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 2

post #41 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I'm pretty sure you are the one that didn't read the article.


Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


For it to be prior art, it has to be a design, not just a mock up of a what-if. ...

The "art" in prior art doesn't mean a picture it means "design art." ... Pictures are used *in* design, but a picture of something or a concept drawing does not constitute a design.

Got any cites for that? For design patents?
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:11pm
I was a best buy, near their new tablet display tables. I head some young adult say "sweet iPads" latter when I passed the display it was actualy the galaxy, it made me do a double take. The iPad booth was ironically the in a separate section from all the other tablets.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #43 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by starnyc View Post

Samsung could copy this form factor and avoid the apple suit, but the 10.1 tablet clearly infringes on Apple's trade dress

Were the article about trade dress, you might have a point. But the article is about design patents.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santoanderson View Post

How can a non-functioning special effect from a forty year old movie be patented?

Such a special effect cannot be patented. You can rest easy. And BTW, nobody who knows what they are talking about claims otherwise.


But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?

Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:31pm
I wonder if this will be the first case where a grasping at straws defence was based on the hyperbolic rants of fanboys spread far and wide over tech sites across the Internet.

It could set an interesting precedent if it succeeds.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #46 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

I was a best buy, near their new tablet display tables. I head some young adult say "sweet iPads" latter when I passed the display it was actualy the galaxy, it made me do a double take. The iPad booth was ironically the in a separate section from all the other tablets.

Sounds like iPad might quickly become generic for tablet computers, much like "Thermos" or "Heroin". Apple might better start calling it an "iPad brand tablet" PDQ.

There's a good reason why they call them "Kleenex brand tissues".
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder about those Samsung lawyers. This is not "prior art" it's a fantasy product. Even if it were a render of a "concept" it wouldn't be prior art.

It's not even close and it's embarrassing that their lawyers don't seem to know that.

Not to mention the fact that the IBM movie prop looks nothing like the iPad. Hopefully, common sense will prevail. I'm really starting to wonder if Samsung's lawyers are looking to the hardcore android fanbase for legal advice.

"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller

Reply

"Can't innovate anymore my ass!" -- Phil Schiller

Reply
post #48 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Sounds like iPad might quickly become generic for tablet computers, much like "Thermos" or "Heroin". Apple might better start calling it an "iPad brand tablet" PDQ.

There's a good reason why they call them "Kleenex brand tissues".

A interesting thought. But don't products like the tablets and computers and phones rely more on there ability to be distinguished from the other competition in the field.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #49 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The prior Samsung is citing is imaginary. It's a movie prop.

It is a design patent though, which might not require actual operation to be valid. However, it doesn't look anything like an iPad in terms of its design cues. It takes a total dope to confuse the two, but not so much with some Samsung products against the Apple counterpart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Clarke came up with the space elevator (et. al.), so grab him for good measure.

The idea of a space elevator probably isn't patentable, but I'm sure a lot of the technologies needed to build it, make it operate and endure will be.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:42pm
What's with all the shock and horror that certain "inventions" cannot be patented because of existing prior art in works of fiction?

You do realize that if no one can patent something then it is in the public domain, so EVERYONE can use it? Surely that would mean stronger competition amongst manufacturers and therefore lower profit margins, but consumers only benefit. The long term winners would be those companies that manage to make enough profit despite the competition, so that they can reinvest in further product development...

Yes, I know that patents protect companies from losing their investments in IP, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING should be patented; certainly not obvious things that require no expensive research.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

What's with all the shock and horror that certain "inventions" cannot be patented because of existing prior art in works of fiction?

You do realize that if no one can patent something then it is in the public domain, so EVERYONE can use it? Surely that would mean stronger competition amongst manufacturers and therefore lower profit margins, but consumers only benefit. The long term winners would be those companies that manage to make enough profit despite the competition, so that they can reinvest in further product development...

Yes, I know that patents protect companies from losing their investments in IP, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING should be patented; certainly not obvious things that require no expensive research.

Hypothetically, I agree, but with respect to this story, but other than the color and rectangular screen, the 2001 tablet looks nothing like an iPad, so that reasoning doesn't apply in this situation.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Please don't quote the whole story, you didn't need to do that to make a two sentence reply.

Apologies, that was inadvertant. Had no idea I had done so until you mentioned it.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #53 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Hypothetically, I agree, but with respect to this story, but other than the color and rectangular screen, the 2001 tablet looks nothing like an iPad, so that reasoning doesn't apply in this situation.

I was referring to a number of consecutive posts where some smartypants were listing a bunch of useless "invention" and saying something to the effect of "crap, now I can't patent this, so it will never be possible to make it". Pretty silly IMO.

As to Samsung, I have repeatedly stated that their insistence on copying Apple is to their detriment in almost every possible aspect.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 143
8/23/11 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?

Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?

I will agree with you on that point. I do think it's over-reaching on Apple's part to try and patent the extruded rectangle. However they really do have a case against Samsung when it comes to the details. Conceptually there are thousands of different ways to create a tablet computer; there are thousands of combinations of shapes, UI's, colors, input methods, etc available to create a truly unique product. They could probably create a really nifty circular tablet with a radial interface that is navigated by the way your eye twitches: something that is 90% different from the iPad. But they didn't. Samsung chose to copy Apple, from the tab's form factor all the way down to the color of it's app icons.

It's no secret that Samsung's tablet efforts have been an attempt to fool consumers into buying what they believe to be iPads. If I took a Galaxy and showed it to my 8 year old niece, she would call it an iPad. Apple trapped lightning in a bottle with the iPad, and collected a ton of revenue because of it. Samsung is just now trying to capitalize on that success by flooding the market with cheap knock-offs.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Oh yeah, maybe I should patent 'The Force' while I'm at it.

Chance your arm, you should.

But quick, before Google does it.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:21pm
I recall a few Star Trek episodes where Cap Kirk held an iPad like device. The concept is over 40 years old.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Samsung just took the short bus to Crazy Town.

That or they thought "2001" the movie was actually made in 2001 and the IBM tv was real....
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #58 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)

But maybe we need to be careful about the meaning of "invention" in this context. Back then this was not an invention - it had not been invented. It was just an imaginary future functionality.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

I recall a few Star Trek episodes where Cap Kirk held an iPad like device. The concept is over 40 years old.

Which is why apple isn't suing samsung over the concept of a tablet computer. They're suing samsung for copying apples design of a tablet computer.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Here's a screen cap of my HD DVD rip of the movie for a larger, higher-quality shot.

Love that the tablet's an IBM product. Maybe Samsung should be suing them instead.

And HAL is IBM minus 1 letter before above in the alphabet
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santoanderson View Post

I'm truly shocked at the number of "Yeah, good point Samsung!" posts I'm reading on other sites. How can a non-functioning special effect from a forty year old movie be patented? When a Boeing or Sikorsky suddenly invents a hovering car, will they have to call Robert Zemekis for his approval?

I think if anything Samsung's 2001 defense hurts them. The movie came out 43 years ago. Samsung took 43 years to produce a tablet similar to those seen in 2001, and that was 6 months after Apple came out with their own tablet. What was Samsung producing for those other 42 and a half years? Nothing close to 2001.

It's funny. When the Samsung lawsuits first started, they argued that they didn't copy Apple. Now it feels like they've admitted to copying Apple, and are simply trying to justify their actions.

First of all, Ipad and Galaxy Tab are tablet computers, but they are different. If you think GT is copy of Ipad, then you are still looking at the images manipulated by Apple. The same applies to S2.

I think this 'prior art' issue by Samsung has got a good ground. It is clearly demonstrated that tablet idea had alread existed when Apple filed the design whatever it is called later on.

No, I dont think Samsung is admiting that they copied Apple. I think this copy thing first mentioned by Jobs and some pro-Apple blogers and medias kept refering it. That why, I think, some of Apple royal fans heavily brainwashed.

Beside the court cases going on, I think Apple copied from the Samsung digital photo frame in Ipad.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...-movies-music/
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 143
8/23/11 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by accessoriesguy View Post

And HAL is IBM minus 1 letter before above in the alphabet

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Chandra

"Utter nonsense! Half of us come from IBM and we've been trying to stamp out that story for years. I thought that by now every intelligent person knew that H-A-L is derived from Heuristic ALgorithmic."

Reply
Reply
post #63 of 143
8/23/11 at 4:11pm
Dr. Who has every idea beaten. Sorry but let's face it, given he was there when Earth formed no one can beat his claims. Now where is my sonic screw driver ...?
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #64 of 143
8/23/11 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

First of all, Ipad and Galaxy Tab are tablet computers, but they are different. If you think GT is copy of Ipad, then you are still looking at the images manipulated by Apple. The same applies to S2.

I think this 'prior art' issue by Samsung has got a good ground. It is clearly demonstrated that tablet idea had alread existed when Apple filed the design whatever it is called later on.

No, I dont think Samsung is admiting that they copied Apple. I think this copy thing first mentioned by Jobs and some pro-Apple blogers and medias kept refering it. That why, I think, some of Apple royal fans heavily brainwashed.

Beside the court cases going on, I think Apple copied from the Samsung digital photo frame in Ipad.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...-movies-music/

...and the tablets that Hitachi and IBM patented (Which Apple didn't copy.), what about those?

There is room for plenty of designs and plenty of patents.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #65 of 143
8/23/11 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

Proves how badly the current patent system needs to be redone, how bogus most claims (Apple included) really are, because we allow things like "Bread Refreshing Method" (U.S. Patent Number 6,080,436 - recently featured on "This American Life") to be patented.

Yes, you read that correctly. Someone in 1999 filed, and later, in 2000, was awarded, a patent for toast...

Nah, more like Samsung and and especially their lawyers are so desperate. Embarrassing even to be a Korean (regardless political affiliation). No, I'm not \
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 143
8/23/11 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But maybe we need to be careful about the meaning of "invention" in this context. Back then this was not an invention - it had not been invented. It was just an imaginary future functionality.

We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid.

So yes, we need to be careful about mixing in the concept of invention, because it is all but irrelevant.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 143
8/23/11 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Don't forget "Minority Report". Talk about multi-touch!

Bah, that was johnny come lately in the multi touch interface. Robotech had multi-touch transparent displays and much more and I imagine they were conceptually inspired by things before and before and before.

All exo-frame design patents and even control methods should be invalidated. If you follow the various near future genres even meta-material sciences, nano. Fark firewalls could be.

Mind you I actually agree with all this. There are no ideas in isolation, no invention unique. Okay there are but it is thin on the ground and exotic physics based stuff
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #68 of 143
8/23/11 at 5:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

...and the tablets that Hitachi and IBM patented (Which Apple didn't copy.), what about those?

There is room for plenty of designs and plenty of patents.

And most previous tablets were created for resistive screens, which necessitated certain design compromises (larger bezel, physical buttons, stylus, etc) But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 143
8/23/11 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

I was a best buy, near their new tablet display tables. I head some young adult say "sweet iPads" latter when I passed the display it was actualy the galaxy, it made me do a double take. The iPad booth was ironically the in a separate section from all the other tablets.

I was in Vietnam recently and an elderly woman asked me if my phone (3GS) was a Samsung Galaxy ><
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 143
8/23/11 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

And most previous tablets were created for resistive screens, which necessitated certain design compromises (larger bezel, physical buttons, stylus, etc) But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.

It maybe that the idea had long been existed. I also think the 'Padd' and 'Tablet newspaper (1994)' more points for Samsung.

For some die-hard Apple royal fans. This is the 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)' which pretty much handles what my Ipad 2 does!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 143
8/23/11 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.

Likely they did.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 143
8/23/11 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid.

So yes, we need to be careful about mixing in the concept of invention, because it is all but irrelevant.

Except that your original quote above clearly refers to representations of "inventions" being used to invalidate design patents, so it is not irrelevant. I assumed that your argument was that an invention had been depicted back then that could now invalidate Apples design patent claim? Maybe I misunderstood your point.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 143
8/23/11 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid...

If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 143
8/23/11 at 6:46pm
By that logic couldn't Gene Roddenberry's estate and Paramount sue all cell phone makers for copying the Original Star Trek Communicator for Flip Phones?
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 143
8/23/11 at 6:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?

It is an interesting issue. I think that what is being argued is that the fictional representation of a fictional invention (as opposed to a real invention) can subsequently be used to invalidate a claim of a design patent on a real invention.

That would seem a bit unreasonable, and lead to the obvious question: do the real invention and the fictional invention have to be similar in function or not?

To take the time machine analogy, if I depict a fictional time machine, and a company subsequently manufactures a real time machine that looks a bit like my fictional one, does this prevent them from claiming a design patent on it?

What if their invention is actually an unusually designed washing machine that looks like my fictional time machine? Still no design patent, or is that a different case?

I find it hard to believe that the rules were intended to work this way.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 143
8/23/11 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Except that your original quote above clearly refers to representations of "inventions" being used to invalidate design patents, so it is not irrelevant. I assumed that your argument was that an invention had been depicted back then that could now invalidate Apples design patent claim? Maybe I misunderstood your point.

I didn't write the original statement, DED wrote it. I think that a better word could have been used. Perhaps "object"?

For example, the Statue of Liberty received a design patent, but it is a piece of art, and not an invention. So design patents can cover the design of an invention, but can cover other objects as well.

The point is that if somebody gets a design patent for their object, but they merely copied pre-existing design, like Apple is claimed to have done, their design patent can be invalidated. The object could be an invention, but it ca also be, for example, a distinctive bottle (like Coca-Cola's iconic bottle), which is not an invention.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 143
8/23/11 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It is an interesting issue. I think that what is being argued is that the fictional representation of a fictional invention (as opposed to a real invention) can subsequently be used to invalidate a claim of a design patent on a real invention.

That would seem a bit unreasonable, and lead to the obvious question: do the real invention and the fictional invention have to be similar in function or not?

To take the time machine analogy, if I depict a fictional time machine, and a company subsequently manufactures a real time machine that looks a bit like my fictional one, does this prevent them from claiming a design patent on it?

What if their invention is actually an unusually designed washing machine that looks like my fictional time machine? Still no design patent, or is that a different case?

I find it hard to believe that the rules were intended to work this way.

or how about this,

that time-machine / tablet 'design' should not be patented from the beginning if it is that easy or coincidental to manufacture something with similar purposes to embrace similar looks.

which is exactly what samsung tries to prove (but poorly).
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 143
8/23/11 at 7:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowspark View Post

By that logic couldn't Gene Roddenberry's estate and Paramount sue all cell phone makers for copying the Original Star Trek Communicator for Flip Phones?

If they patented the ideas, they technically could. (It was actually one of the set designers who came up with the Padd, it was to make set budgets cheaper, same reason they came up with transporter)

For Padd story (REALLY good read) http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-years-ago.ars

But most writers wouldn't patent ideas they came up with. Hopefully it won't ever come to that. Sci-fi inspires a lot of "real"scientists, or people who become scientist. Introducing them to the future with patent encumbered ideas would be toxic.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 143
8/23/11 at 7:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

You do realize that if no one can patent something then it is in the public domain, so EVERYONE can use it? Surely that would mean stronger competition amongst manufacturers and therefore lower profit margins, but consumers only benefit. The long term winners would be those companies that manage to make enough profit despite the competition, so that they can reinvest in further product development...

And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 143
8/23/11 at 7:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?

Why not? The claim is that each of the elements that Apple says was designed by them existed before they set pen to paper.

I'm not sure that functionality or capability enters into the design aspects of the device,
Reply
Reply
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