time, but when you see what Fidler's design looks like I can't see how Apple's case has any merit. Both black, flat, rounded-rectangles with a touchscreen that covers substantially the whole front of the device. Where's the novelty in Apple's design then?

Notice that they have not sued others for design patents and they are specifically suing Samsung for certain models.

This is how all patent trolls work. It is more about legal strategy than anything else. If you want to win a battle you stand a better chance if you don't have to fight on multiple fronts, so you pick one enemy to fight at once. Apple deemed them to be the biggest competitive threat--they had more success than any other non-Apple device on the market. Microsoft takes a slightly different approach and picks their battles based upon a candidates resolve and resources to fight vs. settle--a bit of a different strategy but they've been able to use the protection money they've shaken down phone companies for to keep their own platform afloat. Perhaps since Samsung had a supplier relationship with Apple that Jobs and Co. overestimated Samsung's willingness to settle/cooperate. I don't know exactly.

In any case it isn't about Samsing being more of a copycat in any significant way. If that was all it was about why not pick the Motorola Xoom or the HTC Jetstream to put the smackdown on? They all folllow the same design pattern--one thought up by some Knight-Ridder researcher in the mid 1990s.

As for the rectangular tablet thing, Apple like any claimant must describe in detail every single aspect in legalese. The rectangular tablet is one of the many details they had to spell out. They cannot say to a judge "Well look at it, it looks like our product."

It is flat, rectangular with rounded corners and a screen that fills up the front face. There is a limit on how much more detailed you can get. The screen ratio isn't especially unique, and its exact dimensions do differ from the Samsung and other products out there to varying degrees already. Buttons on the devices are in differing locations, they do not have any user-servicable parts that can be interchanged between the products and so on. Seems that as similar looking as tablets all are there isn't a case for Apple here.

I do believe Apple has a fantastic product in the iPad, but it is time for them to stop with the legal shenanigans and compete on the merits of their product. It is bad enough that Apple is being a patent troll. It is ovee the top coming from a company founded by a man who's mantra was "good artists copy, great artists steal".

Re:iPad

[gtall]

Are these the same customers who download Bouncing Bunnies and then express disbelief that their system has a virus?

Re:iPad

[Americano]

What I'd like to know is how Samsung's lawyers could be unable to tell the difference between an Apple and a Samsung product from ten feet away, yet you assume that the casual viewer will totally know the difference.

If the only way you can tell between an "authentic" Louis Vuitton purse and a $10 streetcorner bargain made by "Louise Vitton" is through close inspection of the packaging, labels, and finish, then you have produced what is commonly known as a "knockoff." And that's precisely what Apple has alleged - that Samsung's new tablet "slavishly" copies their design so that only a close inspection will allow you to tell the two apart.

Again, you can certainly argue whether or not design patents should be allowed, and you can certainly argue that Samsung's device is not "too similar" to Apple's, but let's at least get the substance of the allegations right. Apple is not saying that they "own roundrect tablets with a black front." They are alleging that the specific design of the specific tablets from Samsung violates Apple's design patents by copying a substantial portion of Apple's trade dress.

Re:iPad

[Kreigaffe]

Probably because I'm fucking right here, and you're an Apple apologist.

Just sayin.

Samsung doesn't have their plugs and button/s in the same place as the iPad, and thus, it's not a copy.

What's that? It looks similar?

EVERY FUCKING LCD MONITOR IS A BLACK RECTANGLE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS AND A DISPLAY ON THE FRONT. If you remove variations in their stands, they all look identical.

You can point out differences in where they locate their power button, or any sort of port -- but that's just reinforcing my point, as Samsung has done just that. Samsung's tablet is just as different from an iPad as an Apple LCD monitor is different from an LG monitor.

Of course, under the design patent granted to Apple, they ARE within their legal rights to file suit.
the problem was that the design patent should never have been granted, as it was overly broad. they basically created a cylindrical bottle with a cap on the top and are now saying that anyone who wants to sell bottled drinks has to use a non-cylindrical shape. that's fucking obnoxious, and Apple should rightfully be raked over the coals for it.

If this was Microsoft, and not Apple, I somehow doubt anyone would be defending their position.

Re:iPad

[Americano]

You see, we know we don't have to take anything you say seriously because you use the phrase "iFanboy" with a straight face.

Try making an argument that has substance, and maybe you won't be dismissed as a crank.

Re:iPad

[WebCowboy]

This article is absurdly stupid. What about the Newton, arguably the predecessor, dare I say it, tablet to the iPad seems to have come before this guys idea. It's even mentioned in TFA.

Watch the Knight-Ridder video onYouTube. The fact that Apple was not the first to create an oversized PDA is not in dispute. This is a case involving industrial design--Apple accuses Samsung of copying basically the "look and feel" of the iPad specifically. K-R's "newspaper tablet" design bears a strong resemblance to the iPad--much more so than the Newton devices.

Besides that, everyone knows Alan Kay invented the tablet computer design in the 1960's. I personally don't believe the iPad design is patentable and it was a mistake to grant those design patents in the first place.

Re:iPad

[tomhath]

I could probably make one out of plexiglass and plywood that could fool them from ten feet away. It's a shiny black rectangle with rounded corners.

Re:iPad

[Kreigaffe]

I can't tell the difference between any two brands of jeans.

I can't tell the difference between any two brands of mechanical pencils.

Hell, most people can't tell the different between a Harley and a Honda.

Certainly if a brand were to distinguish itself from the rest -- unique stitching or something in jeans -- that would stand out, and copying that would be emulation.

But.. making a pair of pants out of blue denim with a zipper and button on the front, with 2 back pockets and 2 front/side pockets likely with a smaller pocket for a watch on the right side?

You can't fucking patent that design, because it's the basic design of all things we call "jeans".

That is precisely what Apple's doing with their iPad design. You're simply an Apple apologist. If this was Microsoft, not Apple, you'd be calling for heads to roll.

Have you LOOKED at Apple's design patent? It IS for a "rectangular tablet, rounded corners, bevel, screen on front".

The design patent was overly broad, should never have been granted, and Apple is behaving like a boorish asshole by trying to enforce it. These = facts.

Re:iPad

[MisterMidi]

Nice hyperbole, from one to all Samsung lawyers. Just one couldn't tell the difference, another could. From your own link:

At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which. "Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away. "Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

Re:iPad

[murphtall]

Probably because I'm fucking right here

why would that be relevant?

Re:iPad

[cyber-vandal]

Well the casual buyer might spot the word Samsung written on the box.

Re:iPad

[Americano]

I see. So you're saying you don't think that the lead counsel for the defendant being unable to distinguish between the two products at a fairly close distance is a pretty strong argument that the two devices are at least flirting with the defendant's device being a knockoff?

You don't think it would have been relevant for them to spend time poring over both devices and highlighting the similarties and the differences, so that they could identify which device was which, and demonstrate in court how different the devices clearly were? At best, the lead counsel was woefully unprepared and handed Apple a victory. At worst, the devices are knockoffs, and the lawyers are scarecely able to tell the difference, but are attesting under oath that they are clearly different devices.

Re:iPad

[bmo]

ctrl-f "alan"

You're the only person in this entire list of responses that even mentions Alan Kay.

So. Sad.

--
BMO

Re:iPad

[cyber-vandal]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-Galaxy-10-1-WiFi-Black/dp/B005FFQ5X6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331419863&sr=8-1 http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad Looks like anyone who can afford a Galaxy Tab can afford an iPad to me.

Re:iPad

[_xeno_]

What I'd like to know is how Samsung's lawyers could be unable to tell the difference between an Apple and a Samsung product from ten feet away, yet you assume that the casual viewer will totally know the difference.

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit, because:

At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.

They were most likely off, meaning you couldn't see the user interface. And depending on how they were being held, you could probably block off the home button and other identifying characteristics so the only thing to go on would be the aspect ratio, which while entirely different, is something you'd need to know ahead of time.

So, here's a challenge for you: Go into a big box store, and find the TV section. From far enough away that you can't see the logos, I want you to identify by brand each TV. Can you do it? Because some people certainly can, but most people would just see a bunch of black rectangles on the wall, all showing the same video.

Yet, TV manufacturers don't sue each other over the "trade dress" despite the fact that all the large black slabs look basically identical. You know why? Because form follows function. It's a TV: it's basically all display with a little bit of structure around it and a few controls beneath the screen. They all look the same.

The exact same thing applies to tablets. Visually, they're just a touchscreen, with a few buttons around the display. They all look identical to the casual observer. But if you hand one to someone and ask them who made it, unless they can't read, no one will mistake a Samsung for an ASUS. Let alone an iPad.

Re:iPad

[Americano]

That is precisely what Apple's doing with their iPad design. You're simply an Apple apologist. If this was Microsoft, not Apple, you'd be calling for heads to roll.

I never shared my opinion on the validity or usefulness of these patents. I supplied facts about the case to explain to the slow learners that the case isn't about "round rect with a black front." There are a host of claims that go much deeper than "round rect with black front." In fact, Samsung could have come up with a different design that would have trivially avoided the claim: color the plastic in the front bezel anything but black, and voila, the devices are easily distinguished.

That is precisely what Apple's doing with their iPad design. You're simply an Apple apologist. If this was Microsoft, not Apple, you'd be calling for heads to roll.

Nope, I'd be calling the design patent system stupid, and arguing that reform of that system is the solution. I don't particularly care who's doing it.

Re:iPad

[mspohr]

Apple invented rounded corners!
Apple OWNS rounded corners!
No one else can make a tablet with rounded corners!
Steve is a (rounded corner) genius!

Re:iPad

[Pieroxy]

You do sound angry and really have little clue.

Both black, flat, rounded-rectangles with a touchscreen that covers substantially the whole front of the device. Where's the novelty in Apple's design then

In the rest of the patent claims?

This is how all patent trolls work.

You have no clue what patent trolls are. Patent trolls *do not* implements their own patents. They sue to make money, no to protect their IP (however ridiculous the IP).

It is more about legal strategy than anything else.

No it's not. They sued Sammy because Sammy if *dumb fuck stupid* enough to dive in and make devices that actually infringe patents that *Steve Jobs* himself swore he would protect right on the 2007 keynote stage while announcing the first iPhone. "And boy, have we patented it." were his own words. Seriously, he said that on stage to the whole world.

And only one company is stupid enough to design a device that *is* just a copycat in enough ways to actually infringe on one of those patents.

there isn't a case for Apple here

Apparently, at least one german judge disagreed with you. So clearly you have no clue of how the German legal system work. A German judge *is* at a better place than you to assert such a statement, and he did.

Does Apple plays a smart game here? All bets are off. But they were very straightforward about their strategy, publicly, a long time ago.

Re:iPad

[Kneo24]

Their argument does have substance if you ignore the rhetoric. They even impolitely told you to do as such. Real life is not a true/false statement where if one part of the sentence is false, the rest must be, and thus invalidates their entire point. In case you wish to not look past their rhetoric their point is:

Apple is suing Samsung to set a precedent where if they win, it gives the ability to go after other manufacturers who have similar designs and demand licensing fees with a threat of a lawsuit if those companies don't pay for the licensing fee.

Apple never has been, nor will they ever be the only company to do this. IMO, any company who does this is run by jerks. I realize companies exist to maintain profit for their shareholders, but that doesn't mean you have to be a jerk at every opportunity.

Re:iPad

[FunkDup]

"rectangular tablet, rounded corners, bevel, screen on front".

Obviously they should just put the screen on the back.

Re:iPad

[MisterMidi]

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

A: Except that they aren't.

B: I don't consider an iPad "the real thing". It's just another tablet, only overhyped, overpriced, restricted and without expandable memory. So compared to other tablets, I consider the iPad a toy. I couldn't care less what it looks like and if everyone else has one. If I have to choose between freedom and image, it's an easy choice.

Re:iPad

[Vectronic]

I don't really know how right you might be, but I greatly enjoyed the aggression you put into it.

Re:iPad

[Ouchie]

They are suing Samsung because they think or thought they could win. Generally in cases like this the company sues someone they think they can win and then use that case to set a legal precedent. They then take that precedent and threaten other companies with it. It has nothing to do with believing in the next guy and only protecting their patents. Its all about protecting their monopoly and profits.

I am not certain Apple really thinks that they can win. There is a secondary effect of the law suits and it is tied to Apple's marketing. They sue the competition for copying, even though they know they can't win. They drag the issue out through the Media and pair the media attention to their law suit to advertising of how the iPad is a superior product to the competition. It is a secondary way of drawing attention to the product, and I would say it is working.

Pair this subliminal marketing with their ability to lock in manufacturing and supply chain to keep costs down and Apple can happily make a 50% profit margin on the iPad. This ties into how Apple markets their other computers, no other computer is an Apple that is why you will gladly pay a 25-40% premium for an Mac. The Mac has been around for over 20 years and has always touted itself as better than a PC. It is harder to do the same thing with a new product and hence the dynamic ways of marketing the iPad's superiority.

Re:iPad

[Gadget_Guy]

I supplied facts about the case to explain to the slow learners that the case isn't about "round rect with a black front." ...... In fact, Samsung could have come up with a different design that would have trivially avoided the claim: color the plastic in the front bezel anything but black, and voila, the devices are easily distinguished.

If you supplied facts to say that this isn't about "round rect with a black front", then why bring up the comparison of the products from 10 feet away? In fact, that has been your only fact that you keep supplying. At that distance, the differences between the two products cannot be seen.At that distance it is all just about rounded corners and a black front.

If it isn't all just "round rect with a black front." then why is your solution to change the black front to another color? If black around the edges of the screen is so unique, then why do most of the computer monitors and televisions come with black edges?

Re:iPad

[Lennie]

Actually a Dutch judge did, the Germans haven't decided if I remember correctly (the Germans were first and said: yes that looks alike. But that was just because Samsung had no time to prepare for a proper fight).

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Samsung doesn't have their plugs and button/s in the same place as the iPad, and thus, it's not a copy.

Oh, FFS. Twenty five complaints about specific details that Samsung allegedly duplicated and somebody nitpicks the button placement that's more about feel than sight.

Okay, speaking as somebody who owns an iPad, a Tab, and a Touchpad, let me be real clear: It's obvious that Samsung went out of their way to copy the iPad. The 'rounded corners' are basically same radius, unlike the Touchpad which is visibly and unmistakably larger. In other words, all three are rounded corners, yet HP's are distinct The iPad and the Tab have a similar rim around the bezel, made of a similar material with.. not quite the same color but not all that dissimilar either. That rim is flat around the edges, on the Touchpad it's rounded ... a bit like a kid's toy I'm sad to say, but it's obvious that it's a form of bumper intended to make it resistant to drop damage. The equivalent material on the touchpad is NOT the same color or the same feel, it's a soft shiny plastic that sadly collects fingerprints, but to the touch is vastly different from Apple and Samsung's offerings.

I could go into more detail, but I think I've made enough of a point. Samsung carbon copied the iPad, which I shouldn't even need to tell you since Samsung's own lawyers couldn't tell the two apart. HP, however, went with a different design, and frankly so did every single other tablet I saw at Best Buy the other day. Meanwhile, I have picked up the Tab thinking I was reaching for the iPad and vice versa. About half the people I work with have iPads. Most of them have seen me walk around with the Tab, and they don't ask about it until the screen comes on and they approach me wanting to know how I made my iPad look so much cooler. Each one surprised that I was actually holding an Android tablet. Never happened once with the TouchPad.

HP and several other companies easily made non-carbon-copied tablets. Samsung's just trying to cover their butts. It really is pathetic. But in light of just how physically similar those two devices are, I'm genuinely surprised it's Apple being roasted over it. At least I take a little comfort in knowing that it's not that easy to get ahold of both devices and see them side by side, something the lawyers and judges have been able to do.

Re:iPad

[gnasher719]

Like the summary said. 2001: A Space Oddessy beat them both by about 40 years. Apple's "design patent" is even mor e absurd than their other patents and a lot of those are total rubbish to begin with.

Actually, no. One judge did actually look at footage from 2001: and said that it was impossible to see any details, so it is impossible to say whether the screen showed in the movie matches Apple's design patent in any way.

And it seems that you don't have a clue what a design patent means. You design a product, then you make drawings that describe as precisely as possible what the product looks like, and then you get a design patent. It doesn't have to be innovative whatsoever. It just has to be a design that wasn't there before, quite possibly by putting together a dozen different design decisions that have all been made before, just not in that particular combination.

To infringe on a design patent, you have to copy all the design decisions. Not just "rectangle with rounded corners" but all the other things in the design patent as well. That's why Apple is suing nobody but Samsung for copying their design, because everybody else of any importance has designed tablets that look different. Including lots of tablets with rounded corners that look different from the iPad by making substantially different design decisions somewhere.

Re:iPad

[Lennie]

Don't be silly tablet computing has been going on for much longer than that.

They had "spreadsheets" in 1800 BC on tablets:

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

Now that is tablet computing ;-)

Re:iPad

[alienzed]

I have to disagree, Samsung really did make their product look identical to Apple's, whether it was on purpose or not. http://dailymobile.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ipad-2-vs-samsung-galaxy-tab-10.1.jpg Without the home button and the slightly different shape, they look exactly the same. Apple asserts that this fact may confuse customers. And don't forget that a LOT of shops selling non iPad tablets will still put that typical iPad home screen screenshot on it. Remember the ordeal where a Samsung display had all the core Apple apps up on the wall? Do I agree with patents like this? No. But if they exist and they should be enforceable, I think Apple has a case.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I made a point earlier about how the two devices are very similar. Even though I did say that, I did want to chime in and point out that, no, I don't think it's going to cause brand confusion. I imagine Apple's just playing to a brand-related and very generalized law.

That said, Apple spent a lot of time and money arriving at the form that they did. Samsung has no business lifting it off them. Let them spend their own money to come up with something, all the other manufacturers did.

Re:iPad

[MisterMidi]

No, I'm saying one lawyer does not equal all lawyers. I agree he should have prepared better, it makes him look like a dumbass and doesn't help the case. In his defense, they do look similar, but so do all black tablets with rounded corners, especially from 10 feet. And if both devices are inspired by the same device from a '68 movie, is the Galaxy still a knockoff of the iPad?

Re:iPad

[gnasher719]

What I'd like to know is how they could confuse customers into thinking they're buying an Apple device when "Samsung" is printed on the device and the box it comes in.

Missing the point. It is not about confusing customers into thinking they are buying an Apple device, it is about confusing customers into thinking they are buying an iPad.

Grandma goes to the store and says she wants to buy an iPad. Sales droid sells her an "iPad" made by Samsung. Grandma doesn't have a clue who makes the iPad, she's heard of Samsung before, and the box and the tablet look exactly how she remembers her son's iPad and the box it came in.

Interestingly, company logos cannot be part of a design patent, and therefore using a different company logo cannot possibly protect you against a claim of infringement.

Re:iPad

[tomhath]

So you're saying you don't think that the lead counsel for the defendant being unable to distinguish between the two products at a fairly close distance

Without knowing the lawyer, there are any number of reasons she couldn't identify which was which; the most likely being that she probably had reading glasses on and couldn't see squat at that distance (personal experience talking here).

Re:iPad

[gnasher719]

Yet, TV manufacturers don't sue each other over the "trade dress" despite the fact that all the large black slabs look basically identical. You know why? Because form follows function. It's a TV: it's basically all display with a little bit of structure around it and a few controls beneath the screen. They all look the same.

My Samsung TV has a very distinctive design. If you removed all the logos, I could easily pick out a TV with the same design, and would assume it is the same brand as mine.

Re:iPad

[gnasher719]

I can't tell the difference between any two brands of jeans.

Some people are blind to things they don't care about. Most people can quite clearly distinguish between different designs of jeans, including different designs by the same manufacturer. And any manufacturer would sue the ass off any competitor who tried to copy their design.

Re:iPad

[korean.ian]

No no, you see "Apple attorney Harold McElhinny said Apple's product design is far superior to previous tablets, so Apple's patents should not be invalidated by designs that came before." Their product design is far superior you see.

Sheesh. I'm an Apple apologist and this lawsuit makes me blush.

Re:iPad

[grumling]

You forgot one more bullet point:

- Tablets look a whole lot like their paper counterparts. Rectangular, sized to be hand-held, and used with hands and eyes.

Re:iPad

[Boycott BMG]

No clothing manufacturers would sue another another manufacturer for copied designs because patents for clothing are not accepted. And yet the fashion industry doesn't seem to be standing still. Imagine that! Innovation without patents on look-and-feel in an industry that is all about look-and-feel!

Re:iPad

[c 0xFF]

Except that software is part of the details. Like the design and color scheme of certain icons.

On the other hand, if you only consider hardware for a minute ... is absence of design a design in itself?

Is the absence of color a color in itself? Is the absence of religion a religion in itself? Alternatively, at what point does minimalism (see also: 4'33") become the same as a blank piece of paper art? At what point does it stay patentable?

Sorry, this is a bit too philosophical for my tastes.

Re:iPad

[roman_mir]

Apple never has been, nor will they ever be the only company to do this. IMO, any company who does this is run by jerks. I realize companies exist to maintain profit for their shareholders, but that doesn't mean you have to be a jerk at every opportunity.

- a company must always apply maximum of what it can to beat the competition, every single thing, if it means that some people think they are jerks, it means they are doing it right.

Re:iPad

[Compaqt]

>color the plastic in the front bezel anything but black

What, so now they own the color black?

What color was the Knight-Ridder tablet? Black, of course (before Apple "invented" it).

Re:iPad

[roman_mir]

That's right.
Philips TV - this could well be iPad.

Re:iPad

[Compaqt]

So what, exactly, do you want? Only Apple can make tablets?

Generally, the more useless the distinction between two products, the more that a litigious company will scream.

Gramma goes into a car dealership, and instead of using the generic term "minivan", she says she wants a "Dodge Caravan". She walks out with a Ford Aerostar.

Grandma walks into a store and says she wans a box of Kleenex and walks out with a brand X facial tissue.

The fact that "ipad" is becoming somewhat generic is only Apple's fault for choosing the letter "i", and a generic word that relates to the category, among others (slate, tablet, pad).

Re:iPad

[c 0xFF]

My Samsung TV has a very distinctive design.

So, what you're saying is that copying a product with distinctive design features is grounds for design patent infringement. I don't think you'd find anybody who would disagree with that. But what about a design where the distinction is the lack of distinction?

Now, I should point out that there's a few things that the iPad's design patent does call out that might be slightly distinctive (I believe specific colors fall into this category), but overall the patent is for a rather minimalistic design, much of which is simply a description of what a device of this sort must have regardless.

Re:iPad

[Boycott BMG]

Damn, I always thought fashion patents were non existent. Turns out they simply decided not to use them except in rare circumstances.

Also, women's preoccupation with shoes continues to baffle me.

Re:iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

- a company must always apply maximum of what it can to beat the competition, every single thing, if it means that some people think they are jerks, it means they are doing it right.

That logic applies only to sociopaths. A company is simply a group of people working together. Any ethics that applies to the individuals within the company applies to the company as a whole. There is no ethical get-out-of-jail-free card.

Re:iPad

[Rational]

Except that if you bother to watch the clip in question, the 2001 tablets show no sign of being a touchscreen device and have a clear row of keys at the bottom. That's just Samsung either clutching at straws or taking us for imbeciles.

Re:iPad

[Hognoxious]

if you can't design a product that looks different enough from your competition's product such that your lead counsel in the lawsuit can't tell the difference without help and a close inspection, perhaps there's something to the charge that your product is a little too similar.

Ever heard the phrase "form follows function"? As a consequence, modulo decorative & aesthetic aspects, things that do the same job are more likely than not to look pretty similar. It even occurs in nature, but you don't hear the pigs suing the tapirs.

Jeans will often have two legs, for example. Several companies produce round wheels. Mugs all over the world take the form of a cylinder open at the top with a handle on the side.

Re:iPad

[Pieroxy]

Apple isn't perfect, neither is Samsung nor Google. I'm just arguing that every one of them should get credit where it is due. Nothing else.

As far as not buying iPhones because there are people buying iPhones with whom you disagree, I'm fine with that. But good luck with anything.

Re:iPad

[smart_ass]

Note ... even sharp corners (strictly speaking) are round corners where R --> 0

Re:iPad

[Hognoxious]

And it seems that you don't have a clue what a design patent means. You design a product, then you make drawings that describe as precisely as possible what the product looks like, and then you get a design patent.

You (and the mods) missed one crucial element: a design patent only covers decorative aspects of the device. That's the difference between a regular (utility) patent and a design patent.

The classic example is D48,160. The lady-in-a-corset shape is covered by the design patent, the hole at the top isn't.

Apple think they own the hole.

Re:iPad

[Hognoxious]

Straight isn't a word you normally associate with Apple.

Re:iPad

[ReeceTarbert]

Apple has never claimed that they invented the tablet. They claim they own the design patents of their tablet in that Samsung's phones and tablet looks too much like theirs. Notice that they have not sued others for design patents and they are specifically suing Samsung for certain models.

Then why did Apple start (and then lose) a design lawsuit against Spanish tablet maker NT-K? It's not that their products are even remotely similar, are they?

RT.

Re:iPad

[MisterMidi]

Actually, he didn't. The Dutch judge ruled:

Samsung violates patent EP 868 with its Galaxy S, S2 and Ace model, but not with its Galaxy tablets. Samsung does not violate patent EP 948, while patent EP 022 was considered invalid. There was no violation by Samsung on any of Apple's design or copyright...

EP 868 is about a user interface, by the way.

Re:iPad

[fatphil]

"Congratulations on buying your new Samsung Galaxy tablet. Before using, please open the battery compartment on the front and insert a compatible battery..."

Re:iPad

[bhtooefr]

The funny thing is, I have a GRiDPad SL.

Black, has rounded edges, and a rectangular screen front and center. Yes, it does have some switches and a pen on the front, but...

Oh, I almost forgot to mention. The GRiDPad SL is a rebranded Samsung PenMaster.

Re:iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your main point: design patents based on form, rather than function are a mistake. it's worth 15 minutes to read the 1968 Kay paper that still inspires many people (including me): A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages; and as published academic research, it fits every reasonable definition of prior art for the functionality of a tablet computer.

Re:iPad

[Theaetetus]

Apple is claiming that they own the patent and/or copyright to a rectangular tablet with a screen on the front -- all of 'em.

If you don't even know the difference between a utility patent, design patent, and copyright, then why should we take your statement as being at all credible?

In truth, Apple is not claiming that they have a design patent on "a rectangular tablet with a screen on the front - all of 'em." In fact, in the Germany case, Apple explicitly mentioned features found in competitor's tablets - HP, Microsoft, Sony, etc. - that were not covered by their design patent. So, no, your "all of them" is completely untrue.

Re:iPad

[Theaetetus]

And it's very hard to think of anything this design patent shows that isn't "rectangular. round corners": USD627777S1

Then you're not looking very closely. The curved back, with an oval profile, is part of the design. The particular radius of rounding on the corners is part of the design. The placement of the home button is part of the design. The particular placement of the screen and bezel size is part of the design. There are many more elements to the design.

Just "rectangular. round corners"? That describes a bus, too. Does that patent look it claims the design of a bus? No. This is a lot narrower than you think it is.

Re:iPad

[Theaetetus]

Samsung doesn't have their plugs and button/s in the same place as the iPad, and thus, it's not a copy.

Oh, FFS. Twenty five complaints about specific details that Samsung allegedly duplicated and somebody nitpicks the button placement that's more about feel than sight.

It should also be noted that the port placement and side buttons are one of the few things that are not included in the design patent (they appear in broken line, and are not part of the claimed design). So yeah, Samsung's tablet is identical to the drawings in the design patent... with only changes to the parts that are outside of the patent claim.

Samsung's just trying to cover their butts. It really is pathetic. But in light of just how physically similar those two devices are, I'm genuinely surprised it's Apple being roasted over it. At least I take a little comfort in knowing that it's not that easy to get ahold of both devices and see them side by side, something the lawyers and judges have been able to do.

Also bear in mind that while Judge Koh denied a preliminary injunction on the grounds that Apple hadn't shown the patent was clearly valid, she did not similarly decide that Samsung likely didn't infringe.

Patent litigation is two stage - first, showing the patent is valid or invalid; and second, showing whether the defendant infringed the patent. It's possible to "infringe" the patent, but get off because the patent is invalid... that looks like the way Samsung is trying to go.

Re:iPad

[Hognoxious]

Three words: tri fucking corder.

If it ain't in Star Trek, it's either impossible or isn't worth inventing.

Re:iPad

[Americano]

Ever heard the phrase "form follows function"?

Sure. But do you really mean to suggest that "the color black" and a "thin brushed-aluminum edge around that black screen" are matters of "form" rather than "aesthetics"? We're talking *design* patents here, not *functional* patents. As such the look of the device is absolutely important. If it were simply a case of "anybody with a roundrect tablet is infringing," then Apple would have a lot more lawsuits - they don't, so it's clearly not the case that they're simply claiming "anything rectangular is ours."

When your own lead counsel in the suit over the design patent can't tell the difference between your device and the competitor's device that you're alleged to have infringed from a few paces away, that looks pretty bad for your case for "not copying." Design patents last 14 years - in 14 years, Samsung can make as many iPad knockoffs as they wish; until then, they should probably at least make a token effort to avoid infringing - give the device a different color front bezel, and coat or anodize the visible part of the aluminum frame around the screen, and I bet anybody could easily tell them apart.

And to your argument about jeans and mugs and cups: if those were invented today, you can bet your ass they'd have design patents, too - and before you argue that you can't patent clothes, consider that Teva sandals had/have at least one design patent. In the area of clothes and pottery, of course, these things were invented centuries ago, and so any claim of IP protection would have already run out on them long before denim pants or a clay cylinder for holding coffee were created.

Again, if you want to argue that design patents are silly, overly broad, or should be eliminated, then I'll probably happily agree with most of your arguments there. I think the standard US courts use, basically that "a reasonable person might be confused into thinking one product was the other," is probably too lax. But this case is about more than just a "roundrect" - It's the entirety of the device and the trade dress that comes into play, and just comparing the two side-by-side, it's pretty hard for Samsung to claim they didn't borrow liberally from Apple's design, because it's clearly not just a matter of "Well of course a rectangular device mirroring a book or a piece of paper held in the hand makes sense in this type of device."

Re:iPad

[Wovel]

Apple also registered the design in 1993. Probably where this guy got his idea.

Re:iPad

[Solandri]

Samsung really did make their product look identical to Apple's, whether it was on purpose or not.

Actually I think Samsung's tablet design is a copy of the digital picture frame they released in 2006. Given that was released nearly 4 years before the iPad, if anything I'd say Apple copied Samsung's design. Apple is just safe in that regard because tablets and digital photo frames aren't really competitors. But there's something seriously wrong if Apple can copy Samsung's picture frame design for use on an Apple tablet, then sue Samsung for using their own design on their own tablet.

Re:iPad

[Americano]

Well that comment sums up a life well-lived, doesn't it? Stay classy, champ.

Re:iPad

[phantomfive]

So, here's a challenge for you: Go into a big box store, and find the TV section. From far enough away that you can't see the logos, I want you to identify by brand each TV. Can you do it?

If there were an Apple monitor in the mix, you definitely could.

Re:iPad

[LordLucless]

The curved back is a mechanical requirement, necessary to include the physical components. The placement of the screen is in the only place any device has placed their screen - the center. The home button, I'll give you. Bezel size, corner radius? These things should be patentable now? So nobody can make a device with a 3cm bezel because Apple patented it first? That's almost as ridiculous as "rectangular. round corners".

Apple's whole design aesthetic is minimalist. That's cool - lots of people like that design. But getting a design patent on a minimalist design is ridiculous, because what you're actually patenting is the /absence/ of design. The perfectly minimalist design is, almost by defintion, a strict subset of the design of all other tablets. If Apple wants a patent design, that's fine - but it needs to be distinctive. More than just a very common geometric shape.

Re:iPad

[cynyr]

I would suggest that "the color black" and a "thin brushed AL edge around that black screen" are matters of form or normal consumer expectations.

What color would you suggest, that looks "professional" doesn't show smudges/stains, and would be a viable color in the market place? Personally at this point I would use a very very very dark blue, simply to avoid apple. It would still look black in all but the brightest sunlight.

How else do you propose that I affix the back to the screen in a durable way, that doesn't involve a crack/seam that would allow "crud" to collect in it? I guess i could wrap the screen glass the other way, but glass is known to chip where as brushed AL is much more durable in when at the thicknesses desired.

The bezel width is also a matter of function, too much width and you are making your device larger (heavier/costlier) than it needed to be, make it too thin, and users will accidentally touch the screen too often.

If it were simply a case of "anybody with a roundrect tablet is infringing," then Apple would have a lot more lawsuits - they don't yet, so it's clearly not the case that they're simply claiming "anything rectangular is ours. not the case yet, but having a win over samsung would certainly make it easier to pressure the rest of the players."

FTFY

Did you read Apple's suggestion list of how Samsung could avoid infringing? I did, and in my head i had a 3 sided device with pointed corners, that was pea soup green, and had half of the screen on each side, was unlocked with a physical key, and offered no apps as square icons in a grid, just a pile of randomally strewn triangles for each app that simply had the name of the app on them. There was also no AL, or glass to be seen. it was all plastic, and had no bezel around the screen whatsoever.

Re:iPad

[cynyr]

The bezel width is a functional aspect, the corners likely are as well, too small and they still seem square, too large and your device looks like a circle/oval. I'll give you the placement of the button and the rounded back(although that could be arrived at independently through testing which profile a test group found most pleasing to hold).

No, a bus is not "mostly 2D" like the iPad or a sheet of paper, it is more like a squared of log with wheels.

Re:iPad

[cynyr]

"As a quick tour of the device, please note the 8MP camaer on the front along with the battery cover. On the back you will see the screen and the 3MP rear camera." From that point on the manual would refer to the "screen side" as the rear, and the other side as the front.

Re:iPad

[ceoyoyo]

"Apple is suing Samsung to set a precedent where if they win, it gives the ability to go after other manufacturers who have similar designs and demand licensing fees with a threat of a lawsuit if those companies don't pay for the licensing fee."

That's the argument the OP made up, yes. There's nothing to support it. In fact, since Apple isn't suing Samsung for ALL their designs that look similar to iPads and iPhones, just the ones most similar, it seems unlikely.

Re:iPad

[ceoyoyo]

"Both black, flat, rounded-rectangles with a touchscreen that covers substantially the whole front of the device."

What does his UI look like? Apple is suing Samsung based on the look and feel of their device being too close to the iPad. They're NOT suing lots of other tablet manufacturers who make tablets that look very similar because they either a) aren't quite the same in hardware design or b) aren't quite the same in UI.

There was a good article illustrating, using tablets from makers that are not being sued by Apple, what Samsung would have had to have done. The conclusion was it would have taken a mediocre designer about ten minutes to come up with something sufficiently different from the iPad yet still perfectly functional.

The tablet in the video, for example, looks more like any number of other tablets that are not the subject of lawsuits than it looks like an iPad. Resistive stylus, different size bezel, bezel not at the same level as the screen, uneven bezel, no silver trim around the edges, different corner radius, completely different UI.

Re:iPad

[Theaetetus]

The curved back is a mechanical requirement, necessary to include the physical components.

No. Look at the patent. The curved back is explicitly a requirement of Apple's aesthetic design. And it's not a requirement of the functional design - in fact, don't you remember people complaining about trying to type on the iPad while it rotated on that same curved back? There were Slashdot stories about it.

The placement of the screen is in the only place any device has placed their screen - the center.

On the contrary, check out the infamous Kubrick 2001 tablets - those screens are off-center,/I>.

The home button, I'll give you. Bezel size, corner radius? These things should be patentable now?

Yes, and you're apparently admitting that they're unique.

So nobody can make a device with a 3cm bezel because Apple patented it first? That's almost as ridiculous as "rectangular. round corners".

No. Again, you apparently don't understand design patents. Allow me to explain: a design patent illustrates a number of features, such as the 3cm bezel, the radius of the corners, the rounded back, etc. - for convenience, let's call them, respectively, [a], [b], [c]. You only infringe the patent on [a]+[b]+[c] if you make something with [a]+[b]+[c]. If you make "a device with a 3cm bezel" but none of the other features, you don't infringe, by definition. Hope this helps.

Apple's whole design aesthetic is minimalist. That's cool - lots of people like that design. But getting a design patent on a minimalist design is ridiculous, because what you're actually patenting is the /absence/ of design.

Actually, as we've discussed, Apple patented a whole bunch of explicit design features. Not the absence of said features.

Re:iPad

[arkane1234]

No patent on being a tablet, it was the design.
A screen and a single button, with a surrounding border. That's it, nothing more. (other than side buttons, etc but that's not the topic)
Notice no one did that until Apple did?

Re:iPad

[arkane1234]

LISTEN to yourself!
Just once!
DO it!!!
We'll wait here...

Re:iPad

[LordLucless]

And it's not a requirement of the functional design - in fact, don't you remember people complaining about trying to type on the iPad while it rotated on that same curved back?

That wasn't what I said. I said it was a mechanical requirement. The shape of the case was determined by the shape of the components it needed to house. The fact that this made it a pain to type on when it was at rest on a surface was a side-effect.

On the contrary, check out the infamous Kubrick 2001 tablets

You mean, the fictional ones that never existed? Look at your monitor, your laptop, your TV - any device with a screen. Where do they place their screen? In the center, with possibly an extra-large bezel wherever they put their controls.

Yes, and you're apparently admitting that they're unique.

What, you think no device in the history of humanity has ever used that particular radius? They shouldn't be patentable because they're trivial, not because they're unique.

You only infringe the patent on [a]+[b]+[c] if you make something with [a]+[b]+[c]

Unless you're Samsung - whose Galaxy Tab didn't have the a single home button at the center-bottom of the device, and yet still attracted the ire of Apple's lawyer-pack.

Actually, as we've discussed, Apple patented a whole bunch of explicit design features. Not the absence of said features.

Apple patented a bunch of trivial design features. The very fact that their patent can be reduced to nothing but the size of their bezel and the radius of the corners shows that Apple had nothing of actual distinction to include in their patent. I guess we're lucky they didn't patent the colour black while they were at it.

Re:iPad

[arkane1234]

Corporations are by very definition sociopathic. It's not something new...
A company is what you described, a Corporation is way different.
This isn't me saying it's right or wrong, just what it is.

Re:iPad

[arkane1234]

that's quite a general bullet point...
I guess you could run crazy with that generality, with just about all computer tech.

Re:iPad

[leighklotz]

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

Re:iPad

[tehcyder]

They're going after Samsung because Samsung's phones and tablets are better and cheaper than Apple's own products, and thus represent genuine competition.

Re:iPad

[tehcyder]

You see, we know we don't have to take anything you say seriously because you assert that Apple has a "monopoly" in the tablet space with a straight face.

It would be a lot more like a monopoly if they could shove Samsung out of the picture.

Re:iPad

[tehcyder]

Mugs all over the world take the form of a cylinder open at the top with a handle on the side.

I thought mugs all over the world take the form of people queuing up overnight outside Apple stores to buy an upgraded expensive toy.

Re:iPad

[tehcyder]

Don't forget, for Randians the word "sociopathic" is equivalent to "rationally self interested".

Re:iPad

[tehcyder]

Apple's whole design aesthetic is minimalist. That's cool

It's also fucking handy when it comes to design patents. If you can patent a perfect white cube or something, you're golden if everyone suddenly wants all there electronics to be in the shape of a perfect white cube.

Whereas with a more baroque or rococco design aesthetic, it becomes much harder to argue that it is coincidence that your gold and jewel encrusted serpentine box just happens to have the same number of winged cherubs as the competition.

Re:iPad

[tehcyder]

In your picture, the two devices look similar but not identical, in the same way that any two TVs or washing machines in the same colour look fairly similar to eachother.

There is definitely a different aspect ratio between the iPad and Galaxy tablet, and you can't see enough of the screen to say much more, other than that they have a round clock in the middle somewhere.

Re:iPad

[tehcyder]

That's the difference between a regular (utility) patent and a design patent. [wikipedia.org]

I thought we didn't believe in "intellectual property" on slashdot at all, never mind worrying about differentiating different types? If it's OK to copy a song or film, why isn't it OK to copy a design? In neither case are you stealing anything physical from the creator.

Re:iPad

[Theaetetus]

That wasn't what I said. I said it was a mechanical requirement. The shape of the case was determined by the shape of the components it needed to house. The fact that this made it a pain to type on when it was at rest on a surface was a side-effect.

And yet, many other tablets have flat backs. Apparently, a curved back is not a mechanical requirement.

Look at your monitor, your laptop, your TV - any device with a screen. Where do they place their screen? In the center, with possibly an extra-large bezel wherever they put their controls.

I'm typing this on an iMac... with an off-center screen. Example-fail.

What, you think no device in the history of humanity has ever used that particular radius? They shouldn't be patentable because they're trivial, not because they're unique.

It's the total combination that's patentable. The individual features are not necessarily patentable. But fortunately, the USPTO recognizes that they can't just cherry pick elements but have to look at the entire claim.

Unless you're Samsung - whose Galaxy Tab didn't have the a single home button at the center-bottom of the device, and yet still attracted the ire of Apple's lawyer-pack.

See, now I know you're trolling... Or talking out of sheer ignorance. Here's the relevant patent. Do you see a "single home button at the center-bottom of the device"? Figure 3 should be particularly helpful.

Apple patented a bunch of trivial design features. The very fact that their patent can be reduced to nothing but the size of their bezel and the radius of the corners shows that Apple had nothing of actual distinction to include in their patent.

Yeah, you see, that's not a "fact" anywhere except in your mind.

From our discussion:
1) you've never read or even looked at the patent.
2) you don't understand that the patent is the entire set of features, and cannot, legally, "be reduced" to a few features.
3) you don't understand that infringement requires infringing each and every feature, and not just "a 3cm bezel".
4) you've apparently never seen an iMac.

I'd say that pretty much wraps up this debate. Cheers.

Re:iPad

[Americano]

I would suggest that "the color black" and a "thin brushed AL edge around that black screen" are matters of form or normal consumer expectations.

Yes, they're matters of form - of aesthetics and "look." The argument was "form follows function," implying that "black" and "thin brushed aluminum edge" were somehow inescapable natural conclusions for any tablet design - and this is obviously and trivially not true, because other tablets have been designed that don't use those elements that we're told work just as well - nay, better! - than an iPad.

What color would I suggest? Blue. Green. Red. Gray. Silver. White. Brown. Even black - because it's not about a single unique element of the design, it's the overall design that's in question. Your reductionist "logic" says that this suit is "just" about a single element of the complaint, and it's not. It's about a host of design decisions all resulting in a device so similar that the defense's lead counsel couldn't tell the difference between them from a few short steps away.

How else do you propose that I affix the back to the screen in a durable way, that doesn't involve a crack/seam that would allow "crud" to collect in it? I guess i could wrap the screen glass the other way, but glass is known to chip where as brushed AL is much more durable in when at the thicknesses desired.

And the only way to produce an aluminum frame is by leaving a brushed metal look? Anodize it and then dye it a color that complements the front color, and you might have a distinctive, attractive design that's your very own, rather than just aping the iPad's look. Again, you're arguing that aesthetic decisions - what color something is - is some inescapable logical consequence of designing the tablet, and you've got an uphill battle to be able to prove that assertion.

I did, and in my head i had a 3 sided device with pointed corners, that was pea soup green, and had half of the screen on each side, was unlocked with a physical key, and offered no apps as square icons in a grid, just a pile of randomally strewn triangles for each app that simply had the name of the app on them. There was also no AL, or glass to be seen. it was all plastic, and had no bezel around the screen whatsoever.

And now we can see why you're not a tablet designer - don't quit your day job. If Motorola, HP, Amazon, B&N, and RIM can all introduce a rectangular touchscreen tablet device and not get sued by Apple, why can't Samsung? (Answer: Samsung is the only tablet maker who has copied a substantial enough portion of Apple's design to arguably be infringing on that design.)

Re:iPad

[Americano]

I guess you like ready selectively, too! The full passage is this:

Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.

"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.

"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

The lead counsel - you know, the person who's supposed to be your vigorous advocate before a court, the person who's supposed to sell god, the court, and every witness in hearing distance on the righteousness of your cause - couldn't tell the difference. Ten feet is not a big distance. To replicate it... lay on the floor in a room with average dimensions. See that ceiling? That's about 10 feet away. Think you could tell the difference between an iPad and a Nook at that distance? iPad and a Playbook? iPad and a Kindle Fire? iPad and an Asus Tab? iPad and a Xoom? Because I'm pretty sure I could. One of Samsung's lawyers could; one of them couldn't. What's that tell you about the similarity in their designs, if one of the people who is specifically there defending the "uniqueness" of the product's design can't distinguish it from the plaintiff's tablet?

Re:iPad

[SiChemist]

I think that Sabre electronics has the design patent on that. Meet the pyramid tablet.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Yes, that would be because the Tab looks very much like an iPad.

It looks as much like a iPad as an Apple TV looks like a WD Elements. Naturally in both cases the different devices have different sizes, shapes, logos and buttons/connectors.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No, it looks very much like an iPad as in one can be confused for the other. If you don't believe that despite the fact that Samsung's lawyers couldn't distinguish between the two, then take it from a guy who has both.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

No, it looks very much like an iPad as in one can be confused for the other.

Like i said, it looks as much like an ipad as an Apple TV looks like a WD elements. You have to ignore the differences is shape, logos and buttons/connectors but it's the same comparisons.

If you don't believe that despite the fact that Samsung's lawyers couldn't distinguish between the two, then take it from a guy who has both.

Pretty sure they did didn't they? I certainly haven't had any trouble, i mean for one thing they are different size and shape, and one of them has a button on the front where the other has the word 'Samsung' emblazoned on it. If you look at it from the back it's even clearer.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Like i said, it looks as much like an ipad as an Apple TV looks like a WD elements

And like I said, no, it's not.

Pretty sure they did didn't they? I certainly haven't had any trouble, i mean for one thing they are different size and shape, and one of them has a button on the front where the other has the word 'Samsung' emblazoned on it. If you look at it from the back it's even clearer.

Yes, if you look for the the word Samsung or look at a JPG that's head-on of the device it's easy to spot. When it's just sitting on the desk, seen at a typical angle, you would have trouble. There's a reason the list of complaints is as long as it is.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

And like I said, no, it's not.

How so? You haven't been able to explain how the comparisons differ, because of course the same design element comparisons apply in both cases.

Yes, if you look for the the word Samsung or look at a JPG that's head-on of the device it's easy to spot. When it's just sitting on the desk, seen at a typical angle, you would have trouble. There's a reason the list of complaints is as long as it is.

How can you miss it? It's right there on the front in capital letters, not to mention it's a different shape. If you did the same thing with a WD Elements and an Apple TV you get the same issue, there is a difference in shape and logo.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You haven't been able to explain how the comparisons differ, because of course the same design element comparisons apply in both cases.

Haven't been able to? This is the first time you've asked! *Sigh* If you insist.Really, though, I don't see why I even need to bother. It's not like you mentioned 25 similarities between WD and the Apple TV.

Tablets are usually laid with the back flat on the table. Even if it wasn't, the not-actually-that-big Samsung logo gets lost in the reflectivity in the case. Actually a better cue is the camera is in a different placement. However, that's dependent on that side of the case of it being angled towards you. As for the shape of the case, it's compelling when viewed in straight-on-jpg-form, but in the real world you normally see it at a three-quarter view. The proportions aren't that obvious then.

The details Samsung copied from Apple aren't vague, they were very specific about it... but we already know that because we actually read the article, right?

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Haven't been able to? This is the first time you've asked!

Well your response so far has been 'no it isn't'.

If you insist.Really, though, I don't see why I even need to bother. It's not like you mentioned 25 similarities between WD and the Apple TV.

If you looked at the 2 devices you'd see the similarities, the same radius on the rounded corners, the same glossy edge, the same textured top and bottom, the same embossed logo. It's almost exactly the same design, just a slightly different shape and size, just like the iPad Vs the Tab.

The details Samsung copied from Apple aren't vague, they were very specific about it... but we already know that because we actually read the article, right?

Absolutely, but it would be monumentally ignorant - or some Apple bias - to ignore the simple fact that the Apple TV takes all its design cues from the WD Elements. I'm not saying either is wrong or right, Samsung probably did copy Apple, but just that it would show clear bias - or ignorance - if one were to suggest Samsung copied Apple's iPad design for their Tab but that Apple didn't copy the WD Elements design in the case of the Apple TV. Just looking at them it's blindingly obvious.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Great! Let's see the 25+ details Apple obviously copied, WD has a case! Can't wait to hear about this.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Great! Let's see the 25+ details Apple obviously copied, WD has a case! Can't wait to hear about this.

Why do there have to be 25+? Is that some magic legal number? I think not. But the clear and obvious fact is that Apple copied the AppleTV design from WD so it's pretty damn hypocritical to launch into lawsuits when someone copies their designs. But their are people who actually would suggest that it's ok for Apple to copy designs from others but not ok for others to copy designs from Apple, an obvious logical fallacy and clear sign of bias.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You said it's the same as the tablet case. So get to listin'!

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

You said it's the same as the tablet case. So get to listin'!

Not identical, like saying the ipad and tab look the same, it's not implying they look identical. You would say that the AppleTV design is not copied from the WD Elements?

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Apple's complaint was that Samsung duplicated 25 details of the iPad. If you wish to claim that Apple did exactly the same, you have to produce a similar list. So let's see it!

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Apple's complaint was that Samsung duplicated 25 details of the iPad. If you wish to claim that Apple did exactly the same, you have to produce a similar list. So let's see it!

The design, fool. Here's what you wrote and what i responded to:
Yes, that would be because the Tab looks very much like an iPad.

And the AppleTV looks very much like a WD Elements. Samsung copied Apple and Apple copied WD...yet in the mind of an apologist the latter could not possibly be true.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So.... you're saying Apple copied WD but really cannot list how. Bummer, I wanted to hear about this.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I realize you are really busy calling an Android Tablet owner an Apple Apologist and compiling a list of all those design elements Apple stole from WD, but you really should stop and look at what an Apple TV that predates the WD Elements by two years looks like. But you said I've never seen one, so I'll still require detailed descriptons of Apple's specific ripoffs.

No fair getting mad at me, I actually went into detail while making my point,

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

So.... you're saying Apple copied WD but really cannot list how. Bummer, I wanted to hear about this.

errr...look at the devices? Pretty obvious, wouldn't think anyone need the differences listed. But of course I did list them, but here they are again:
The same radius on the rounded corners, the same glossy edge, the same textured top and bottom, the embossed logo, the same color.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

I realize you are really busy calling an Android Tablet owner an Apple Apologist and compiling a list of all those design elements Apple stole from WD, but you really should stop and look at what an Apple TV that predates the WD Elements by two years looks like.

I did look at the earlier ones, they look nothing like the current one, yet the current one looks very much like a WD Elements.
Original AppleTV, then came the WD Elements, then the next AppleTV.

But you said I've never seen one, so I'll still require detailed descriptons of Apple's specific ripoffs.

If you require detailed descriptions it means you can't see the similarities in the devices themselves, and if you claim you can't see them in the devices themselves you are being deliberately obtuse because no-one with the gift of sight could be that stupid.

Are you saying you cannot see the obvious design elements that have been copied? You really cannot see them and need them explained to you?

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If you require detailed descriptions it means you can't see the similarities in the devices themselves, and if you claim you can't see them in the devices themselves you are being deliberately obtuse because no-one with the gift of sight could be that stupid.

Actually, it's my gift of memory, when you said the differences between the Apple TV and the WD Elements were pretty much the same.

Are you saying you cannot see the obvious design elements that have been copied?

I'm saying you haven't met your own standards of the case you're trying to make. You're saying a case with a lot of specifics is exactly the same as something with a couple of broad generals (which, in light of the evolution of the product, isn't that compelling), and claiming that there's a bias in Apple's direction.

What I can or cannot see is not at issue. You made the claim, now support it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

What I can or cannot see is not at issue. You made the claim, now support it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

It's supported by the obviousness of simply looking at it. You say:
Yes, that would be because the Tab looks very much like an iPad.

Yet for some reason you're going to these desperate and ridiculous lengths to suggest that my assertion that the 'AppleTV looks very much like the WD Elements' is not correct and that you need some detailed specifics on how they look alike because for some reason you are unable to see it just by simply looking at the 2 devices.

Are you that impaired that you needed someone to point out how the Tab and iPad look alike? Or did you figure that out yourself? If you figured it out for yourself then why are you having so much difficulty figuring out how the AppleTV and WD Elements look alike?

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It's supported by the obviousness of simply looking at it. You say:
Yes, that would be because the Tab looks very much like an iPad.

Didja notice why I said that? I'll give you a hint, it's about a lawsuit that's going on right now. That's the context you set your argument in, that's the context you need to make your case in.

Yet for some reason you're going to these desperate and ridiculous lengths to suggest that my assertion that the 'AppleTV looks very much like the WD Elements' is not correct and that you need some detailed specifics on how they look alike because for some reason you are unable to see it just by simply looking at the 2 devices... Are you that impaired ...

Translation:" I cannot make the case I put forth earlier."

I bet if you could go back in time you'd change your post to read: "The Elements device is pretty similar to the Apple TV, but I don't remember anybody griping at them about it." instead of saying "It looks as much like a iPad as an Apple TV looks like a WD Elements.".

Didja notice

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Let's try this again, I'm clearly writing far too many words and you can't comprehend them, given your failed attempt at 'translation'. You would say that it is true that a Tab looks very much like an iPad but that it is not true that an AppleTV looks very much like a WD Elements?

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Let's try this again, I'm clearly writing far too many words and you can't comprehend them, given your failed attempt at 'translation'.

You should have used the example where I took exactly what you said at face value and you... well then you couldn't blame me for your failings. It's a pity, though, I really was hoping you'd produce a specific list. Apple is an arrogant company that needs to be taken down a peg once in a while.

You would say that it is true that a Tab looks very much like an iPad but that it is not true that an AppleTV looks very much like a WD Elements?

Nope.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

You would say that it is true that a Tab looks very much like an iPad but that it is not true that an AppleTV looks very much like a WD Elements?

Nope.

So just to be clear you say this device and this device do not look alike but this device and this device look alike. Correct?

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

I mean if you believed that both iPad and Tab look alike and that the AppleTV and the WD Elements look alike then this conversation would have no purpose other than you arguing over the definition of the term 'as much'.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

This is a different question from the last one you asked but I'll answer.

The Tab and the iPad look alike. I don't have an Apple TV or a WD Elements so I cannot tell you if they're so similar they're confusing. And, no, that's not a cop-out. You can take photos of the Tab and the iPad that make them look dissimilar, handling them in real life makes a big difference. My opinion on their similarity wouldn't be educated or useful. That's why I need your help, since you say you've handled these devices.

Now, if you can say: "The radius of the corners is identical on both, and two of its three dimensions are identical, and the material they used is identical", etc, you can make a pretty darned good case. In fact, you'd be making the same sort of case Apple was making against Samsung. You would then be able to say: "They are just as similar to each other as the Tab and the iPad" and your point would be on solid footing.

I mean if you believed that both iPad and Tab look alike and that the AppleTV and the WD Elements look alike then this conversation would have no purpose other than you arguing over the definition of the term 'as much'.

You're trying to pin this failure on me and it isn't working. "As much" requires an apples to apples comparison and you haven't provided that. This is not my failure.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Now, if you can say: "The radius of the corners is identical on both, and two of its three dimensions are identical, and the material they used is identical", etc, you can make a pretty darned good case.

Case for what? Using the term 'as much'? Substitute 'approximately as much', not so hard is it pedant?

You're trying to pin this failure on me and it isn't working. "As much" requires an apples to apples comparison and you haven't provided that. This is not my failure.

Your failure to simply just directly object to the use of 'as much' most certainly is your failure. If you had've just said that in the first place i could have rectified it for the pedant with 'approximately as much' or 'similarly as much' given my experience.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Case for what?

This: "...it looks as much like an ipad as an Apple TV looks like a WD elements."

If you had've just said that in the first place...

Said it in several places.

Anyway, to wrap this up: You didn't really mean that Elements and Apple TV are as similar to each other as the Tab and the iPad, you just misspoke. Got it. That's clear. Have a good night.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Continue in your failure to see the forest for the trees. No-one else who has read it has felt the need to take 'as much' quite as pedantically as you have, normal people would make the fair assumption that it could mean ' approximately as much' and that this has virtually no bearing on the statement whatsoever.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...normal people would make the fair assumption that it could mean ' approximately as much' and that this has virtually no bearing on the statement whatsoever.

"...if one were to suggest Samsung copied Apple's iPad design for their Tab but that Apple didn't copy the WD Elements design in the case of the Apple TV. "

"But the clear and obvious fact is that Apple copied the AppleTV design from WD so it's pretty damn hypocritical to launch into lawsuits when someone copies their designs. "

"And the AppleTV looks very much like a WD Elements. Samsung copied Apple and Apple copied WD..."

Mmm hmm.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Correct, changing it to 'approximately as much' has virtually no bearing on the fact that Apple had their designs copied by someone else and that they copied someone else's designs.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Right. It's just all the bits I quoted and responded to it affects.

Re:iPad

[exomondo]

Right. It's just all the bits I quoted and responded to it affects.

Wrong again, the addition of 'approximately' doesn't change anything aside from removing the idea that it is exactly equal and given it's a comparison of different design elements there cannot be an exact equality anyway because the weight of design elements is subjective. Something you obviously don't understand which is why you're the only one who has read it that is having such difficulty with it.

Re:iPad

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Apple used black plastic, they're hypocrites!"

I'm afraid it is, I'm sorry.

There's always a bigger fish.

[slasho81]

I'll just leave that here.

Re:There's always a bigger fish.

[IDarkISwordI]

And I'll leave this: http://www.shopfujitsu.com/www/content/products/Tablet-PCS/History/tablet-pc-history_04.php

Re:There's always a bigger fish.

[slasho81]

As I said, there's always a bigger fish. I didn't claim the Newton was the first tablet, and I'm sure the PoqetPad wasn't the first either.

Re:There's always a bigger fish.

[IDarkISwordI]

As far as i am aware, it is the first functional, mass-produced, all-in-one, handheld, battery powered device, that we would recognize as a tablet or a slate computer today. As for concept, we can see a lot of ideas coming from far back into the early1960s.

Re:when did UPS guys start carrying tablets

[Yvan256]

Of course he has. It's UPS, they drop things out of moving trucks all the time.

uhm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an HP tablet PC, and an iPaq handheld with a cell phone attachment (as well as a micro HD, wireless and ethernet) in 1999. 3 years before that I had a 'web tablet device' on wifi. I had a palm years before that with mobile web via CDMA.

Just because something is new to you doesn't mean it's new to anyone else. Apple/Google didn't create anything, they just gave it to all you morons.

oh, and get off my fucking internet...

Not about the tablet

[xswl0931]

Apple is not making any claims on patents on the general idea of a tablet. They asserting design patents on specific design elements. If this guy's tablet invention shows prior art to Apple's designs patents, then those patents should be invalidated. Repeating the "rectangle with a screen" rhetoric is more akin to religion than science.

Re:Not about the tablet

[sjames]

Yes, as long as your tablet is pyramid shaped with razor blades on the edges, Apple will reluctantly concede that their patent on the speed limit sign shaped flat surfaced pad (that, you know, looks like a pad) doesn't apply. Otherwise they claim they own it.

you get to pick the show plenty. I only claim the right to pick the show on days that have 'day' in the name.

Re:Not about the tablet

[girlintraining]

Apple is not making any claims on patents on the general idea of a tablet. They asserting design patents on specific design elements.

Translation: Now I'm not saying Apple patented the idea of the tablet, but Apple patented the idea of the tablet. They're burying the competition in a sea of lawsuits claiming that they invented every design element of the tablet computer is pretty much the same thing... we're arguing over semantics. There is not a single manufacturer of tablets that hasn't been sued by Apple.

GRiDPad

[wiredlogic]

The first tablet was the GRiDPad from 1989.

Re:GRiDPad

[stoofa]

Etch a Sketch. 1950s. That was prior art on many levels. Not that you could write PRIOR ART on it. It would be more like RBIQB_ABT.

Re:GRiDPad

[zullnero]

Etch a Sketch: Its touchscreen was so good that it needed dialknobs to move a little needle around on a screen.

No, the Etch a Sketch is nothing like a tablet except that it's flat, thin, and square, and even that's not a true prerequisite for a tablet. They're rectangles sometimes! Etch a Sketch had more in common with a notepad. The tablet concept is a flat computer that runs software with a touchscreen and probably a backlight of some sort. It's got to at least have something running on a rom chip. I don't remember seeing any of that when I tore my Etch a Sketch apart.

Re:GRiDPad

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Ender's Game in 1985, every school child had their personal, networked tablet to make their home work on. Four years is enough to productizize a fantasy if the building blocks are there.

Re:GRiDPad

[tomhath]

Pffft. Tablets go back to Biblical times. The UI was a little slow however.

Re:GRiDPad

[guspasho]

Bah, I should still be able to use my mod points for +1 Funny after I post a comment.

Re:GRiDPad

[korean.ian]

Interesting that Samsung were the ones to manufacture it.

Re:GRiDPad

[hawk]

Yeah, but the error-correction was truly impressive . . .

and you gurus complaint about how *Apple* tries to discourage competition? :)

hawk

Re:Being able to conceive of a product?

[tragedy]

Actually it would be like Edison's light bulb patents covering anything at all, since the only original part was the carbonized filament his researchers used. Except that it turned out that wasn't original either.

Tablet Newspaper from 1994

[Br00se]

Video of the Information Design Lab electronic newspaper.

http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI

What's the difference between an iPad and a Bieber

[Anne_Nonymous]

One's white, trendy, and useless; the other one is a tablet.

simpsons did it!

[FrozenFood]

what about prior art of the PADD in star trek TNG?

2001 - Space Odyssey tablet

[fotoguzzi]

Here is a still from the movie showing the tablet. From (my) memory, Kubrick added the images for the tablet in post-processing. By contrast, some of the ship's display terminal props were actually translucent screens with film projectors behind them.

Re:2001 - Space Odyssey tablet

[fotoguzzi]

I will laugh if someone gimps an Angry Birds session or something onto his display.

Re:2001 - Space Odyssey tablet

[Dahamma]

Funny thing is the summary doesn't even get the 2001 connection right when it says "Fidler admits that other prior art influenced him, such as the tablets being used as computing devices in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Prior prior art.""

From the actual article: Fidler recalls having seen the movie and though he says he wasn’t consciously thinking of it all those years later, he acknowledges it could have been an influence.

Pretty damn big leap between someone asking him about the movie and saying he never made the connection but it could have been a subconscious influence, and claiming he admitted that 2001 definitely influenced him as prior art. Even more, nothing in the story mentions any other prior art at *all* beyond that, and they made it sound like this was just one example of several. WHY to the submitters have to paraphrase so badly that they add their own interpretation??

Re:2001 - Space Odyssey tablet

[Bing Tsher E]

FarmVille. The astronauts in 2001 would have been playing FarmVille.

The 90s...

[geogob]

I find interesting that someone claims he invented the tablet computer in the 90s.

Why do I find this interesting? I owned my first tablet computer in the 90s. Yep, that's right. Even funnier is that this tablet computer was from Apple computers - but this is completely irrelevant. Point is, development of tablet computers began much before the 90s in order to be released as commercial products in the 90s. And this guy predicted tablet computer around 1994... coincidentally the year when Apple Computer released its first tablet computer.

The day it was released I both wanted one and was convinced it could have a great future. I imagine thousands of possible use for such tablet computers. But I didn't invent the iPad. Or the Samsung Galaxy. Or what ever.

Re:The 90s...

[R3d M3rcury]

For those of you who are missing it, he's referring to the Newton. People sometimes forget that Apple did some innovative stuff even when Steve Jobs wasn't there...

Re:The 90s...

[geogob]

Exactly. For some reason, the Newton platform is completely shut out of the "tablet computer" discussion. At the time it was classified as a PDA - and still is regarded by most as a PDA today. Thing is, there was no "tablet computer" in 1994. This was totally new and had not classifications for it. The best marketing could find was to classify newtons as PDA.

In fact, the Newton was much more. The resemblance to the iPad are striking and the Newton OS clearly was the starting point for the iOS interface development. Those were in fact really tablet computers - of course with technology from the 90s - but nonetheless tablet computers. I find it absurd to ignore those devices in today's ridiculous lucubration about tablet prior art because they where not classified as such at the time of their release due to the lack of any other similar device.

Fred invented the first tablet

[rullywowr]

This guy has it all wrong. The first tablet was invented way before by Fred Flintstone

Prior, prior, prior art

[wbr1]

The Sumerians and Assyrians were 'computing' on the cPad (clay tablets), long before any of this.

Re:Prior, prior, prior art

[Anne Thwacks]

Yes, but they werent made by Samsung, so the dont count.

Re:Prior, prior, prior art

[gtall]

Ah, but they attempted to sue the Egyptians and Hittites when they attempted to rip off their invention.

Re:Tablet computing is gay.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose GUIs and the mouse are gay too.

And keyboards, while we're at it. Real coders use punch cards, etc (queue xkcd comic strip about butterflies).

Go away, lame troll.

I have a windows 3.1 tablet computer

[MichaelSmith]

I bought it from a second hand dealer around 2001. It was operated with a stylus and came loaded with software which might be used by a telecomunications service person. It was basically a windows 3.1 laptop with a touch sensitive screen.

No more "inventing"

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please retire the word "invent"?

It seems that people use it to refer to two different things which should be kept separate. How about "conceptualizing", meaning: going "Hey, imagine if there was a..." when you're getting stoned with your pals, and "developing", meaning: painstakingly and laboriously solving the myriad technical issues to make a concept actually *work*. Then, we can dispense with this "I invented the tablet" bullshit.

Re:No more "inventing"

[jedidiah]

Conceptualizing is a great thing to conflate invention with when the "invention" in question is a "design patent". As if something like that has any business being patented to begin with.

Such conceptualizations have been prior art in other areas of patents. Sci-Fi authors are great when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Samsung should show this image in court

[TuringTest]

'nuff said.

Re:Samsung should show this image in court

[gnasher719]

The frame is substantially thicker than the display, which is usable from both sides and covered with a distinctive pattern. The frame has a very distinctive pattern in the corners where it has been enforced.

If Samsung copied this design instead of copying the iPad design, then Apple wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Not one single man

[spire3661]

designed the tablet. It was designed almost a century before it ever came to light. We are simply bolting together mostly off the shelf stuff and gluing it together with nice software because it can be done now. There is no invention in the tablet, its the realization of hopes and dreams and we had to wait for technology to catch up. No one man invented the tablet, not by a long shot.

Re:Not one single man

[guspasho]

The claim isn't that Apple invented the tablet, it's that Samsung's products are knockoffs of Apple's tablets, like Rolox watches.

1992

[pcjunky]

I worked on a project called the Telesignature back in 1992. We used a pen tablet computer from Grid as the signing device. Several other companies followed suite in 1993. There was a pen computing convention in Boston that year. The only difference between these and tablets today was the pen. They looked and acted almost identical.

Re:Star Trek?

[Kreigaffe]

Yes, and every ST since.
Here's a nice screen grab from '98.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Sisko_reconstruction.jpg

I dunno, that looks EXACTLY like an iPad to me.

I have prior art.

[pubwvj]

1990's? I can beat that. I designed a tablet computer back in 1985 as part of a college project. Never saw production because the hardware was not advanced enough to handle what I wanted to do. But it's prior art. Mockups, user interface, etc.

Apple and these other Big Corps need to step back, take a breather and stop suing each other. The whole patent system should be voided. Piss on it.

What ever happened to the PIC 1000/2000

[Super Dave Osbourne]

It seems these were much further along and advanced than anything at the time.

atari st pad 1991

[clickclickdrone]

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/16bits/stpad.html

Re:Star Trek?

[gnasher719]

I dunno, that looks EXACTLY like an iPad to me.

You need your eyes tested.

Unlike the iPad, the frame doesn't have rounded corners, whereas the iPad frame has rounded corners. Unlike the iPad, the display _has_ rounded corners while the iPad display is rectangular. And you can clearly see two stripes left and right of the display looking like the same material as the border of the frame.

Seriously, when all the idiots shout "Apple has patented rectangular devices with rounded corners", shouldn't you have at least checked that it has rounded corners?

Re:Star Trek?

[dwightk]

looks more like an etch a sketch to me

Re:Star Trek?

[Kreigaffe]

Those corners are rounded, albeit with a much smaller radius than an iPad. That display IS rectangular with sharp corners -- the "rounded display" corners you are seeing are not the corners of the screen/display, but rather the GUI. It's those rounded bubbles that are all over ST:TNG and ST:DS9 -- standard starfleet UI, in other words. The *actual* edges of the display screen are hard angles.

And yeah, it looks like someone's kid got a hold of it and found some stickers.

Looks identical to me.

Oh, gosh, sorry -- the display on the PADD is slightly *RECESSED!*
guess that shows me!

Tables are not a inventation

[Tei]

Tablets are computers with the screen integrated, theres nothing inventive in that, is just putting two ideas together.

Before Knight Ridder

[Walt Dismal]

In the early 1990s Go Corporation had created the PenPoint operating system and a 386-based rectangular tablet. I worked with people at Slate, a company in the same Foster City building as Go. Slate made application software to run under PenPoint.

Go had a working, functioning tablet back then. I used one. It was thrilling to be able to do things on its touch screen. Long before the iPad. Knight Ridder had nothing but a mockup; Go had real working hardware and software.

Unfortunately, what happened was Microsoft conned Go, got them to 'open the kimono', and proceeded to screw them royally by pre-announcing Pen for Windows. They did not have a working product, Go did, but MS killed them in the market by lying. If it were not for that treachery, we would have had tablets two decades ago.

The 386-based machines could not have supported video, but they were good text and graphics apps. This was of course long before WiFi too.

Re:Before Knight Ridder

[phillymjs]

Yup. I post about Go frequently in relevant discussions on here, because nobody remembers them. Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics set tablet computing back twenty years, and I've been gleefully enjoying watching their ham-handed attempts to catch up to Apple since the first iPad. It seems that the universe is finally meting out some measure of karmic justice.

The whole story was detailed in former Go CEO Jerry Kaplan's book, Startup, and in a chapter of former Microsoftie Marlin Eller's book, Barbarians Led by Bill Gates. The latter plainly states that the only reason Pen Windows was brought into existence was to kill Go's product, which was viewed as a threat to Windows.

Really makes you wonder what other superior competing products and technologies Microsoft successfully killed back then, that we don't know about.

~Philly

"Facts" from the Washington Post???

[FurryOne]

Does ANYONE actually believe anything the Washington Post publishes??? These are the idiots that published an "Expose" on the $50 light bulb where they claimed regular bulbs ended up costing $5 less over their lifetime - except they used a kilowatt cost of 1 CENT/KWH as their basis. Like where in the world is electricity that cheap??? The Galapagos? You're better off buying a joke roll of toilet paper and getting your news off that than the Washington Post.

The Apple Design Patents

[Compaqt]

You're obviously not getting it.

I hadn't wanted to do this, but the legions of Apple-haters have forced my hand.

Apple's special, secret-sauce patented tablet design includes:

1. The letter i. No, that the Phoenician letter I. The Apple i, after Apple invented it, stands for "me", a pivot around which the universe turns. Also, Latin I is J, for Jehovah^H^H^HJobs.

2. The color black. No other company is allowed to make black plastic personal electronic devices. Apple's special color black is made from lovingly hand-blended ebony shavings from the land of Fantasia.

3. The round rectangles. Before Apple, rectangles were ... rectangular.

4. The length/width ratio. I still can't reveal it here, suffice to say that Apple took into account the Golden Ratio, Fibonacci sequences, and Pi. All other manufacturers must either adopt the square or the line as product shapes.

5. The beveling from margin to screen. Non-Apple manufacturers cannot transition gradually from one physical area of the product to another. Diagonal lines are claimed as exclusive Apple property.

Re:The Apple Design Patents

[fatphil]

> 2. The color black.

Don't jest about such things - Ferrari have trademarked a particular shade of red. Amusingly, their flagship Formula 1 racing cars are a different shade of red, as the colour on screen of their real red isn't imposing enough.

Re:The Apple Design Patents

[Compaqt]

There's something deep in the geek mind that screams out against such things. Remember the deal about the DeCSS number? ("How can you own an integer?")

Oh, and, I'm sure +- 1 RGB value would hardly be discernible to the naked eye. So, does Ferrari (or Apple) actually claim swathes of the RBG spectrum, or just a single color?

Apple was presented with with the Knight-Ridder

[Compaqt]

Entirely ignoring that the Knight-Ridder tablet took Apple about 90% of the way.

Did you miss the part in the article where the guy had presented his work to Apple? They feigned disinterest, then later came up with: a black rectangular hand-held electronic tablet.

Don't forget the "Smart Case" ripoff

[PapayaSF]

There was even a "Smart Case" for the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 that was a blatant ripoff of Apple's "Smart Cover." It wasn't made by Samsung directly, but by a firm with close ties to them, and apparently with Samsung approval.

Re:How stupid is oakgrove the ac stalker of others

[oakgrove]

What a pathetic little unloved aspie. Copy pastaing the same wall of incoherence 50 times over 2 days. Ha ha. It's a pleasure watching you crack, nut job.

Moses and the tablets

[Compaqt]

Well, actually, if you messed up, it was easier going before God than before Jobs, so it's a wash.

WTF? Lots of prior art....

[ogdenk]

People have been chasing the tablet dream for ages.

Dauphin DTR-1

Various ThinkPad grayscale 386/486 tablets existed

Their own Newton....also from around 1994.

Sloppy fat-finger UI's could have and have been done before but most people who could afford such devices back then wanted precision and thus a stylus. They also wanted lots of information on the screen and cared much less about how photos of mom looked or how smooth fonts were.

The only thing innovative about the iPhone/iPad is the fact that Apple managed to make a poke-and-drool finger-centric UI usable for more than the simplest of apps (though NOT a desktop replacement) and advanced use of multitouch.

Why does nobody on slashdot understand innovation?

[shiftless]

It doesn't have to be innovative whatsoever. It just has to be a design that wasn't there before, quite possibly by putting together a dozen different design decisions that have all been made before, just not in that particular combination.

also known as......INNOVATION

Did the person who invented the electric motor also invent steel plating, wires, bolts, and rotors, and pulleys? Or did he just put them together in a new combination that had not been tried before?

+1 Unintentionally Ironic

[shiftless]

What is with you Apple zealots

he says,

and your incessant need to insult?

The irony is so thick here you could spread it on toast.

Re:Funny MORE things in my dev experience show too

[oakgrove]

Just thought you'd like to know that that little bullshit game you play accessing slashdots comment system more than you are authorized is enough to get charges filed and geek.net doesn't have to file them since the servers are in Michigan and you're in New York the feds will pick it up. I already have your admission of guilt. I don't need a conviction to see you cool your heels and spend a lot of cash you don't have. Now play yourself.

Re:Funny MORE things in my dev experience show too

[oakgrove]

You've never seen it say "You have to wait to access this resource"? Sure you have. You're done. Game on.

Disappointed:(

[Sigg3.net]

And here I thought we were actually going to get to meet the guy. Can you imagine some 20,000 slashdotters forming a queue, each with his own "In Soviet Russia" or "I, for one" joke?
Gives me goose bumps.

TFA is alright, I guess. I don't see why no one mentions The Ancient Greeks or Moses for that matter. Tablets must be public domain by now..

Re:Why does nobody on slashdot understand innovati

[Jane Q. Public]

"also known as......INNOVATION"

No. Absolutely not.

Design patents have absolutely NOTHING to do with innovation... even in design! They only have to do with being DIFFERENT. Not the same thing at all.

Questions pertaining to design patents would be more along the line of: "Did the person at Company A who designed the exterior of this radio actually create that Art Deco look in a unique way? Or did she borrow too much from Company B's Art Deco designs from last year?" Or, "No, we can't do that, because Company C already uses an oval dial too much like that."

There is nothing even remotely involving "innovation" in design patents. The sole criterion is that you are different from everybody else.

Prior art

[hackertourist]

Apple published a video about their 'knowledge navigator' concept in 1987, the same year they started development of the Newton.

Marketing 102

[garyoa1]

Most miss the point entirely. There is marketing and there's marketing 101. Jobs was up to marketing 2,847.3. He was a marketing genius.

It doesn't matter if they win or lose. The idea is to get the competition blocked from sales for as long as possible. The Mac or whatever gains ground while the competition has to sit on it's hands. Their (in this case, apple) market share increases. Their power increases.

If they can hold them off long enough, no one (where the competition was blocked) would even consider another product since everyone has a mac tablet (or whatever). It becomes the standard since while it was in litigation it's all they can buy..

The general population falls for it and wants "the real thing", not a rip off of the original. Even if that "rip off" is light years ahead of it. Pretty much sales by deception. The product doesn't have to be better. Just perceived as better.

Re:Ooooh, making THREAT now? Shut up pussy!

[oakgrove]

Keep talking stupid. The wheels are in motion and the appropriate authorities in Syracuse have been contacted. It's going to take a lot more than a hundred dollars to get you out of this one, stupid. Say hello to Bubba

"Invented" the tablet in 1990's?

[bobamu]

I'm sure I saw someone using a tablet computer in the 1984 (which I'm pretty sure was before the 90's) film "Runaway" starring Tom Selleck. I think this concept might have been around a while longer. As much as Hollywood science makes some people sad, I wonder how many "unique" inventions and concepts appeared some years after a movie.

Re:oakgrove read geek.net's harassment policy

[oakgrove]

Keep flailing. I woke up yesterday morning with an AC response originating from you to every one of my posts on Slash dot in the last two days. Many posts that were just responding to the topic at hand and not directed to you at all. Yet you felt the need to harass me by responding to me and hurling insults. When I've responded to you, its been as a direct response to something you said to me. You're boyfriend Hairy feet on a regular basis responds to my comments that are not directed at him insulting me and my choice of Operating System (how pathetic). So both of you have established a pattern of harassment. I'm definitely sending the boys in blue after you as you are legitimately insane and need to be taken down. This in addition to your admitted hacking is enough for any grand jury to pass down an indictment. You're done.

The Evidence is Mounting against APK

[oakgrove]

11 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718299&cid=39313471

16 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39314993

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717377&cid=39313887

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718223&cid=39311901

And on and on and on.

And here's hairyfeet doing the same thing

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2714645&cid=39291823

I can't wait to see you go down, APK. You're continued harassment and mischaracterization of me, threats to Google bomb me admission of Google bombing others will be your undoing.

And before I forget, how about this gem?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39310043

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39309847

Where APK gleefully admits to unauthorized use of a computer resource, e.g., using "BGP utilization" to get around geek.nets AC posting restrictions on Slashdot. Not only is this illegal and something that can net him years in the federal penitentiary but it is also just plain anti-social and a dick move. The AC limits are there for a reason to stop people like him from trashing the comments like he did above.

Now, here is his threat to Google bomb me and his admission that he has done the same thing to others like Barbara Hudson that can easily be contacted and subpoenaed and will be when the trial starts. Of course we know with the weak justice system in America you will just take a plea and probably get some probation, maybe 9 months in club fed for your crimes but I can't do anything about that.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39316837

You're done, APK. Pack your bags for your new digs. 3 hots and a cot for you.

Now keep helping me build the case against you as my lawyer will have his hands full tomorrow already over this you criminal scum.

Re:Read geek.net harassment policy oakgrove

[oakgrove]

and stalking & harassing others online IS against the law not just here, but the REAL law...

11 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718299&cid=39313471

16 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39314993

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717377&cid=39313887

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718223&cid=39311901

And on and on and on.

And here's hairyfeet doing the same thing

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2714645&cid=39291823

I can't wait to see you go down, APK. You're continued harassment and mischaracterization of me, threats to Google bomb me admission of Google bombing others will be your undoing.

And before I forget, how about this gem?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39310043

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39309847

Where APK gleefully admits to unauthorized use of a computer resource, e.g., using "BGP utilization" to get around geek.nets AC posting restrictions on Slashdot. Not only is this illegal and something that can net him years in the federal penitentiary but it is also just plain anti-social and a dick move. The AC limits are there for a reason to stop people like him from trashing the comments like he did above.

18 USC Â 1030 - FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS

(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
YOU ARE DONE APK.

Now, here is his threat to Google bomb me and his admission that he has done the same thing to others like Barbara Hudson that can easily be contacted and subpoenaed and will be when the trial starts. Of course we know with the weak justice system in America you will just take a plea and probably get some probation, maybe 9 months in club fed for your crimes but I can't do anything about that.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39316837

You're done, APK. Pack your bags for your new digs. 3 hots and a cot for you.

Now keep helping me build the case against you as my lawyer will have his hands full tomorrow already over this you criminal scum.

Re:Oakgrove read geek.net's harassment policy

[oakgrove]

and stalking & harassing others online IS against the law not just here, but the REAL law...

11 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718299&cid=39313471

16 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39314993

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717377&cid=39313887

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718223&cid=39311901

And on and on and on.

And here's hairyfeet doing the same thing

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2714645&cid=39291823

I can't wait to see you go down, APK. You're continued harassment and mischaracterization of me, threats to Google bomb me admission of Google bombing others will be your undoing.

And before I forget, how about this gem?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39310043

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39309847

Where APK gleefully admits to unauthorized use of a computer resource, e.g., using "BGP utilization" to get around geek.nets AC posting restrictions on Slashdot. Not only is this illegal and something that can net him years in the federal penitentiary but it is also just plain anti-social and a dick move. The AC limits are there for a reason to stop people like him from trashing the comments like he did above.

18 USC Â 1030 - FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS

(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
YOU ARE DONE APK.

Now, here is his threat to Google bomb me and his admission that he has done the same thing to others like Barbara Hudson that can easily be contacted and subpoenaed and will be when the trial starts. Of course we know with the weak justice system in America you will just take a plea and probably get some probation, maybe 9 months in club fed for your crimes but I can't do anything about that.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39316837

You're done, APK. Pack your bags for your new digs. 3 hots and a cot for you.

Now keep helping me build the case against you as my lawyer will have his hands full tomorrow already over this you criminal scum.

Re:oakgrove stalking, geek.net policy, & the l

[oakgrove]

and stalking & harassing others online IS against the law not just here, but the REAL law...

11 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718299&cid=39313471

16 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39314993

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717377&cid=39313887

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718223&cid=39311901

And on and on and on.

And here's hairyfeet doing the same thing

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2714645&cid=39291823

I can't wait to see you go down, APK. You're continued harassment and mischaracterization of me, threats to Google bomb me admission of Google bombing others will be your undoing.

And before I forget, how about this gem?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39310043

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39309847

Where APK gleefully admits to unauthorized use of a computer resource, e.g., using "BGP utilization" to get around geek.nets AC posting restrictions on Slashdot. Not only is this illegal and something that can net him years in the federal penitentiary but it is also just plain anti-social and a dick move. The AC limits are there for a reason to stop people like him from trashing the comments like he did above.

18 USC Â 1030 - FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS

(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
YOU ARE DONE APK.

Now, here is his threat to Google bomb me and his admission that he has done the same thing to others like Barbara Hudson that can easily be contacted and subpoenaed and will be when the trial starts. Of course we know with the weak justice system in America you will just take a plea and probably get some probation, maybe 9 months in club fed for your crimes but I can't do anything about that.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39316837

You're done, APK. Pack your bags for your new digs. 3 hots and a cot for you.

Now keep helping me build the case against you as my lawyer will have his hands full tomorrow already over this you criminal scum.

Re:oakgrove stalking evidence & geek.net polic

[oakgrove]

and stalking & harassing others online IS against the law not just here, but the REAL law...

11 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718299&cid=39313471

16 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39314993

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717377&cid=39313887

3 APK harassing replies to a completely unrelated post by oakgrove

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718223&cid=39311901

And on and on and on.

And here's hairyfeet doing the same thing

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2714645&cid=39291823

I can't wait to see you go down, APK. You're continued harassment and mischaracterization of me, threats to Google bomb me admission of Google bombing others will be your undoing.

And before I forget, how about this gem?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39310043

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2717169&cid=39309847

Where APK gleefully admits to unauthorized use of a computer resource, e.g., using "BGP utilization" to get around geek.nets AC posting restrictions on Slashdot. Not only is this illegal and something that can net him years in the federal penitentiary but it is also just plain anti-social and a dick move. The AC limits are there for a reason to stop people like him from trashing the comments like he did above.

18 USC Â 1030 - FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTERS

(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
YOU ARE DONE APK.

Now, here is his threat to Google bomb me and his admission that he has done the same thing to others like Barbara Hudson that can easily be contacted and subpoenaed and will be when the trial starts. Of course we know with the weak justice system in America you will just take a plea and probably get some probation, maybe 9 months in club fed for your crimes but I can't do anything about that.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718491&cid=39316837

You're done, APK. Pack your bags for your new digs. 3 hots and a cot for you.

Now keep helping me build the case against you as my lawyer will have his hands full tomorrow already over this you criminal scum.

Re:Why does nobody on slashdot understand innovati

[Hognoxious]

The sole criterion is that you are different from everybody else.

Not true at all. If the difference is functional rather than aesthetic it's out of scope a design patent.

So what?

[nurb432]

I could have bought a grid tablet long before the iPad.. or an Atari tablet a few years later or even an IBM tablet in the mid 90's ( oh wait, i did do this.. _.. or if we want to stick with apple, even the newton in my closet was before the iPad.

It may be what 'formed' a mass market and is now selling more than everyone else, but it wasn't the first tablet marketed by any stretch of the imagination.. Let alone the 'idea' of one..

Hell, if you want we could say the same about the iphone too.. i remember reading about 'pocket' communication computers back in the mid 70's in Larry Niven books. Oh, and watching them on star trek in the 60's.

I guess everyone forgot about Star Trek?

[DrStoooopid]

The tablet computer was invented long before the iPad and we have no further to look than Star Trek TOS.

I saw something like that in Star Trek 1

[peter303]

A portable clipboard communicator.

Re:Why does nobody on slashdot understand innovati

[cynyr]

So like black bezels as the best color choice for the market? as it doesn't show dirt, and pea green is unlikely to look as professional as piano black? or the square design because a triangle is just silly when all screens are already some sort of rectangle? or the fact that in order to make an open-able(by service) device with an Al back and glass front that you will just about have to have an Al border around the front?

Re:Why does nobody on slashdot understand innovati

[Jane Q. Public]

"Not true at all. If the difference is functional rather than aesthetic it's out of scope a design patent."

Completely irrelevant, because I clearly stated that it was specifically in reference to design patents.

Re:Why does nobody on slashdot understand innovati

[Jane Q. Public]

What I meant to say is: if it's a functional difference it should also have no bearing on how "different" it is, from a design standpoint, so it should also not affect a design patent's process or validity.

So I don't get what your point is. It would seem to make no difference to what was being discussed.

What about TRS M100?

[jlgreer1]

For the time, a Tandy/Radio Shack Model 100 was a pretty capable tablet PC. I still have a couple that work.

Re:WTF?

[arkane1234]

I'll copy-and-paste it for you:

Re:iPad (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10, @05:48PM (#39314163)
Yep spoken like a true iFanboy. You disregarded everything I said and just looked for something that appealed to what you wanted to hear. Kind of like some of the iProduct reviews.

Good luck to you in that walled garden of a world you live in.

Re:Star Trek?

[arkane1234]

You can invent anything on TV, especially when it's a concept idea alone.

Re:What's the difference between an iPad and a Bie

[arkane1234]

Kudos... kudos for this one. I actually laughed :)

I'm not a patent apologist

[shiftless]

I didn't say anything about patents. I think all patents are evil and should be abolished or severely limited. I said WHY does slashdot have such a hard time understanding what innovation is? It's the exploration into new areas. And no, nobody's ideas are ever original, they've been thought up and maybe even implemented by others multiple times in history. It's still innovation to rediscover these ideas for society and bring them forth. This act doesn't mean one should have the exclusive right to use that idea for free.

Re:I'm not a patent apologist

[Jane Q. Public]

"I didn't say anything about patents."

You didn't have to. You were directly replying to a comment about design patents. And your comment was just plain wrong. In the context of design patents.

If you were talking about something else, why were you replying to a comment about design patents? You certainly did not indicate that you were talking about anything else.

"I think all patents are evil and should be abolished or severely limited."

Then go live in a country where most people feel that way. Like China, or Soviet Russia before they became more "capitalist". Most Americans who know their history disagree, because they understand how important a GOOD patent system is to innovation.

I'm not claiming that our current system is particularly good; too many corporations and politicians have conspired over the years to mess it up. But the fact that a messed up system is bad is not an indication that a good system (such as we used to have) is in any way a bad thing. You don't, for example, look at a badly designed or broken down car and conclude that all cars are therefore bad. Nor should we judge the idea of patents on our current, broken system.

"This act doesn't mean one should have the exclusive right to use that idea for free."

Like I said: then go to a country where they don't have such a system. But before you do, I'll let you in on a little secret: those countries don't innovate very much. Instead, they base their economy on stealing the ideas of others -- for free. As a consequence, they are always behind the curve when it comes to technology. Again, the former Soviet Union was a classic example. Modern China is still a good example. The vast majority of things they manufacture were invented and designed elsewhere. They aren't very good at your much-vaunted "innovation". And the reason is simple: it doesn't reward them. There is nothing to be gained by it.

The exceptions (and there are some) in China are those corporations that have [a] originally grown to a large size by manufacturing goods of foreign design (i.e., invented in designed in countries that have patent and copyright laws), and [b] now can make their own designs, but they can only operate internationally because those exceptional companies now honor foreign "intellectual property" laws, even when their country doesn't.

Re:I'm not a patent apologist

[shiftless]

You didn't have to. You were directly replying to a comment about design patents. And your comment was just plain wrong. In the context of design patents.

Fuck design patents. I was talking about innovation in general. You can't change the definition of a common word just because it's used in a slightly different context. No, "design patents" aren't a special enough category to get their own special use of the word "innovation", sorry.

Then go live in a country where most people feel that way.

Why, when the "first world" is already discovering what the rest of the world already knew? A patent system based on being able to patent shit like "a rectangle with rounded corners" just isn't sustainable. I mean Ugh back in -9298 BC had the same goddamn idea. Where's his cut?

I'm not claiming that our current system is particularly good; too many corporations and politicians have conspired over the years to mess it up.

Which is the same problem always encountered, without fail, in every situation when the government becomes involved in things it shouldn't be involved in.

You don't, for example, look at a badly designed or broken down car and conclude that all cars are therefore bad.

You're right, I don't. But I do look at government's continued misdeeds over the entire course of human history and reasonably conclude that the government should never be given control over deciding who owns what ideas.

But before you do, I'll let you in on a little secret: those countries don't innovate very much.

This is complete and utter nonsense which is easily disproven by looking at the history of other countries: Taiwan. Korea. Japan. United States. All of these countries were at one time young and growing countries who were "behind the curve" and copied from others. The Brits used to be world leaders in the textile industry; guess who quite literally copied and stole designs to their machinery and processes?

Should we today we be all pissed off and outraged for whichever poor person or corporation in the UK ended up having to sell off a couple vacation homes due to this occurrence back in the 1800s? Or should we instead be thankful for the rogue who snuck all this info out, and his co-conspirators who used the knowledge to enrich our own people's and country's livelihood?

Trying to "own" an idea is foolish and stupid. The whole purpose of our existence is to propagate and spread ideas.

The problem in China is different than ours. Their problem isn't a lack of patent system, it's extreme corruption. Westerners have opened businesses in China only to have the government come in after they got up and running, and nationalize the whole thing, or seize it and sell it at auction to a buddy. Who wants to innovate in a climate like that? In the U.S. they will (today) at least give the superficial appearance of legitimacy by dragging you through expensive (for you) court proceedings first.

Re:I'm not a patent apologist

[Jane Q. Public]

"Fuck design patents. I was talking about innovation in general. You can't change the definition of a common word just because it's used in a slightly different context. No, "design patents" aren't a special enough category to get their own special use of the word "innovation", sorry."

I'll make this short and sweet, since you seem to have had some serious trouble understanding the point:

YOU horned in on a conversation that was already about design patents, and brought up the irrelevant subject of "innovation". Innovation is a great topic, certainly. But it has no place in a conversation that was about design patents.

Your remarks were off-topic.

Is that simple enough for you?

I am not even going to bother responding to the rest, which is full of errors anyway.

Re:What about Jerry Kaplan's GO Corp?

[WillAdams]

Almost exactly the post which I was going to write up.

Some additional information about this era can be found in the book _ThinkPad: A Different Shade of Blue_ by Deborah A. Dell:

http://www.amazon.com/ThinkPad-Different-Shade-Deborah-Dell/dp/0672317567

Other machines from this era included the Momenta, Fujitsu Poqet PC and the AT&T Eo. Lots of interesting software from this era as well, e.g., FutureWave SmartSketch for PenPoint which got ported to Windows and the Mac OS and morphed into Flash.

William
(who owned for a while an NCR-3125 which dual-booted PenPoint and Windows for Pen Computing and which the guy I sold it to donated to the Smithsonian).

Not true

[Chirs]

As an example, Johnson & Johnson's mission statement basically says that their first responsibility is to their customers, then their employees, then their communities, and then their shareholders. They also say their expectation is to generate a "fair" return to shareholders, not a "maximum" one.

Re:Not true

[roman_mir]

That's simply a fine tuned lie, designed for your consumption.

The first and foremost responsibility of any company, including J&J is to their shareholders.

EVERYTHING else is incidental to their profit. Everything.

Re:Not true

[roman_mir]

Oh, did I forget to mention that everything being incidental to the profit of companies as long as the profits to their shareholders are maximised is a GOOD thing? It is a good thing.

It is the best thing we can hope for - that all people always act in their own self interest, as long as this does not capture the government system.