Slashdot Mirror
Apple Loses Bid To Exclude Evidence In Samsung Patent Trial
New submitter Shavano writes with news that Apple's attempt to block Samsung from introducing evidence of a tablet prototype developed in 1994 has been denied by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. Part of the reason Apple got a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 earlier this year was that an Appeals Court said Apple's tablet design was significantly different from earlier designs. Now, Judge Koh has decided that the issue needs to be decided by a jury.
"Samsung has argued the design was an obvious variation of tablets existing as early as 1994, including one made by Hewlett-Packard Co. The Korean company supported that argument at the trial with videotaped testimony by Roger Fidler, who heads the digital publishing program at the University of Missouri. Fidler said he started working on a tablet design in 1981. Apple sought to exclude the testimony based on the appeals court ruling. In a written declaration, Fidler said 'Apple personnel were exposed to my tablet ideas and prototypes' in the mid- 1990s when the company collaborated with Knight-Ridder Inc.’s information design laboratory in Colorado."
Xerox Alto anyone?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This is almost old news. The trial testimony is over and both sides (Apple/Samsung) are too each commence a 2 hour closing argument statement on Tuesday.
Can we just agree that neither company were all that original and that the progression to today's design was a natural and obvious path given the technology that became possible?
Or are we going to start calling in the Science fiction writers next? Because what ever Samsung or Apple might of designed an SF writer likely wrote about it first.
We are blessed that back in the 1970's, 1980's and in early 1990's there were many inventors decided to share their incredible inventions with the world, and they also decided against patenting their inventions
That is why we got what we got today - from hypertext to web2, web3
If the inventors of yesteryears were as greedy as Apple - We are sure going to miss out on the many things that we are enjoying today
Hooray to the generous inventors !!
Pox to those greedy patent trolls !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
When a judge, who has shown their bias already, feels compelled to go against their own bias, then Samsung must have a pretty strong case.
It didn't happen to look like a Newton, did it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
A great news to the technology world. Next step is shaking up the patent office and getting rid of the clowns approving silly patents submitted by Apple.
Every time I read something new about this case Judge Koh is more pissed off. I think everybody's going to get spanked on this one.
Either humans suck or the patent system sucks or both.
Who you fucking calling 'cunt', cunt!
(Obligatory tribute to Derek & Clive)
even the European Union had a news tablet designed by acorn...
Apple hasn't ever invented anything at any time in their entire history, real american innovation like digital video from the BBC in england (as is the case with almost everything Americans claim to have invented, actually always came from Europe...)
sorry, the Russians were there before you every single time... (from the nuclear bomb to space travel, you'd have to thank the Nazi's for those...)
Star Trek Next Generation always had tablets. To say Apple came up with the idea is ludicrous. I was happy when Ipad type devices started coming out, because everything that gets us closer to Star Trek is a good thing in my book.
I read the article linked to in the summary, but did not notice any place where it mentioned the grounds that Apple attempted to use to get the evidence excluded.
I mean, aren't you required to give a judge a reason to not admit potentially relevant evidence?
And really, I'm compelled to wonder what possible reason they could have given that they seriously would think had even the slightest chance of flying...
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Can we stop already with these Apple/Samsung trial stories ?
It's not that I'm not interested in the subject: I believe its outcome will have profound implications on the smartphone/tablet landscape (hopefully for the best).
However, I am totally uninterested in every trivial aspect and "twist" of the trial, especially when I'm sure that slashdot editors/firehose cherry pick these stories, and fail to give us the greater picture of the process. Can't we just wait for the court ruling, and have a GOOD summary of it, for once ?
Well if Judge Koh is as biased against Samsung as so many people were insinuating, then Apple must have an *expletively* good case for her to throw out this request.
captcha: biasing
I REALLY hope samsung wins this one....I'd rather not have to carry an iphone...My Android device is a wonderful piece of work and no Macintosh product will EVER usurp it....because i can mod mine without breaking its warranty.
The more i read stories about patent cases the more clear it becomes that the people who decide what can be patented are being bought and paid for. Nothing else makes since.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Korean judge?
The fix is in.
And even the second time around, Fidler's tablet still hasn't got the flush surface of the iPad (and Samsung's Tabs).
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
This whole trial is ridiculous. Apple should have never have got the design patent in the first place. It has no innovation at all if you think about it logically, and most designers aren't even that logical.
Q. Hmm what screen shall we use?
A Oh, the cheapest ones are 16:9, next probably 19:10 then there's the good old 4:3. Whatever we use is going to make a rectangle shape.
Q OK, how do we make the device feel nice and be safe for children to use.
A - ROUNDED CORNERS!
What exactly are Samsung / other competitors meant to do?!?
I half want Samsung to develop a round screen, and for it to be a huge success, and for Apple to try to compete with it - just to see what they try to do. Just a shame a round device would be a right PITA to carry around, and an even more PITA to develop for.
Nice tho, but, if you used computers pre 1995, pre 1991, and knew the 'hacker' and 'pirate' scene, you would have seen many games and indeed consoles had cuter better interfaces, ie ps2/xbox1, and xbmc.
Why didnt you guys get the sony ps2 game designers/graphics artists to design a futuristic GUI.
This is why hardcore geek engineers need to branch out and at least play games often to get the feel of alternative interfaces.
Though I can imagine the management being old farts in suits saying they want boring text on white like a paper document.
Hell, even in 1991 I've seen better interfaces on the Amiga.
Note: game coders can do wonders in a small amount of ram/cpu speed. (well the 1990s did)
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
It looks like the iPad mini about to be released.
If every coder/geek watched startrek 5000 times, the concept of tablets + flat screen + touch screen is there in their heads.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Why? Because if they agree, then their case falls down.
Fuck Apple.
(Score:5, Informative)
You're kidding, right? I thought this was one of the most famous statements ever made by Gates. However, it was 1976 (close enough to 1980, I suppose) and it wasn't a newsletter, it was an actual letter to the Homebrew Computer Club.
I think Lotus sued Borland over the look of the menus, or something equally silly.
So how about companies whose expertise is not in coming up with novel ideas that don't work very well, but rather in design--taking concepts that are well known and finally making them actually work well? Clearly (considering how rarely it is done) that is often harder than coming up with the original germ of an idea. And it clearly is not risk free: there are many of examples of companies that introduced original designs, but failed because they could not compete with other companies who simply copied the designs of others.
Consider the fate of Palm, for example, who came up an original OS and user interface and produced a phone that debuted to stellar reviews, but died because they could not afford to compete with manufacturers selling cheap iClones, who could sell their phones at rock-bottom prices, because they didn't have to invest in design, or do user testing, or take the market risk of introducing a new design--they could piggyback on the design ideas already market-tested by Apple. And the same seems to be on the verge of happening to Blackberry, another company that developed its own designs and charted its own way instead of just rushing clones of "the latest thing" to the market.
Ironically, it appears that the consequence of weak patent protection of Apple's designs will likely be that consumers have only two choices when it comes to smart phones: an iPhone, or an iPhone imitator. Perhaps Microsoft will offer a second alternative (although design had never really been one of their strengths). But it's kind of sad if a company has to have the deep pockets of a Microsoft to introduce an original design.
guess that means that software, not having any ideas, isn't expressive nor patentable...
Apple though that trying to stifle evidence would mean they'd win. After all, the existence of the evidence means that there were events that took place in the past, and the past cannot be changed. You can say what you want all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the past happened. By trying to move to have the evidence dismissed, they're trying to deny that the events ever took place in the first place, which just goes to show how disconnected from reality things like this really are.
Didn't Star Trek TNG invent the tablet even earlier than 1994? That show ran in the 80's, well before anyone actually build a REAL tablet, but the concept was there.