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."
somehow he didn't sell several billion dollars worth of his tablets...
Next thing you know Star Trek episodes will be prior art.
Or they came up with them independently while Apple was stealing them?
...with tales of how Apple had released the F700 way before Samsung started making phones. How Apple had invented the Diamond Touch decades ago. Apple built Roger Fidler from the ground up in 1979.
Honestly, the barrage of bizarre crap that goes on these threads takes astroturfing to a new level.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Many professors draw white rectangles on their blackboards.
Apple stole these ideas long ago and claims everyone else is a thief!
Apple itself has a prior art problem. Look at the Apple Newton, designed in 1987, alongside an iPhone. That was more than 20 years ago, so any patents have expired.
If Samsung can find all these examples of prior art, how is it that Apple was granted patents in the first place? These are hardly the only examples of Apple being given patents on things that were obviously done by others well before they "innovated" them.
-Lod
Show me a person with an original idea and I will show you a liar.
"No Steve Jobs Ghost - It's like be both snuck into Roger Fidler's place one night to steal his TV, and we both found Dave from 2001 A Space Odyssey had gotten there first."
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
Every time I hear arguments like this, I can't help but think of adults whining in children's voices like those Subway commercials. "He copied my drawing!", "she keeps repeating everything I say and do!". Just shut the fuck up already. I hope one day we are able to look back on this and realized just how childish our species is acting. Nothing is created in a vacuum, so get the fuck over yourselves and get back to making products!
I'd like to see some sanity return to patents, since nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything new has been influenced in some way by past experiences and influences. From a rock rolling down a hill to rocks turned into wheels to wooden wheels to modern rubber tires, it has all been an improvement on the previous improvement. I hope Samsung prevails with this line of defense to the utter ruination of Apple's patent-ly bullshit attempt to stop their competition.
Frankly, the way things are moving, it might not be too long before software patents are gone and "look and feel" and other such patents actually have very limited lifespans or are disproven because the "look and feel" are based on a previous incarnation. I'd love to see THIS improvement made to patents and then improved upon again with copyrights included. You know, that whole "secure for a limited time" thing...
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
First Sony and now this guy. The over all theme is still the same that Sumsung is copying the ipad but in their mind it's ok. I suggest they stick to trying to innovate rather than live off someone else's work.
Replicate And Duplicate! It's the Asian way ever since they copied the TV and they haven't stopped since!
This is likely going to be so easy that I, a non-lawyer, could competently handle this part of the case for Apple.
1) Did you sue anyone in the past for "stealing" your tablet work? No? Thought not.
2) Do you know that other companies, including Microsoft, pushed tablet technology years before the iPad came out?
3) Since you have not in the past pursued claims against others for supposedly "stealing" your work, how can we take your charges seriously now? Again, keep in mind that other companies have produced tablets prior to Apple and you had no objections to that.
4) Are you being compensated for your appearance in court today? If so, how much are you getting and who is paying it?
The only thing Apple is "guilty" of is being the first company to make tablets that did not suck big green ones and that people actually wanted to buy and use. Nobody was able to make the technology popular before them.
Anybody else have an issue with the use of the archaic term?
He claims to have prototyped such a device in the 80s for a film called Big.
Both parties in these lawsuits enter the fray with piles of patents if they are companies of Apple and Samsung size. Many of the patents have never been challenged and are vulnerable. So a good strategy may be to attack all of the opponents patents with the aim of having them invalidated. If the carnage gets high enough and enough patents are invalidated sometimes the parties just settle to make it all go away.
I experienced this in a trail between Micron and Mostek semiconductor many years ago (early 80's). Mostek wanted to put startup Micron our of business. The small Micron founding staff came from Mostek. I was asked to use a University library to show that many of the Mostek patent claims were not original and the knowledge the founders had was common in the industry. Micron eventually prevailed in the suit against it's founders regarding use of privileged information acquired from their past association. I was later involved as a expert witness in a suit between National Semiconductor and another startup company. In that case the startup attacked the validity of National's patents on the basis of existing prior work at another semiconductor company (I had worked for that company). When the bleeding got high enough (patents being challenged and possibly invalidated), the suit was resolved quickly.
I think the Samsung strategy is a good one. However Apple might retaliate against Samsung's patent position. I bet a settlement will come out of this quickly if the two companies unchallenged patents start getting invalidated at a fast enough rate.
Moses did come down from the mountain caring some curiously rounded corner rectangular tablets after chatting with God. Moses was the first one to steal this idea.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Steve Jobs was a fantastic marketing person and Apple's success was due in no small part to his marketing skills.
But in terms of technology and innovation, his standard mode of operation was to observe a piece of technology being developed someplace else and then figure out how to productize and market the technology. Personally, I am happy to see people starting to tear down these bogus Apple patents by pointing out where the technology actually came from. Hopefully the trend will spread to tear down so many of the bogus patents filed by other companies as well.
Just watch some Star Trek TNG episodes and see everyone use thin and flat touchscreen computing devices with rounded corners.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
From the movie 2001 a space odyssey, they showed a flat screen touch tablet very similar to an iPad. Apple has been known to steal ideas from others, example - the GUI from Xerox, and the Mouse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKt9ZyDmA44. Apple is not the first to come up with this idea!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
U. of Missouri grads and employees can forget about getting job interviews at Apple, and Apple employees can forget about being allowed to collaborate with researchers at U. of Missouri.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If I could, I'd mod parent up!
The only people prospering from all this are the lawyers and the journalists. STOP THE MADNESS!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
...from a design POV it would be a argument worth making in court. It wouldn't even matter that they were non-functioning props. A US patent is just a drawing, it doesn't need to represent a working prototype.
How many fanboys install a Star Trek GUI app after unboxing their new iPads or Galaxy Tabs?
Your comment is pretty nonsensical .. others have stated why so I won't repeat that. But I want to ask you why you even thought #4 was a valid point. Why does it matter who was paying him? The fact as to whether his work was stolen has nothing to do with whether he is being paid to state what he did. I could understand a question like "are you lying?" or "Are you being paid to lie?" ... however nobody is disputing the authenticity of his claims, since they are well documented. So knowing whether Samsung paid him millions to testify has no bearing on anything.
Apple skipped ahead of the line by taking other people's work and is now blocking others from advancing by claiming to have patents on it? Do you not see anything wrong with that? Others spent their R&D budgets coming up with the core ideas ..of course their phones were not as great .. phone CPUs sucked and also most ideas were focused on things like bandwidth and stuff.. Apple merely had to invest in the final integration of ideas and the design ..in doing so so they leaped ahead about 5 to 10 years ahead of the others .. it doesn't mean they should have an eternal monopoly on making tablets.
Note, back in 2005 I predicted on slashdot that large touchscreen phones would be a success (as did others) .. nearly 2 years before the launch of the iPhone. http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163341&cid=13644457
In 2005 I predicted on slashdot that large touchscreen phones would be a success (as did others) .. nearly 2 years before the release of the iPhone. http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163341&cid=13644457
Samsung oughta have me testify.
"Picasso had a saying - `good artists copy, great artists steal' - and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs
"Google fucking ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product." - Steve Jobs
The more "intellectual property", the more business for government, and the more revenue and power they acquire.
Why do so many patents fail the test of obviousness to people knowledgeable in the relevant field?
...seems to me to be one of the worst outcomes of this trial for Apple. In that case, android will incorporate even more design futures of the ios and the iphone will lose it's distinct advantage. Apple's legal team must have felt pretty confident to risk the pattents in court, but it seems to me this will turn back and bite them on their shinny lawyer asses.
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.
If there's any pattern here, it's that companies will violate a competitor's patent by claiming the patent is invalid (ergo the violation is completely justifiable.) Here's a pretty classic example from the telecom bubble:
Dr. David Huber gets booted from Ciena corporation, and founds a competing entity - Corvis. Corvis builds a product that does exactly what Ciena's products do - they multiplex several optical signals onto a single fiber. Ciena has patents for synthesizing a higher-rate signal by bundling several lower-rate signals together. The process is called "inverse multiplexing," and has been around since the analog telephony days. You can inverse mux several analog telephone modems together, and some companies did. Ciena got patents by basically putting "on fiber optic cables" after the well known technique. Since Huber used to work at Ciena, he knew the technique had a long history, and consequently moved forward with the expectation that any patent infringement could be easily dismissed by claiming Ciena's patents were invalid by prior art.
So how did that work out? As you might expect, not so well for Corvis.
Okay okay, you deserve it:
You were right.
Congratulations! (Too bad I can't mod it any more.)
So many patents don't. Many of the stories on slashdot use only the summaries of patents or their titles to scream that the sky is falling - but "the name of the game is in the claims." For something to anticipate or render a claim obvious, it must show every limitation of the claimed invention. Most of the time, issued claims are much more detailed than the summary would suggest, and not easily shown obvious, in a legal sense, by people knowledgeable in the field. The bottom line is that just because someone is knowledgeable in the field does not guarantee that they know anything at all about patent law.
The only similarity I see is that both devices have black faces with a screen in the middle.
I'm not defending Apple here, but there was no pinch-to-zoom on Newton - in fact it required a stylus. As far as design elements, the Newton splayed outward to sharp corners - pretty much the opposite of rounded corners.
Apple stealing these design elements from someone else doesn't bother me. What bothers me is stupid shit like making claims that gesture based UI elements are 'Advances in the Arts and Sciences' worthy if patenting.
Of course, with Jobs attitudes towards IP, this news is hardly shocking. He seemed willing to change his views 180 degrees when he was on the other side of the fence.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Always Innovating announced the Touch Book almost a year before the iPad was revealed. I think it even started shipping months before that as well. I didn't own one, but I remember the buzz at the time, and the difficulty they had fulfilling orders. Apple's claims of the uniqueness of the iPad and that similar devices can't be developed independent of each other are preposterous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgSQRuU8qI4
A man who leeched off Steve Wozniak's brains for years and apparently those of others in academia!
I'm sure it's quite a few:
MAC OSX
Windows
Android
iOS
BB OS
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Like the original slam dunk poster who wants to crossexamine a video tape, and who does not understand the concept of laches, which says
that if you don't enforce your patents, you lose the right to enforce them, OTOH laches does not apply to prior art since there are no rights to enforce.
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.
Microsoft just took the TV without asking.
Just like Samsung...
Microsoft did have to settle on this, just as Samsung will.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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."
I remember when the only televisions you could buy all had rounded corners. Steve Jobs sold rounded corners to his designers by pointing out they were everywhere already. Now get off my lawn
Wow, someone has to make a video with short clips from all these prior art.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
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.
In response to another article, I and several others brought up the LG KE850 (aka the LG PRada) as prior art with regards to the iPhone's design patents. The LG KE850 fits the bill for 35 U.S.C. 102(a) since it had been described in the press long before the iPhone's announcement.
Quite a few other devices can claim prior art under this.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
We wouldn't have all these other fucking car brands here in 'Merica, but cars would cost $100K each, wouldn't have hoods and the fuel tank would slowly fill with sludge forcing you to buy a new one every few years.
I remember in the 90's when all the apple fanboi's were OS8-9 is the greatest and my power-pc mac is so much better than your pentinum running Linux.
I laugh everytime I see someone using any apple product, knowing that they paid too much.
umm, none on ipad since it is not available... thank goodness!
I thought Xerox had insured Apple. So when the other "branch" came crying that Apple ripped them off Xerox decided they didn't want to "sue' themselves.
Shrewd tactic by Jobbs. Still theft but shrewd.
No he is not an honest human being, because he is dead.
There is a difference between design patents and utility patents. And with patents, the devil's in the details (aka "claims"). In this case Apple is primarily suing for violation of design patents. Things like the "springiness" that happens if you pull past the beginning or end of a list, the distribution of icons on the home screen, specific symbols in specific icons that convey specific meanings, and certain navigation paths. These are things that are more valuable than most "geeks" will ever admit to the willingness of people to buy, use, and feel good about certain products, and are therefore incredibly valuable when they're done right and worth spending a lot of money to develop a great solution. And we really do want people to spend that money to make the better product, carefully document their solution, and advance the state of the art, which they won't do if Samsung can come along and inexpensively copy them.
If a site tells you "OMG Apple just patented ", it just means they don't understand patents or what is being claimed.
E pluribus unum
British Telecom has touchscreen systems way back in 1988. They were used for course training. Though the touch screen was actually just an add-on transparent glass pane that fitted inside the bezel of a CRT.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
By that logic Star Trek also has prior art for FTL travel, teleportation, strong AI and time-travel.
I don't like patents either, but you *can* see the problem with your reasoning, right?
Yeah that worked well...
And in 2003 SCO, under Darl McBride, sued IBM because IBM's irrevocable, perpetual license to Unix didn't mean anything to SCO. Also Novell's ownership of Unix didn't seem to bother Darl McBride. Nor did SCO's prior history as Caldera as a Linux distributor. When upper management changes, sometimes the new leadership ignores what happened in the past.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Poor samsung. Android itself is just a weak ripoff of Apple. Now samsung is try to blame Apple just because they got caught ripping them off. Apple is the superior product and samsung is desperately trying to throw anything they can at the board and hope something sticks.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread there is a difference between a design patent and a technical patent.
IMHO design patent law too closely mimics trademark and copyright law in that it represent corporate and marketing identity more than real innovation.
I think Moses was the first guy with rectangular tablets with rounded corners...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
...but they were also disposable. Apple's patent is for a specifically non-disposable tablet. Totally shmotealy catotally different.
Could Lt Cmdr Data be synced between devices?
These are things that are more valuable than most "geeks" will ever admit to the willingness of people to buy, use, and feel good about certain products, and are therefore incredibly valuable when they're done right and worth spending a lot of money to develop a great solution.
No. Those things are gimmicks that ONLY "geeks" notice, the general populous caring much more about what the device can ACTUALLY do whether than precisely how it does it. If you can stumble upon a patent, then it's fucking obvious. To say otherwise is to sit in your conceptually constructed tower and pontificate profusely over minutia that wrongfully drains BILLIONS of dollars from the world's economies below, only for the benefit of your own sick disconnected ilk.
Take note: The Intangible Machine Invasion is upon us. The above poster is "one of them", and should be put down. Re-watch the Terminator series and the 1st (and only) Matrix movie -- The legal frameworks are the machines that rule mankind.
If your bullshit design nuances are so damn important and valuable then how do you explain the success of Fashion Industry or Automotive Industry? --Neither of which have said design patent protections, and yet remain valuable and lucrative. How much do the intellectual property taxes cost us all? I put it to you that such patents necessarily cost us MUCH more than were they eradicated; They necessarily create jobs for intangible instruction code processing units -- Lawyers -- that also otherwise would not need to exist.
You think you're a human?! NO. YOU'RE PART OF THE MACHINE!
Everybody quotes 2007, but obviously that's not when Apple envisioned the specific iPhone product, which was in mid 2005. The all-out work started later that year for a 2007 public introduction. But Apple had been working on touch screen technology for several years prior to that, and Jobs had mentioned in 2002 that Apple was working on a smart phone.
Troll Apple exposed. Reality just a little different from reality distortion, isn't it?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The professor stole it from Star Trek.
Star Trek stole it from...
There are no new ideas, just more and more young people ignorant of existing ideas.
No they were not. I've never seen any tablet like device being thrown away in the trash or recycled in any way in Star Trek shows.
"No. Those things are gimmicks that ONLY "geeks" notice, the general populous caring much more about what the device can ACTUALLY do whether than precisely how it does it. If you can stumble upon a patent, then it's fucking obvious."
ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY WRONG!
The reason Apple has been able to sell it products, even from the first apple, is that is pays close attention to HOW things work in addition to what they do. Apple was not the first to market a MP3 player or a smartphone. But they realized that in order for people (with no high-tech experience) to buy possibly complicated electronic products was to make them simple, intuitive, and enjoyable to use.
That is what Apple has built its company on. Not just snazzy marketing and packing more GeeBees. But spending an exorbitant amount of time and research into usability.
If someone were to design for example a door handle that easier to open and gave a better tactile feel because of a specific curve of the handle. And this handle gave a responsive 'click' when the latch was fully released. All of those subtle enhancements could be covered by a patent. You could just as easily argue that 'hey its just a door handle' and that door handles have been around for years so that patent is invalid. But that reason would invalidate all patents. 'Hey its just steel and glass and thats been around for centuries'.
Or coming back around to tablets: 'Hey its just a handheld device that lets you store and display information' -Well thats been around since the clay tablets of 3000 BC! Again, its in the details of exactly how you do it that makes a patent.
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
Who said the tools don't matter? Clearly from the statement tools do matter... in fact, only a fool would thing they wheren't discussing the modern tools for the job being discussed.
And it IS a poor workman who blames his tools.
If someone writes bad code, and then blames the tool i.e. editor and/or compiler, they are a poor coder.
This applies to all trades and industries.
Take whatever field you are in. If someone using the same tools as you does a job worse then you, is it the tool or the worker?
Calm down, Francis; and think.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle calling the stove calling the kitchen black lol. Why can't we just have any patent dispute settled with a fistfight?
* Data could be synced between devices
Could Lt Cmdr Data be synced between devices?
does "fully functional" mean that he can spawn child processes?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Some years back I developed the 'Mac Mini Portable' which was my answer to the fact that there was no kind of either mini laptop or tablet from Apple (look it up on YouTube). ;-)
This was a year or two even before the first iphone.
Apple got in touch with me, and the head of the MacBook development team phoned me up for a long conversation about what I was doing...
I wonder, can I claim prior art from BOTH Apple & Samsung??
The idea for these patents was developed with no technical expertise and in a short period of time. The development of the actual idea required hours or programming time and expertise. State-of-the-art is typically considered to be technology. Technology isn't developed in a focus group that determines that they like the "bouncey" ending the best. State-of-the-art is the brilliant programmer who makes it work, not the interesting idea.
Unless Samsung copied Apple's code, I don't think Apple has a leg to stand on. I don't know why it isn't quoted more often, but Selden had the patent on the "automobile" until Ford pointed out that while they had a 4-wheeled vehicle, they weren't using any of Selden's engine technology to propel it. Ford had Selden's patent claims thrown out.
Copying ideas is GOOD for everyone. Copying "technology" is bad. Samsung copied ideas, not technology.
"No. Those things are gimmicks that ONLY "geeks" notice, the general populous caring much more about what the device can ACTUALLY do whether than precisely how it does it. If you can stumble upon a patent, then it's fucking obvious."
ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY WRONG!
The reason Apple has been able to sell it products, even from the first apple, is that is pays close attention to HOW things work in addition to what they do. Apple was not the first to market a MP3 player or a smartphone. But they realized that in order for people (with no high-tech experience) to buy possibly complicated electronic products was to make them simple, intuitive, and enjoyable to use.
That is what Apple has built its company on. Not just snazzy marketing and packing more GeeBees. But spending an exorbitant amount of time and research into usability.
If someone were to design for example a door handle that easier to open and gave a better tactile feel because of a specific curve of the handle. And this handle gave a responsive 'click' when the latch was fully released. All of those subtle enhancements could be covered by a patent. You could just as easily argue that 'hey its just a door handle' and that door handles have been around for years so that patent is invalid. But that reason would invalidate all patents. 'Hey its just steel and glass and thats been around for centuries'.
Or coming back around to tablets: 'Hey its just a handheld device that lets you store and display information' -Well thats been around since the clay tablets of 3000 BC! Again, its in the details of exactly how you do it that makes a patent.
I applaud to your efforts educate the locals on the purpose of patents, unfortunately explaining patents to /. posters is like trying to explain evolution to born again Christians so odds are that you are wasting your time.
ahem..... where no one has gone before?
http://iwantsomefun.com/ipad-padd-surface-gates-jobs-picard/
Here's something interesting if you've read the Bloomberg article. The reason the prof couldn't testify in person was because Apple BLOCKED it!
"In a session without the jury present, Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven, defending the company’s attempt to show the testimony, told U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh it was central to the company’s case and that Apple had successfully blocked Fidler from testifying in person. He didn’t explain how or why. The jury didn’t see any videotape recording of Apple’s lawyers questioning Fidler."
if i smashed you in the head with a sharp corner, i could do more damage then if i smashed u in the head with a rounded corner
i predicted it back in 2002, in high school when the pocket pc's were out.
"Haters" is one of many defensive labels used by the authoritarian head-space in lieu of objective reality perception. Apple users identify with the product, and so any attack on the product they perceive as an attack on their ego. This leads immediately to emotional reasoning which by-passes the neo-cortex. Strictly primal lizard brain stuff.
Which is why they see rational objections as carrying emotional quotients, hence their use of the word, "Hate". I don't know too many people who actually hate Apple products. But Apple cultists do in fact love their products, in so far as an authoritarian is able to love anything. It's more about idolizing their own ego than anything else.
"Believers gonna Believe"
If someone has a great idea but does nothing with it, there is no value. If idea guy show it to someone who uses the idea to create a product people are willing to pay for, then the "product guy" deserves their success and owes "idea guy" little if anything. The value is in the execution of the idea.
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.
So which of those does Apple claim to have invented? And which of the many PADDs looked like any of Apple's design patents for that matter?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
These are things that are more valuable than most "geeks" will ever admit to the willingness of people to buy, use, and feel good about certain products, and are therefore incredibly valuable when they're done right and worth spending a lot of money to develop a great solution.
No. Those things are gimmicks that ONLY "geeks" notice, the general populous caring much more about what the device can ACTUALLY do whether than precisely how it does it.
At leasts that's what people calling themselves "geeks" proclaim, who for the hell of it can't figure out why people buy Apple products, despite their constant predictions that they wouldn't.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So, since Android "copied" the iPhone and iPad, so they stole from the Missouri professor too. Really???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
Remember Star Trek in the 1960s?
For folks wondering what inspired the iOS icon design... please refer to the original Atari 400 membrane keyboard. The highlight on the top-left is supposed to mimic the bumpy membrane of those old keyboards. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Atari_400_keyboard.jpg You will also notice the radius of the rounded corners and the outline match current iOS specifications.
Do Good, Annoy Evil!
Bill Gates was able to steal all he wanted from Apple because yada-yada Xerox PARC. As long as there was something kind of like it in a lab 10 years ago — COPY AWAY!
apple stole the GUI and mouse from Xeroxes labs way back when