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."
How does that handle this part of the case though? Samsung is arguing that Apple has no claim against them because Apple did not invent anything novel, and in fact they have a witness who discussed his similar design with Apple designers so long ago as to be out of patent by now if one had been applied for. This means that Apple can either claim that his information is too old, therefore invalidating their own patent, or that his design is different from the iPad, but the Samsung design isn't -- at which point they then get back to the real topic of this part of the case, that of arguing how the Samsung tablet is similar to Apple's in a way that is covered by patent and unique from all other tablets in the field. Questions about suing, other tablet designs, pursuing claims and compensation have little to do with the actual issues here (although I'm sure they'll be raised anyway, by whichever side thinks they have something to gain by doing so).
Samsung's point is not that Apple was stealing, but that Apple was suing others for "stealing", while "stealing" themselves. Both cases (Fidler. vs. Apple, Apple vs. Samsung) are pretty much nonsense, as anyone working in technology can see, no stealing actually happened at all, it was "stealing" as in broken law system.
839*929
No he is not an honest human being, because he is dead.