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.

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[_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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

Prior, prior, prior art

[wbr1]

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

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.

Samsung should show this image in court

[TuringTest]

'nuff said.

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.