Samsung: Apple Stole the iPad's Design From Univ of Missouri Professor

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung: Apple Stole the iPad's Design From Univ of Missouri Professor

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @04:45AM from the he-said-she-said-neer-neer dept.

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."

38 of 362 comments (clear)

And watch the fanbois swoop... by DeathToBill · 2012-08-15 04:49 · Score: 5, Funny

...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
1. Re:And watch the fanbois swoop... by camperdave · 2012-08-15 05:21 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's all in the way you present it. For example:
  
  Hillary, an amateur genealogical researcher, discovered that her great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, a fellow lacking in character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.
  The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription:
  "Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889."
  In Hillary's Family History, she cropped Remus's picture, scanned it in as an enlarged image, and edited with image processing software so that all that's seen is a head shot. The accompanying biographical sketch is as follows:
  "Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
2. Re:And watch the fanbois swoop... by bwintx · 2012-08-15 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
Not surprising by Hentes · 2012-08-15 04:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Many professors draw white rectangles on their blackboards.
1. Re:Not surprising by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-08-15 05:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ah, but are they _rounded_ white rectangles?
  
  --
  Would you like a slice of toast?
2. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 05:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Just ignore the working prototype.....
  http://www.kitguru.net/apple/jules/shots-that-challenge-apples-ability-to-beat-samsung/
Translation by SternisheFan · 2012-08-15 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple stole these ideas long ago and claims everyone else is a thief!
1. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 05:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Translation by Mortaegus · 2012-08-15 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think the article misinterprets the situation. Samsung showing evidence like this could be taken that they are trying to say that they copied the ideas (perhaps even with permission) from the professor, and NOT from Apple. IANAL, but that would have a firmer legal position than challenging Apple's patent with prior art. If the court is willing to view the case in such terms they would, de facto, accept that Samsung's position (that they are not infringing) is valid.
  
  --
  The essence of time is transient. Always be sure to make haste slowly.
3. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 06:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Invalidating the patents is to all our benefits.
Probably right by Animats · 2012-08-15 04:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Probably right by zill · 2012-08-15 05:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Patents prior to 1994 were 17 years, not including the submarine.
  Damn those submarine lobby groups, getting their industry special privileges. /s
patent office = fail by LodCrappo · 2012-08-15 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
1. Re:patent office = fail by ndavis · 2012-08-15 05:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  As my father-in-law was a patent clerk he said they stopped checking into prior art when he left in the 90s and they seemed to rubber stamp multiple things. He tended to take pride in searching for prior art as he didn't want a company to get patents on existing things. This was lost as they brought in managers who went with quotas rather then actually vetting everything thoroughly.
2. Re:patent office = fail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 05:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
3. Re:patent office = fail by Dragonslicer · 2012-08-15 05:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "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.
4. Re:patent office = fail by gbjbaanb · 2012-08-15 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is ludicrous to say that the PTO has "stopped checking into prior art."
  to be fair, looking at all the patents that are granted recently, I can easily believe the USPTO has gone from a 'patent checking and recording' organisation to a printing business that sells patent certificates.
Subway Commercial by organgtool · 2012-08-15 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
Good for Samsung! by fallen1 · 2012-08-15 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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~
Re:I thought it was Sony by Nerdfest · 2012-08-15 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not sure you're actually getting the point of the article.
Re:And yet by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-08-15 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
Re:Slam dunk for Apple against Prof. Fidler by Nushio · 2012-08-15 05:09 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Re:Slam dunk for Apple against Prof. Fidler by jxander · 2012-08-15 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Slam dunk for Apple against Prof. Fidler by Andrio · 2012-08-15 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Apple ultimately stole the idea from God by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-08-15 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Slam dunk for Apple against Prof. Fidler by Intropy · 2012-08-15 05:12 · Score: 5, Informative

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?
Paramount should sue Apple by oh2 · 2012-08-15 05:12 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
Re:And yet by w_dragon · 2012-08-15 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why shouldn't a sci-fi show be able to qualify as prior art for design or UI patents?
Star Trek PADD as a concept would be prior art... by Picass0 · 2012-08-15 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

...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?
Apple stole iPhone idea from 2005 slashdot comment by backslashdot · 2012-08-15 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Walter Isaacson by Dr.+Evil · 2012-08-15 05:45 · Score: 5, Funny

He said it best:

Their meeting was in Jobs’s conference room, where Gates found himself surrounded by ten Apple employees who were eager to watch their boss assail him. Jobs didn’t disappoint his troops. “You’re ripping us off!” he shouted. “I trusted you, and now you’re stealing from us!” Gates just sat there coolly, looking Steve in the eye, before hurling back, in his squeaky voice, what became a classic zinger. “Well, Steve, I think there’s more than one way of looking at it. I think it’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.”
The more I think of it the less silly it sounds. by Picass0 · 2012-08-15 05:50 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Difficult position to argue by Migraineman · 2012-08-15 05:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:And yet by DickBreath · 2012-08-15 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

> 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.
Re:And yet by Ryanrule · 2012-08-15 06:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Because the apple biased judge threw out those claims.
what permission? Xerox sued Apple for idea theft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 06:35 · Score: 5, Informative

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."
Re:And yet by hackula · 2012-08-15 08:13 · Score: 4, Funny

APPLE: So...um, our patent is for.. like... a um... rectangle screen... with like... ornamental curvy...um... corners.
USPO: GRANTED!
APPLE: ...um....thanks.
Re:The more I think of it the less silly it sounds by VortexCortex · 2012-08-15 08:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!