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."
...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.
no, Samsung didn't steal from him since he didn't come up with the phrase "force close".
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
"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~
I'm not sure you're actually getting the point of the article.
First Sony and now this guy. The over all theme is still the same that Samsung 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.
First Sony and now this guy. The over all theme is still the same that Apple is copying everyone but in their mind it's ok as long as they sue everyone too. I suggest they stick to trying to innovate rather than live off someone else's work.
FTFY
I don't think it was his fault the technology wouldn't be ready for another 25 years...
Would you like a slice of toast?
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.
So, others are free to use your work? And by others, we mean Apple, but not Samsung.
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.
Being the first one to do something well, doesn't mean you're the first one to have the idea, and it certainly doesn't give you iron clad rights to prevent anyone else from trying to make a better one.
This signature is false.
No, Apple is guilty of using ridiculous litigation to prevent anyone else from making tablets that do not suck big green ones.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
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.
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?
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.
1) Doesn't matter. All he's there for is to show prior art. The goal is not to punish Apple for theft, it is to show that their ideas are not original and thus their patents are invalid.
2) Thank you for reinforcing the invalidity of Apple's patents
3) Because people previously did not obtain patents for which his work was prior art and start suing other companies using them
4) Doesn't matter as long as prior art can be shown
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Then everyone would look at you and wonder how you entirely missed the point that is being made. Samsung aren't trying to get Apple sued by this guy for copying him, they are using him to show that Apple shouldn't have the patents in the first place. Whether he has sued anyone or not in the past really doesn't tell us anything, he may not care about others using it but takes offence at people ripping him off and then suing others for doing the same thing.
They will obviously ask what he is being paid; that's basically SOP in these kinds of cases now.
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.
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).
If I could, I'd mod parent up!
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
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.
That's not the theme at all. The theme is "Apple's patents about the iphone's design are invalid, because others had created products based on the same principles and ideas in the past".Apple was just the first company to apply for a pattent for the ideas. As such, they have just as much right as Apple to use an green icon for our dialer application.
A good analogy is McDonalds suing Wendy's because they had patented the "burger" design". They were not the first ones to think about it, it's just that McDonalds was the first to pattend the idea.Lord Sandwitch's heir should sue both their asses
The only people prospering from all this are the lawyers and the journalists. STOP THE MADNESS!
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
They had to use videotape. If they used more modern technology of any kind they might have stumbled over dozens of more patents in the process.
Why shouldn't a sci-fi show be able to qualify as prior art for design or UI patents?
Isn't there a countersuit from Samsung?
I, a non-lawyer, could competently handle this part of the case for Apple
It's a good job that you aren't, since your points are invalid:
1) Apple isn't suing for "stealing" - it is suing for "patent infringement". In contrast, Fidler is not claiming that Apple infringed his patents, he is merely pointing out that his tablet designs predate the iPad and yet contain the same "original patented" design features (flat touchscreen, rounded corners etc.)
2. Irrelevant, but yes, of course he does - however, Federer's designs date back 20 years (Microsoft's "Tablet PC" was 1999) - check out this video of Fidler's working tablet in 1994 - 2m45s in - that looks remarkably like an iPad. Also see History of tablet computers
3. Irrelevant since he isn't claiming patent infringement - he is claiming prior art.
4. Good question - generally experts are paid for their time in producing a report, not for testimony as such - but only a week ago Apple was caught paying $75,000 to a professional "expert witness" (seriously, this is how this man describes his profession on his own web site).
Nobody was able to make the technology popular before them.
Capacitive touch screens large enough for a tablet and at a consumer-friendly price point did not exist before. Now, they do. Technological advances drive new products. Suppose a car manufacturer comes out with the first mass market popular electric car - does this mean that this car manufacturer should have a 20 year monopoly on electric cars, free market be damned?
It is the term of art for testimonial evidence played at a trial, regardless of the media.
...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
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.
Wendy's burgers don't even have round corners! Apple should clearly sue McDonalds.
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
> Next thing you know Star Trek episodes will be prior art.
For trade dress, yes they should be prior art. If an idea is that obvious, then it should not be patentable. For function (eg, Warp Drive) it should not be patentable without a working prototype. This should help illustrate the difference between meaningful technology patents (eg, cellular radios) and trade dress (eg, round rectangles, green icons with a phone handset, etc).
MCCCXXXVII intellectualis proprietas pupillam est magnum sacculum canis stercus
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
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
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.
Being the first one to do something well, doesn't mean you're the first one to have the idea, and it certainly doesn't give you iron clad rights to prevent anyone else from trying to make a better one.
Put more clearly, Apple is guilty (as are so many companies) of filing frivolous patent lawsuits.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
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.
He never said they stole his design. That's the journalist saying that.
Fildler did say that Apple employees had been "exposed" to his ideas and designs mid-90s.
The fact whether his mid-90s designs were similar to the iPad design (which came much later than mid-90s) is anybody's guess. Aside from posting an inflammatory assertion about Apple, the journalist/blogger didn't post any pictures, or anything, of any pictures or drawings that might have been submitted to the court.
2) Do you know that other companies, including Microsoft, pushed tablet technology years before the iPad came out?
Are you some kind of Apple fundamentalist? Or just an idiot?
“My original assumptions were that it would be a touchscreen without a stylus,” Fidler testified.
I know it's customary on Slashdot not to read articles before posting an opinion, but you're arguing as if you actu
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."
[Slashdot just gave me an error, here is the rest of my post]
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.
Blah... Blah... Blah... Blah.. Bla...
Listen to me, I didn't read a single line of the article, but I know Apple is innocent!! I know it for sure.
I have special psychic abilities that make me know everything. That's why I can have an elaborate absolute opinion on an article, that I haven't even read. And I don't care what anybody else says. I probably won't even read your replies either. I'll just reply to your replies instantaneously, until at least one of us gives up.
Wow, someone has to make a video with short clips from all these prior art.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Or business method patents for that matter. To the extent that we allow people to patent "concepts", any prior mention of that concept should qualify as prior art, as it would make any product based on the concept a logical realization of a concept previously conceived.
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.
1. Apple is suing Samsung for patent infringement.
2. Yes.
3. No. But as with all patent-infringement cases the defendant has a right to defend him self by showing prior art that could invalidate the patent(s).
So... It's all about Apple being able to show that their patents are actually valid and for Samsung to defend itself by showing that the patents that Apple has are invalid by either prior-art or that the patent is invalid by being to broad or other things like this...
The thing with patents are that they are not really valid until they have been proven in court. So as long as it's cheaper to license than to sue they will license but when you reach this limit ($30 per phone / $40 per tablet) they will fight back...
umm, none on ipad since it is not available... thank goodness!
Apple is suing samsung for violating their patents some of which are designs. My point is samsung isn't saying they're innocent but their excuse is that Apple did it first therefore it's ok. Which would be but they don't seem to be able to decide who they ripped off the idea from. First Sony and now some guy. It can't be both.
Samsung's problem is that they do go out of their way to make things look like Apple stuff. Even their connectors look the same. http://cdn.mactrast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Samsung-Apple-Cable-Copy.jpg
And even things like using Apple's icons for their shop displays. http://obamapacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Samsung-Mobile-Italy-store-copies-Apple-App-Store-Safari-Icons-Euronics-Centro-Sicilia.jpg
Despite the fact their tablet does actually have a different home screen they don't often show that because it looks more like an ipad when they show off all the icons. So, I'm finding it hard to sympathise with them because they have gone above and beyond to make an ipad-like tablet. Of course that was why they were singled out.
The whole idea that Apple sues anyone making round cornered tablets is ridiculous given that they all look like that and it's Samsung in courts over this.
Why shouldn't a sci-fi show be able to qualify as prior art for design or UI patents?
It can. However, in this case Apple's design patents do not cover the similarities between the PADD and an iPad. In fact Apple presented several tablets and phones in the trial which Apple said they do not feel infringes on their work which IMHO are closer to the Star Trek PADD.
E pluribus unum
A patent has to explain how the system works in written language, down to the individual components. Like the X-ray machine in Total Recall. With todays' technology that would have to be described as a system that incorporates a large plasma screen + multiple X-ray devices + image fusion + rendering.
Star Trek teleporters (along with The Fly and Space Quest) would be described as a plurality of transporters, with a height high enough to accommodate one or two people each or an equivalent volume of objects, controlled by a display system operated by a humanoid. Such a system combines a memory system capable of transferring the entire energy and quantum state of those person or objects over a distance of over 1000,000 meters.
It would have to describe how that quantum state was stored, and how the energy was transferred.
I'm sure if they wanted to, somebody could file a patent in Klingon.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
No he is not an honest human being, because he is dead.
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
Or even 2001 ...
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.
But, surely, if "A" claims that "B" stole item "C" from him, and B manages to prove that "C" wasn't "A" 's to begin with, then the concept of guilt/innocence doesn't apply, right? Samsung doesn't need to plead innocent because they're disputing the ownership of the ideas.
From what i understand, they are not trying to prove that Apple ripped the idea from someone in particular. They're trying to prove that the design ideas in question were around long before the ios devices, and as such a) Apple shouldn't have been allowed to pattent them in the first place and b) another designer could arrive to similar designed items without necessarily ripping off the iphones/ipads.
You fail to link to a source confirming that samsung prefers not showing the home screen. My experience is different, since everytime i've seen a demo they always started from a minimalist lockscreen and then went to a widget-full homescreen. But that's subjective experience so no point in arguing. What is not subjective is that the licence fees samsung was offered was substantially higher than similar deals, in an effort to secure a two-way licensing deal for the samsung pattents that Apple infringed. I think that, and the fact that Samsung's legal team thought they had a solid case was the reason they went to court.
Btw, your hotlinked images above don't work.
A patent has to explain how the system works in written language, down to the individual components...
Yes, yes, quite correct for a regular patent.
But we are talking about a "design patent". They are an entirely different animal. From wikipedia "A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility."
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!
APPLE: So...um, our patent is for.. like... a um... rectangle screen... with like... ornamental curvy...um... corners. ...um....thanks.
USPO: GRANTED!
APPLE:
...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.
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.
IANAL, but my understanding is that design patents are specifically for an appearance/shape, that do NOT have an integral function or purpose, but are merely ornamental in nature. If the design has an integral function or purpose, that function cannot be protected by a design patent, but must be covered by a utility patent to be enforceable.
[...] they don't seem to be able to decide who they ripped off the idea from. First Sony and now some guy. It can't be both.
That doesn't really matter for Samsung. They don't need to decide whether this Professor, or Sony or anyone else came up with the idea first, they just need to convince the jury that it wasn't Apple. If the jury doesn't believe one theory they might still accept the other. Apple needs to argue against both.
BTW: those two USB plugs in your picture look just about as dissimilar as two USB plugs can do. That's what you get for using a standard. As for the tablet side: the plug from Samsung is a lot uglier and a little more practical - the raised border should afford a better hold when unplugging.
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. "
Not to be pedantic, but pupillam should be in the genitive case, not accusative.
Since Apple still reaps more than 75% of all profits from global mobile sales, they probably couldn't care less about a bunch of Android OEMs who can barely scrape by with a profit. Samsung being the only real exception.
It's a lot more specific in that. In fact, I could make a tablet that fits your description and still not violated Apples design patent.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
As a customer, none of that matters to me.
Choice is good.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Capacitive touch screens large enough for a tablet and at a consumer-friendly price point did not exist before. Now, they do. Technological advances drive new products. Suppose a car manufacturer comes out with the first mass market popular electric car - does this mean that this car manufacturer should have a 20 year monopoly on electric cars, free market be damned?
This.
What these rabid Apple disciples just can't wrap their heads around is that, as Heinlein said in The Door To Summer: "when it's time to railroad, people start railroading". Actually, that entire book is newly interesting when put in the context of today's bizarre patent situation.
All these "before iPhone, after iPhone" comparisons used as exhibits by Apple should be torn to pieces by Samsung's attorney, because what they actually show is "before cheap mass produced capacitive touch screens" and after. That, and a few other innovations like smaller/cheaper components and higher capacity batteries are what changed the style of smartphones. Apple did not invent those elements, or they might have a leg to stand on. Apple merely packaged them just like everyone else did. Of course they know this and are obviously trying to snow the jury with misinformation. I just hope Samsung is able to make it clear enough that any reasonable people will see the truth of it.
-Lod
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.
I think it's entirely ok if Apple keeps raping the bank accounts of its idiot fans so long as it isn't anyone I know.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
somehow he didn't sell several billion dollars worth of his tablets...
Next thing you know Star Trek episodes will be prior art.
Well, he never had anything but design concepts envisioning how others would build tablets in the near future. Like, ermm maybe IBM, who got a design patent in March 1994 for a Pen-based computer (which Apple references in its D504889 iPad design patent).
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Why shouldn't a sci-fi show be able to qualify as prior art for design or UI patents?
Because PADDs didn't actually look like an iPad (most had all kinds of buttons)? Just like the device in 2001 didn't look like one, nor in fact the designs this guy presents?
And that's ignoring that they were non-working props (including the stuff of this guy)?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
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.
How can people claim this is prior art for the iPad, but these look nothing alike?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The Samsung tablet has a widescreen aspect, while the Apple tablet is 4:3 - they've been photoshopped to make their dimensions seem the same.
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!
All of those earlier devices were resistive touch, and could not support multi-touch gestures. It is an inherent limitation of resistive touch systems. When you touch a resistive panel in multiple points you get very ambiguous values that cannot be resolved without a completely different approach. Capacitive touch addressed that by resolving the contact patches of the fingers as bitmap regions on the touch sensing array that can be followed using some basic object tracking methods. There are a lot of similarities with object tracking in video, which use more generalized forms of the tracking methods.
The device demonstrated in the video and many examples of similar devices have (or had) distinct raised bezels much like is typical on any other display device. Notice that the inner edge of the bezel is raised quite a bit above the plane of the touch surface. There are enough differences between that earlier design and Apple's to cast doubt in my mind that Samsung can get any traction with it as prior art.
Only slightly related to this:
I worked as a contractor for Apple in the late 80's. I saw some very early drawings and a couple of crude prototypes of a touch device called 'knowledge navigator'. Bill Atkinson and others were brainstorming on ways to get a HyperCard-like interface onto a tablet. Some of the early notions of gesture based interfaces were being worked on at the time using HyperCard as a rapid prototyping environment.
Later (94-96) as a contractor for Microsoft I saw some similar concepts being worked out using WinCE.
Until capacitive touch expanded the depth of the input interface it was all very clunky variations of stylus as mouse-pointer over a LCD panel. All of those devices had display bezels. Most had square corners. Few could even process a finger touch accurately-- the stylus was mandatory, unless you happened to have a nice set of claws glued to your cuticles.
Well for starters, that latter image isn't exactly what it appears to be at first glance.
The Samsung tablet has a widescreen aspect, while the Apple tablet is 4:3 - they've been photoshopped to make their dimensions seem the same.
That is the difference between functional and ornamental - the changes to the design are purely functional and don't change the copying of the ornamental design.
Which is exactly what a German court has already decided.
PS: your sidestepping the issue of PADDs has been noted.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
PPS: the German court of course had access to the hardware, so "it was photoshopped" is also no excuse.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
All that Apple did was use decade-old design in a product that was just becoming viable at the because of a drop in touchscreen prices. And has been shown repeatedly, it wasn't the first.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Regarding payment, I hope he gets compensated well. He deserves it.
He is much more of a visionary in relation to tablets than Steve Jobs, who did nothing more than take a very old design and simply sell it when touchscreen prices dropped.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Slashdotters are supporting Samsung because, in this case, they're standing against a ridiculous use of patents.
In the same way, many/most Slashdotters distrust M$, but they supported them in the Micrsoft/Apple case.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Sorry, but where is the design patent more specific than that.
In fact, that just about as specific as it is. To wit, here's the entire text of the patent:
"We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."
The guy above just translated this sentence in a funny way.
The only other thing in the patent is some line drawings.
Nowhere is it mentioned (nor was it granted) that Apple owns round corners.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog