Slashdot Mirror
Samsung: Apple Stole the iPad's Design From Univ of Missouri Professor
TheBoat writes with a bit from BGR on the Apple vs Samsung case: "We're starting to see a theme develop here. Now that it's Samsung's turn to present its case in the San Jose, California patent trial that regularly has the tech media abuzz, the company is taking an interesting approach. Rather than start out by arguing that its various Android smartphones and tablets do not copy Apple's designs or infringe on its patents, Samsung is arguing that Apple's IP is invalid to begin with. On Monday, Samsung argued that Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent was stolen from Mitsubishi's old Diamond Touch and on Tuesday evening, Samsung made a similar argument regarding the design of Apple's iPad. Samsung on Tuesday presented the jury with videotaped testimony from Roger Fidler, head of the digital publishing program at the University of Missouri. In his testimony, Fidler stated that he began work on a tablet design in 1981. 'Apple personnel were exposed to my tablet ideas and prototypes,' he testified, adding that Apple staff saw his designs in the mid-1990s."
Always makes me think of a part of the Hitchhiker's Guide series, where the Sirius Corporation steals an excerpt off a cereal box and uses it in the guide. In the future, they get a time machine, got back in time, give themselves the quote, then back in the future sue the cereal company out of existence.
That seems roughly like what Apple is doing here.
Just ignore the working prototype.....
http://www.kitguru.net/apple/jules/shots-that-challenge-apples-ability-to-beat-samsung/
Nice try, Apple fanboy, but the Prof isn't actually suing Apple (And others) for theft. He's merely there to state that prior art exists and Apple's Patents be declared invalid.
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
That's not the case. In addition to the internal stuff the examiners do, the USPTO also has the peer to patent project to crowdsource prior art on participating patents.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
That's not really the point. If Fidler made it first, and Apple copied him, and Fidler didn't care to do anything about it, then Apple is free to continue copying it. But so is everyone else. That includes, for example, oh, I don't know, how about Samsung?
The patent office only checks for prior art in existing patents.
As a patent examiner, I can tell you this is false. Prior art includes anything published by another within a year of the filing date of the application, as well as anything published by the patent applicant more than a year prior to the filing of the application. This includes articles on the web, prior patent publications, pamphlets, technical papers, and so on. There are exceptions, such as papers given in closed conferences and protected, internal documents. But "prior art" is much, much more than patent publications.
"Prior art" is, by definition, anything that existed before someone applied for a patent. Prior art in itself doesn't invalidate anything, it has to be _published_ prior art. Something that was hidden away does _not_ invalidate a patent.
Incorrect. 35 U.S.C. 102(a): "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent". The "known or used by others... before the invention" part does not require publication. It does have to be before the date of invention, though, which is not the same as the date that the patent application was filed.
You may be thinking of 35 U.S.C 102(b), which covers public knowledge more than one year before the date of application, regardless of the date of invention.
You, a non-lawyer, would get your ass handed to you by Samsung's counsel.
The Witness isn't claiming rights to a patent, he's giving testimony that the technology Apple is claiming a patent over was already out there and known to the public. Patent law isn't just about "I was the first one to claim the exclusive right to a technology" its about invention. If someone else can show that you didn't invent it, that there is "prior art" your patent can be extinguished.
Many of apple's patents are questionable, but this and slide-to-unlock are particularly ripe for invalidation.
Well in that case they you guys are not very good at your job then are you because simple web searches on dubious software patents invariable turn masses of prior art.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I'd say it's more of a problem with the entire patent system and not the performance of the individuals.
1987 is still more than 20 years ago. It is also 25 years ago...
Funny indeed, but just in case anyone thought this was a true story about Secretary Clinton (then-Senator Clinton):
Snopes rates this 'FALSE'.
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
The PADD devices seen on The Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager all did things that are major selling points for the iPad and iPhones.
* Touchscreen device
* Played video and sound
* dynamic user interface could be customized to serve the application
* Video conferencing
* Loaded and saved information to the remote storage (In this case the a ship or Starfleet computers would be "the cloud")
* Data could be synced between devices
* Device could be re-configured to remotely control a workstation (remote desktop)
* They even have rounded corners
* Devices could be encrypted
All of those functions are demonstrated or spoken of in episodes or described in Mike Okuda's ST:TNG Technical Manual (Okuda was the lead designer on most of the newer television Star Treks)
All of this predated any patent filings by Apple.
They don't have a row of permanent icons along the bottom and a four by four grid of icons above that though. Nor do they meet any of the several other claims. Nor are they easily confused with the iPhone or iPad, which is what the trade dress part of the suit requires.
Invalidating the patents is to all our benefits.
Because the apple biased judge threw out those claims.
Next thing you know Star Trek episodes will be prior art.
Uh, regarding the rounded-corner rectangle design patent thing, how are they not prior art? Design patents are specifically for an appearance/shape, irrespective of function or purpose.
peer to patent is very new and would not apply to any of the patents in question for this case - the pilot for it was only completed in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-Patent
While it's a good thing to get going, it still doesn't address the issue that the USPTO basically wants the person requesting the monopoly to be completely honest.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I think itâ(TM)s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it.
Apple had permission from Xerox to use the ideas they had as a base.
When Xerox filed suit against Apple in 1989 they swore to the courts that Apple did *not* have permission. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html "Apple also replied that while it might have borrowed ideas from Xerox, ideas were not protected by copyrights, only the way the ideas were expressed."
See here for details. Or read any real history of the time - ignore self-serving crap from Gates.
Xerox was probably stupid to give Apple a license, and the actual researchers at PARC were livid, but they weren't the owners. Apple legally used Xerox IP. Note that Xerox did not take Apple to court over any of this,
Microsoft, on the other hand, was concerned about legal action from Apple on this subject, even as late as Jobs' return. One of the things exchanged between Microsoft and Apple at that time was Apple dropping the windows-copying lawsuits, which were still in the courts at the time, and would have been a world of hurt for Microsoft if any of them had succeeded.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
The size of the corner and edge radius is dependent upon several design considerations. "A few milimeters" does not suffice in all cases.
Radii up to a half inch are commonplace. The factors involved are the thickness/stiffness of the injected material, the strength of the mold used, and what the intended use scenario for the finished product is. In many circumstances, an angle less than 90 degrees and a larger radius distributes stresses more efficiently than.a true 90 degree wall intersection with a small radius. As pointed out by the GP, the radius is added to assist in demolding the part. Likewise, a 5deg draft angle is also frequently incorporated as a standard practice.
I have dealt with enough diecast and molded plastic parts to know way more about them than a typical armchair pundit on slashdot; I work with the shit professionally.
GP is correct.