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."
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 !
Fidler holding both tablets. Yeah, Apple's is totally original... :-|
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.
I also notice that Steve Jobs ripped off his trademark look from this guy in addition to the iPad design.
Apple is plenty-rewarded with their profits.
Regardless of Apple's making it work, we're talking about trademark looks and conceptual functionality. As a designer, if this man did come up with what a tablet should look like and should do, and then if someone else took his work and made it work, that would mean that the someone else has a derivative work.
Hell, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, they had these tablet computers that they walked around with and used for data access and retrieval. They were even called PADD. They had rounded corners. Yes, they were not real. But, as we've seen, a lot of people want to make real things that work like the fake things they see in science fiction. There's no shame in that, but their works are all derivative works at best. They didn't come up with the idea. They just made it work.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It doesnt matter if Samsung was influenced by iPad or Fidler's tablet. What matters is Apple's design patent is no longer valid, and Samsung has all the right to copy the iPad and Fidler's tablet.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect both to be rewarded. What is not reasonable is to reward the creator of the second, working, tablet by blocking any competition that also produces a working tablet with a similar design to the first non-working tablet.
You don't understand patent law very well. Being successful at bringing someone else's design concept to market does not allow you to block competitors from creating a knock-off. That's what you need a patent for. But for that, you need to show both novelty and nonobviousness, and it's not enough to be the first one to make it "actually work." If someone had the idea for the design 20 years ago, but not the technology, go ahead and patent the novel technology. But if you are using widely available technology, expect competition.
I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.
The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)
After thinking about it a bit, this would be my answer:
For the one that came after (and actually works), I see no reason why they shouldn't be rewarded for the effort on the parts that actually made it work. Patents on novel engineering regarding the guts of the device that made it a functioning tablet? No problem.
For the one that came first (and doesn't work), the non-functional mock-up offers only style; the external look and design. Those are the only elements he should get credit for -- but it just so happens that elements of style are among the patents at question in this trial.
>>>Put them in front of a 1984 Macintosh, and almost everything works like we have now.
Except it doesn't have subfolders like we have now.
Or the ability to multitask more than 1 program.
And no right button menus (like Commodore Amiga and Atari ST).
Users would be frustrated.
BTW it's not the first time a patent was invalidated in court by showing the existence of prior work. In 2007 Novell and Red Hat Linux jointly fended off a patent infringement suit for virtual desktops - and several people helped in finding cases of prior art. The most interesting one of all? A carefully restored and working 1985 Commodore Amiga demonstrated to the judge and jury..... Basically they demonstrated how the Amiga could have multiple desktops and screens.
POINT: A patent is invalidated when a piece of working hardware predates the issuance date. Apple can not claim a patent on the rounded-corners of the iPad if a piece of hardware already existed with that concept.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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.
Are you perhaps referring to the Apple PDA (August '93) that they shamelessly copied from the Casio/Tandy Zoomer (June '92)
Did that happen in 1994 when Fidler's demo was shown to people? Of course not. It wasn't a real product. It was stardust and dreams.
This matters not for the purposes of establishing prior art / originality, though. You don't get to claim "well, I started selling it first" and ignore the works that preceded you on those grounds.
While I agree with what you've said, as a programmer, I must ask you to never ever say "just made it work" again. We get enough of that shit from management. :)
Are you intentionally being obtuse? If the patents are overturned, there is no case. It doesnt have to go to the jury, the judge will herself throw the case out.
Either humans suck or the patent system sucks or both.
The point of contention for which this was presented is the design patent; the inner workings are irrelevant (cf. here).
Apple is seeking to prevent Samsung (and, by extension, most other tablet manufacturers, if the case succeeds) from selling anything that resembles their design (namely, the rounded corners, form factor, etc.) based on the idea that they came up with an original, non-obvious design for the iPad and should be awarded exclusive rights to it. Samsung's evidence points to the idea that Apple were beaten to the design by almost 20 years, and were exposed to it then, and therefore their idea is neither original nor non-obvious, thus invalidating their patent.
Again, none of this requires "working" hardware. Patents don't require it, except for perpetual motion machines; for those, a working prototype is mandatory.
I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.
The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)
Since it's a matter of trade dress (read: design) I'd say whoever designed it first. That would be the piece of plastic with newspaper stuck to it. Nice attempt at redirection, though.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If its purpose is to demonstrate a design concept and it demonstrates that design concept, it's working.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It's impossible to "Vaguely Imitate" a center mounted screen, or a screen made of glass (which is shiny, and transmits light from one side to the other). It is impossible to imitate the color black. It impossible to imitate a rectangle (it simply is or is not a rectangle). It is impossible to imitate quite a few things Apple has design patented, and many of them are obvious. Design patents are an abomination to human culture, and are the lowest form of filth. How is one to make a functioning smartphone or tablet without a screen that transmits light? Glass is so utterly generic, It simply doesn't matter whether it's gorilla glass or not. Using strong glass is not patentable anymore than I could patent using a hardwood floor in my house. Or wood in my baseball bat.
the patent isn't on the hardware, it's on the shape of the hardware.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Every time Steve showed a feature in the iPhone in 2007, I didn't gasp, I thought "My phone does that, though poorly". The iPhone was a good product, but what it did wasn't new. It was just that they made it work. That's commendable, but doesn't make the ideas themselves original.
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'
I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.
The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)
The creator of the idea should be rewarded for the idea.
The creator of the design should be rewarded for the design.
The creator of the functionality should be rewarded for the functionality.
The creator of the implementation should be rewarded for the implementation.
The creator of X should be rewarded for X.
Any more difficult questions?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I have a feeling you'll see something similar to Oracle vs. Google.
The jury will be asked to determine whether Samsung copied Apple, assuming that the patent is valid. If the jury comes back and says, "Nope. They didn't," then the whole thing is over. We're done. If the jury comes back and says, "Yup, they did," (and, personally, I agree that they will) then the judge decides whether or not those patents are actually valid. If the judge decides that the patents aren't valid, then the whole thing is over and we're done, regardless of what the jury said. It's okay to copy things that don't have patent protection.
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 ?
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.
No it isn't perfectly acceptable for both to be rewarded. In his video, Fielder talks about emergent technologies. Some things naturally come out of the combination of new technology. Why should anyone be able to patent the obvious? It's garbage - and society is hurt by this mindset and attitude.
Now, real inventions, like compression algorithms, noise reduction algorithms, etc. deserve a patent (albeit a very limited life so that society is not hurt), but not garbage like "rounded corners". Anyone that tries to patent such garbage should be "bitch slapped" repeatedly until they admit they are being assholes - regardless of WHO it is (Apple/Samsung/Google/etc). Evil is evil.
Having said that, if Fielder patented something that was significantly different and unlike anything around (ie. a new field or a completely new technology), then that would be fair game for some protection. Apple is NOT EVEN CLOSE to achieving this with its iPad, IMHO.
When Steve showed the iPhone in 2007 I felt the same.
I then wondered where the fuck all the basic fundamental features every other phone I'd had for at least 6 years prior were, such as MMS support.
I am the creator of identical copies and thus should be rewarded for the identical copies.
That means that all must be rewarded.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
For the one that came after (and actually works), I see no reason why they shouldn't be rewarded for the effort on the parts that actually made it work. Patents on novel engineering regarding the guts of the device that made it a functioning tablet? No problem.
Of course, Apple didn't actually do most of the novel hardware engineering that made the iPad possible as a functioning tablet - in that regard Samsung actually did more to make the iPad possible than Apple did. The touchscreen display and CPU chip in the iPad are both engineered and built by Samsung.
I usually reply back with... "Out biggest competitor pays their developers $x per month.. Please adjust my salary by the end of the week..."
And if he would give you a raise (I'm assuming you wouldn't ask your salary adjusted downwards), could you finish the features he wants in time?
I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.
Tablet Newspaper (1994). Note that the depicted design includes tablet with full-color reactive touchscreen (CRT, not LCD), it is not just "a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it". Also note that this case is about design patents, not functionality, and therefore the fact that Fidler didn't have a fully functional iPad in 1994 is irrelevant.
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.
Samsung's Lawyers are not playing to the judge but to the Jury. That is their audiecne and if they can convince them that Apple's Design Patents shouldn't have been issued to begin with, they solve the problem not only for themselves but for every other company that Apple has sued using those design patents. Simply put, Samsung's lawyers aim to kill Apple's entire legal strategy in all of the U.S. Courts being pursued by Apple.
By invalidating these patents entirely, they kill Apple's biggest legal threat against Samsung with the added benefit of doing the same for most of the other defendents in the States. Hell it may even benefit them in Germany, France other EU countries and such if the patents are invalidated in the States. Thus those lawyers will have definately earned their money for the case.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
The A4 (like some samsung's processors) is comprised mostly of "IP-Cores" from various companies.
IP Cores are electronic designs sold like the ARM processor (which is present in all the iPhone/iPad/... processors), the grephic accelerator (PowerVR, nVidia,...), the RAM block, the FLASH rom, the USB interface, the wifi system (Broadcom and other), ...
So, no, Apple did not design the A4... they designed a VERY SMALL part of it. Some people did "decap" (cur the plastic box around the processor) both an A4 and a Samsung processor and, using microscopes, were able to identify these common parts which covered more than 90% of the chip (well, Samsung chip had some extra IPcores which were useless for a phone and are not present in the A4)
When Apple boast about their "brand new magic A(n+1) processor", it makes me laugh... because there is nothing magic, nothing new... they just updated the CPU cores to a newer version from Acorn (which designs ARM) and the graphic cores... Some glue electronics to bind all these parts and it's done...
And ARM cores were used in later Palm devices (first were using a 68000 variant), on iPaq (from CompaQ) and other windows mobiles PDA as well as in Embedded systems.
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.
The early part of SCO vs Novell and SCO vs IBM was all in SCO favour too as they were allowed to get away with a great deal. As the cases progressed the Judge(s) reined them in harder and harder. The case vs Novell (Novell won), a retrial was ordered and they won again. The IBM case may never get to trial as TSG (formerly SCO) is trying to get into Chapter 7 Bankruptcy (liquidation) while still being allowed too continue the trial, which was gutted of most of their claims by the loss to Novell.
My point if you haven't understood it is that you can "win" early in the case but decisively lose later when it matters.