or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung cites science fiction as prior art in US iPad patent case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung cites science fiction as prior art in US iPad patent case - Page 4

post #121 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This is a nice summary, although reality adds complexity. There is a genuinely difficult problem embedded in this disagreement.

Indeed. But what most people seem to be forgetting is that Apple is duty bound to do whatever it can to protect against unreasonable infringement even if the available procedures are based on precedents that are somewhat questionable. From Apple's point of view, there is clear infringement. The question is how do they most efficiently achieve some recourse. Given the nature of the game and the rules/laws, (sometimes fallacious) that come into play, there is always going to be a level of expediency. As a business seeking to gain some temporary advantages from its own pioneering work, Apple would be silly not to explore reasonable strategies that are legally permissible.
post #122 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Which appears to be just as much about fortunate timing as anything else IMO.

No one else was trying, so if you are saying it was just luck then I guess I disagree.
post #123 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

Indeed. But what most people seem to be forgetting is that Apple is duty bound to do whatever it can to protect against unreasonable infringement even if the available procedures are based on precedents that are somewhat questionable. From Apple's point of view, there is clear infringement. The question is how do they most efficiently achieve some recourse. Given the nature of the game and the rules/laws, (sometimes fallacious) that come into play, there is always going to be a level of expediency. As a business seeking to gain some temporary advantages from its own pioneering work, Apple would be silly not to explore reasonable strategies that are legally permissible.

Completely agree.
post #124 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

It is more than digital newspaper. You obviously have not watched it. They are the pionieer and innovator in the tablet industry, IMO. Apple copied from them, and Samsung followed Apple making better product. But, I am happy with my IPad as my wife and 3 year old daughter love it.

I have watched it. In fact, it is not EVEN a digital newspaper! It is simply the mock-up of an IDEA for a digital newspaper in 1994.

More likely, Apple's iPad was inspired by their own Knowledge Navigator idea from 1987. Go take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator

Maybe the digital newspaper idea of 1994 was copied from Apple's Knowledge Navigator idea of 1987! Who's to say?
post #125 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No one else was trying, so if you are saying it was just luck then I guess I disagree.

Of course it wasn't just luck. A lot of good design work went into it too. But it would have been for naught in all likelihood if the timing wasn't also right.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #126 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

It is more than digital newspaper. You obviously have not watched it. They are the pionieer and innovator in the tablet industry, IMO. Apple copied from them, and Samsung followed Apple making better product. But, I am happy with my IPad as my wife and 3 year old daughter love it.

It was a great idea, but the point is that it did not actually exist. They did not pioneer, innovate or sell a working product.
post #127 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Of course it wasn't just luck. A lot of good design work went into it too. But it would have been for naught in all likelihood if the timing wasn't also right.

Isn't that true for all inventions?
post #128 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek and idea of product called 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)', IMO. See the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtP...eature=feedlik

They, in the Youtube, are the real innovator not a copycat Apple.


Really? Apple's Knowledge Navigator idea from 1987 clearly says otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator


Also, it makes more sense to think that it was Apple's earlier handheld computer, the Newton MessagePad, that served as inspiration for the name "iPad." (No need to come up with some wild theory that they dropped the extra "d" from "iPadd" to make the provenance less recognizable, which would defeat the ostensible purpose anyway!)
post #129 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

I have watched it. In fact, it is not EVEN a digital newspaper! It is simply the mock-up of an IDEA for a digital newspaper in 1994.

More likely, Apple's iPad was inspired by their own Knowledge Navigator idea from 1987. Go take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator

Maybe the digital newspaper idea of 1994 was copied from Apple's Knowledge Navigator idea of 1987! Who's to say?

Thanks for the info. The Tablet Newspaper was a tablet form of actual product not an idea of something. Also the design resembles IPad quite a bit.
post #130 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Thanks for the info. The Tablet Newspaper was a tablet form of actual product not an idea of something. Also the design resembles IPad quite a bit.

Do you have a reference for this statement? I can find no evidence that they even built a working prototype of that device.
post #131 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Do you have a reference for this statement? I can find no evidence that they even built a working prototype of that device.

No of course he hasn't. At this point it's just turning into pure trolling shit! ('scuse my French!)
post #132 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

No of course he hasn't. At this point it's just turning into pure trolling shit! ('scuse my French!)

Your French is impeccable.
post #133 of 143
The 1800s called and wants its form factor back:



Obviously the issue with Samsung goes well beyond just appearances or concepts. There's a clear attempt to mimic the iPad experience, design, size, UI and gestures.

Perhaps Samsung has redesigned the Galaxy II already in preparation for their impending failure:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/23/s...n-promo-video/

Where's the big home button Sammy?
post #134 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jobs

Who wants a stylus?! You have to get 'em and you put 'em away and you lose 'em yuck!

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #135 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Your French is impeccable.

Mercy bucket.
post #136 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Wow! Come on with the H.G. Wells and much more as prior art claims.

Poor Tesla actually invents so much stuff it would take life times to produce, but never mind him he's unimportant with all his patents because we've got Robert Heinlein's fictional work to be our case.

What's next? Roddenberry Estate steps in as well?

I will say though, that table they are sitting on has a strikingly Apple design, note the silver border with black surface.

You know for a movie that came out of late 60s it was surprisingly forward thinking, especially when you compare it to all the bad 80s scifi movies that followed in later years. Kind of scary actually.
post #137 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

HOWEVER, we're talking about a DESIGN PATENT, which is a different matter (http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/design.html). It is conceivable that a design patent could cover just an idea.



Please provide an example of a design patent which protects "just an idea".
post #138 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Please provide an example of a design patent which protects "just an idea".

Dude, there's so many that they're easy to find. Apple's filed at least 1000 of them, most of which have never been used on any Apple device. With 30 minutes research you can see just what the European Design Patent process is all about, and why it's ripe for abuse.

I'll even give you a headstart: http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/index.en.do
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #139 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Dude, there's so many that they're easy to find. Apple's filed at least 1000 of them, most of which have never been used on any Apple device. With 30 minutes research you can see just what the European Design Patent process is all about, and why it's ripe for abuse.

I'll even give you a headstart: http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/index.en.do

I saw nothing there which was a design patent which covers "just an idea".
post #140 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

I saw nothing there which was a design patent which covers "just an idea".

I can't do all your work for you. Try seaching for Apple design patents at the linked site. The screen limit is apparently 1000 indices, so that's all you'll get. After viewing a few you'll probably realize that most of them are for "just an idea". If you don't, then view a few more.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #141 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

I saw nothing there which was a design patent which covers "just an idea".

Just curious whether you read my earlier reply to your question, and whether you agreed or disagreed.
post #142 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I suspect that we are really only disagreeing semantically here on the definition of "idea". My point is that you do not actually have to build a functional device to obtain patent protection - the patent just needs to include a sufficiently complete description of how you would build it. At that point it is still just an idea in my view, but I'm guessing that by "idea" you are thinking more of just the concept of what it would do (e.g. a time machine, rather than the technical plans to build a time machine).

I'm not sure if this is the post you asked me to respond to - if not, let me know.

Yeah, we may be using the word "idea" in different ways.

In order to receive a patent (a regular patent, and not a design patent, and in the USA, dunno about other jurisdictions) the invention must be "useful".

That is why perpetual motion machines cannot be patented. They will not work, and so they cannot be useful. I suspect that a time machine would meet the same fate. Things that are deemed to not be able to be implemented are not useful, and therefore are outside the scope of patent protection.

Additionally, merely ornamental aspects of a device are not the subject of utility patents - that is the domain of design patents and/or the trade dress aspect of trademark law, and/or copyright protection.

And yes, I am using the word idea as an synonym for concept. You cannot patent the broad idea of a machine that does X. If I understand things correctly, you can only patent your specific implementation, and then, only the novel and non-obvious aspects of your invention.

So, if you had an idea, for example, of a tiny little machine that could swim through blood vessels and repair them from the inside out, you could not patent that idea. However, if you invented an actual machine that could do it, and it was clear that your machine would work, and you disclosed novel and non-obvious ways to implement the idea, then (if I understand things correctly) you could patent many specific aspects of such a machine. But the author of Fantastic Voyage could not patent the idea of a miniature machine, even if he were the first to come up with the idea.

In my understanding of things, the idea cannot be patente, but specific implementation can be patented, with the caveats mentioned above.

But I am not an expert on patent law, so I suspect my understanding has defects.
post #143 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

I'm not sure if this is the post you asked me to respond to - if not, let me know.

Yeah, we may be using the word "idea" in different ways.

In order to receive a patent (a regular patent, and not a design patent, and in the USA, dunno about other jurisdictions) the invention must be "useful".

That is why perpetual motion machines cannot be patented. They will not work, and so they cannot be useful. I suspect that a time machine would meet the same fate. Things that are deemed to not be able to be implemented are not useful, and therefore are outside the scope of patent protection.

Additionally, merely ornamental aspects of a device are not the subject of utility patents - that is the domain of design patents and/or the trade dress aspect of trademark law, and/or copyright protection.

And yes, I am using the word idea as an synonym for concept. You cannot patent the broad idea of a machine that does X. If I understand things correctly, you can only patent your specific implementation, and then, only the novel and non-obvious aspects of your invention.

So, if you had an idea, for example, of a tiny little machine that could swim through blood vessels and repair them from the inside out, you could not patent that idea. However, if you invented an actual machine that could do it, and it was clear that your machine would work, and you disclosed novel and non-obvious ways to implement the idea, then (if I understand things correctly) you could patent many specific aspects of such a machine. But the author of Fantastic Voyage could not patent the idea of a miniature machine, even if he were the first to come up with the idea.

In my understanding of things, the idea cannot be patente, but specific implementation can be patented, with the caveats mentioned above.

But I am not an expert on patent law, so I suspect my understanding has defects.

Thanks. My understanding is similar. It was just a matter of the definition of "idea".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Samsung cites science fiction as prior art in US iPad patent case
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Samsung cites science fiction as prior art in US iPad patent case