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 3

post #81 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinous View Post

The statement from Samsung that Apple has become litigious "rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung" is uttered without a hint of irony. There is a powerful disincentive to innovate if competitors are allowed to freely pilfer and profit from your innovations.

That's what I've been trying to tell people for a while now. People have this idea in their heads that Apple should essentially "turn the other cheek" when others are trying to piggyback off of their hard work. They think that Apple should respond to copycat behavior by trying to out-innovate their copycats, never mind that out-innovating one's copycats does nothing to prevent copycat behavior.

A lot of people have remarked that they jumped off the Microsoft bandwagon because Microsoft was becoming too cut-throat. According to those same people, Apple is becoming the corporation that they were supposedly trying to beat. To those who harbor this notion, I've got news for all of you. Business is a cut-throat game. And some of the accusations against Microsoft have been blown way out of proportion. Microsoft stepped over the bounds of the law a few times and got busted for such behavior. But other than those instances where they did illegal things, all those other business practices of Microsoft are a part of business. Like I said, business is a cut-throat game.

Also, a lot of people seem to harbor extremely naive notions about Google. One of these is their stance on intellectual property. I don't believe a word of what Google has been saying about patents. It sounds like sour grapes to me. Google should have made better business decisions but they didn't, and now they're trying to blow some smoke and make themselves look like the white knights. We will see Google's true colors when someone begins to threaten one of their core businesses, like search. Google is not going to try to out-innovate those who copy them. They will go after those who dare copy them with every weapon in their arsenal.
post #82 of 143
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?

No, but if somebody had obtained a design patent for a flip phone, it could be invalidated based upon Star Trek's design being prior to the grant of the patent.
post #83 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacSince1988 View Post

And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?

Apple is making a higher profit margin on their products than anyone else in their field, and they are by far the market leader when it comes to sales Volume for the ipad. I'd say they're doing quite fine with people "stealing"

And samsung's argument (with this submission) is that it wasn't apple's idea.
post #84 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

If they patented the ideas, they technically could.

Ideas cannot be patented.
post #85 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacSince1988 View Post

And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?

Ideas cannot be protected.
post #86 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

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.

OK - understood and agreed. But in this case, the object referred to by Samsung doesn't look much at all like an iPad in terms of the design elements that Apple claims as theirs. Just being flat and rectangular with a moving image is a rather small subset of the design.
post #87 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Ideas cannot be patented.

Too much of a generalization - not all ideas can be patented.
post #88 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Ideas cannot be protected.

Same comment.
post #89 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Ideas cannot be patented.

6. If a first person furnishes all of the ideas to make an invention and a second person employs the first person or furnishes the money for building and testing the invention, should the patent application be filed by the first and second persons jointly?

A. No. The application must be signed by the true inventor, and filed in the USPTO, in the inventors name. This is the person who furnishes the ideas (e.g. the first person in the above fact pattern), not the employer or the person who furnishes the money.

http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp

Not a definitive "You can patent ideas" but it does show that in order to get a patent for the design, you need to be the person who came up with the idea, and not just the employer or finance guy. You can't patent JUST an idea, but when something get's to a "prop" stage, or when a writer develops a new interface for a computer in his book, they're not "just" ideas anymore.
post #90 of 143
Samsung is not too innovative in the portable device dept.
Hence they copy Apple. Its obvious based on images before and after iDevices are revealed.
Also goes to show they have no idea when they need to quote or extract evidence from SciFi movies. Lame as...
post #91 of 143
The people at Samsung who designed the Galaxy Tab know that the iPad was their design goal. How could they not? I understand if they can't admit it. What kills me is that some rabid fandroids believe this latest Chewbacca defense. What happened to common sense?

It would be as if these guys blatantly copied the BMW X5 design and then denied it, then defended themselves by claiming prior art because Ford designed the Model-T waaaay back at the dawn of the horseless carriage days, and it kinda sorta looks like an SUV:


OMG, prior art, therefore we didn't copy BMW!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #92 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

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,

It certainly does! For example, the fact that apples pre-exist and represent a well-known shape cannot be the reason for invalidating one's effort to get a design pattent patent on a novel apple-shaped pencil sharpener.
post #93 of 143
I am often called anti Apple here because I dont support the "App Store" trademark (sic). But Apple is pulling a big win against Samsung. The longer it goes, the weaker Samsung looks. Either they can be a copycat firm or they can be an honorable company. They are choosing copycat which makes them just another junk emporium IMO. Too bad. Samsung has such awesome capabilities. I guess they aren't able to detect mistakes and correct them.
post #94 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

I am often called anti Apple here because I dont support the "App Store" trademark (sic). But Apple is pulling a big win against Samsung. The longer it goes, the weaker Samsung looks. Either they can be a copycat firm or they can be an honorable company. They are choosing copycat which makes them just another junk emporium IMO. Too bad. Samsung has such awesome capabilities. I guess they aren't able to detect mistakes and correct them.

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.
post #95 of 143
Previously:

"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..."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

It certainly does! For example, the fact that apples pre-exist and represent a well-known shape cannot be the reason for invalidating one's effort to get a design patent on a novel apple-shaped pencil sharpener.

Correction (since it would actually be better to stick with man-made objects): Would a person who designed a novel apple-shaped refrigerator not be able to get a design patent because there is prior art that shows apple-shaped washing machines? I think the answer is obvious. The functionality of the item must be taken into account.
post #96 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.

Interesting link. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.
post #97 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

No, but if somebody had obtained a design patent for a flip phone, it could be invalidated based upon Star Trek's design being prior to the grant of the patent.

I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".
post #98 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

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?

I bet the Luxor Casino in Las Vegas has a design patent on it. It's based on more than just being the shape of a pyramid. And you can't build another building that looks like it. But that's not the same as saying you can't build another building that is shape like a pyramid. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".
post #99 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".

Samsung, been there, done that:-

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #100 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Interesting link. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.

Agreed. Quite the find. Surprised that this goes back to 1994. Someone had some real foresight, and yes I'd absolutely consider this prior art.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Samsung, been there, done that:-


From a design patent standpoint, that's not close enough. There's more to a Razr design than just the flip.

The closest Samsung came to copying a Razr is with their "Sync". And even that phone won't be visually mistaken for a Razr, even if all you got was a glance at it. For sure they were influenced by the Razr design (That's providing the Razr was the first phone to look like that.) but there are enough differences to avoid a design patent suit by Motorola.

Their Galaxy phone and tablets on the other hand can be mistaken for the iPhone and iPad by Apple at first glance. Whether that's enough to violate a design patent will be up to the judge. But I can see some one who never actually handled an iPhone or iPad, given a Galaxy phone or tablet and told it was an Apple product, believing it was an Apple product just based on the Apple advertising they've seen. And that may be enough to violate a design patent.

You can see the comparison for yourself here.

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsu...ns-2011-4?op=1
post #102 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Too much of a generalization - not all ideas can be patented.

Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.

Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?
post #103 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Same comment.

Same response.
post #104 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

6. If a first person furnishes all of the ideas to make an invention and a second person employs the first person or furnishes the money for building and testing the invention, should the patent application be filed by the first and second persons jointly?

A. No. The application must be signed by the true inventor, and filed in the USPTO, in the inventors name. This is the person who furnishes the ideas (e.g. the first person in the above fact pattern), not the employer or the person who furnishes the money.

http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp

Not a definitive "You can patent ideas" but it does show that in order to get a patent for the design, you need to be the person who came up with the idea, and not just the employer or finance guy. You can't patent JUST an idea, but when something get's to a "prop" stage, or when a writer develops a new interface for a computer in his book, they're not "just" ideas anymore.


But the idea itself is NOT patentable. I think we agree on that. The implementation is patented, and not the idea itself.
post #105 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".

Name the stakes and the odds. I'll take your offer for any amount of money you are willing to put up.
post #106 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.

So Apple copied the idea of a tablet newspaper to come up with their tablet computer. It's even worse than that. Both Apple and the newspaper researchers stole the idea from the "slates" that kids used instead of notebooks several decades ago. Thieves, everyone!
post #107 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I bet Motorola has a design patent for their Razr flip phone. And if another company made a flip phone that could be visually mistaken for a Razr, that they could not invalidate Motorola patent based upon Star Trek design being prior art. In order for it to be invalidated, the Razr would have to look exactly like the communicator in Star Trek. Not just because it "flips".

It can be considered infringing if the average consumer is confused into thinking it is the same product. For example, there was a "Freedom Stick" game controller that was ruled to be a confusingly similar design as the NES Advantage joystick.

But this is clearly not, for one, the ST communicator has a mesh that flips open, no phone I remember has that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

To suprise you. Apple has been a copycat here. They stole name from 'Padd' from Star Trek

I'd say only if the word "Pad" didn't exist before Star Trek.

Quote:
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.

That is closer, it would be interesting to see if it qualifies as prior art. However, the top face has a rolled edge, and the side has a stylus pocket, and the bottom edge width is a different size than the sides and top. I'm not even sure a design patent can have prior art problems like a utility patent.
post #108 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Apple is making a higher profit margin on their products than anyone else in their field, and they are by far the market leader when it comes to sales Volume for the ipad. I'd say they're doing quite fine with people "stealing"

That's ridiculous. So in your view, it's OK if I steal 10% of your possessions as long as you're wealthy enough to have lots of stuff left over?

Stealing hurts Apple a great deal - even though they're strong enough to do well anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Interesting link {1994 media reader}. This is not only an example of prior art, but to a great extent the whole concept of the tablet computer as a device for consuming media.

Might be relevant - if Apple were trying to patent the concept of a media consuming device. But they're not. It's a design patent and since the 1994 'product' looks nothing like the iPad, it's irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.

Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?

None that I know of. Patents are rewarded for inventions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
"The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application"

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can't build a building that looks exactly like a pyramid in Giza, without first getting approval from some one in Egypt. Even though it's prior "art".

Nonsense. No one owns the right to the Giza pyramid's design.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #109 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...

Seems much more likely that the idea of "iPad" derived from Apples own earlier product, the MessagePad.

People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.
post #110 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Hmmm...which ideas CAN be patented? Excluding ideas which are actually implemented, in which case the implementation, and not the idea, is the subject of the patent.

Are there any examples you ca give me of a pure idea being patented?

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).
post #111 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nonsense. No one owns the right to the Giza pyramid's design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Name the stakes and the odds. I'll take your offer for any amount of money you are willing to put up.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...copyright.html

Don't be so sure of yourselves. I know for a fact that if want to use an image of the Golden Gate Bridge for commercial purpose, you must ask for permission from San Francisco and maybe pay for a license to do so.
post #112 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.

This is a nice summary, although reality adds complexity. There is a genuinely difficult problem embedded in this disagreement. Apple clearly created a new market with both the iPhone and the iPad, both of which were extensively dismissed as doomed to fail when released. But they succeeded beyond all expectations. So other companies now want to get a share of that market, as they should, and also as we, the consumers should want them to.

So in terms of design, how much protection should Apple be given? It would not be fair to say that no one else can build a tablet computer. Is it reasonable to call foul if other companies deliberately try to imitate the appearance of, say, the iPad in order to confuse potential customers? Most reasonable people would probably say yes. Are Samsung doing that? Much harder to determine.

Are they following the same basic design that Apple demonstrated to be so popular? I would say clearly they are. Is that wrong? I don't know, but they would be foolish not to follow the successful recipe as closely as they can get away with - unless they can improve on it, which doesn't seem to have happened yet.
post #113 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dabe View Post

Seems much more likely that the idea of "iPad" derived from Apples own earlier product, the MessagePad.

People are going to ridiculous lengths to deny Apple's innovation, which is obvious, in order to justify the blatant copying by others who've never been nearly as innovative. Taking existing ideas and expanding on them in new, creative ways that result in useful products that didn't exist before is "innovation." Companies that just copy those products are not innovating; they are simply copying.

If you watch 'tablet newspaper (1994)' in YouTube, you would see that they are the innovator. It does pretty much what my Ipad2 does. It is quite lengthy video clip, but really worth have a look.

I don't know what Samsung copied still and what Apple is exactly moaning about. I only see similarities in images manipulated by Apple. If you look at the default home screen with size comparison, they are different. Some says icons, but they are different. Also, Samsung has their own design, have you seen Samsung digital photo frame(2006)?

I think Apple is a striking copycat and even worse they claim original. See what they are doing now. Making great products should not be an excuse for being a copycat.
post #114 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

If you watch 'tablet newspaper (1994)' in YouTube, you would see that they are the innovator. It does pretty much what my Ipad2 does. It is quite lengthy video clip, but really worth have a look.

Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #115 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Are they following the same basic design that Apple demonstrated to be so popular? I would say clearly they are. Is that wrong? I don't know, but they would be foolish not to follow the successful recipe as closely as they can get away with - unless they can improve on it, which doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Samsung does have their own basic design, search for 'Samsung digital photo frame (2006). It is basically same design for their GT.
post #116 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.

You know very well why it wasn't done in 1994. Or 2000. Or 2005. The pieces that make the latest attempt successful weren't yet in place, at least a price that made business sense. In some cases certain needed hardware wasn't available at any price. Even the capacitive touchscreens that Apple depends on weren't economically viable until the past 5 years or so.

If Apple had wanted to build the current iPad 6 years ago and make it a successful venture, they could not have. The pieces and parts were way too expensive or not available at all.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #117 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Samsung does have their own basic design, search for 'Samsung digital photo frame (2006). It is basically same design for their GT.

If they can convince the courts that their tablet does more closely resemble their earlier product then that should represent a reasonable defence.
post #118 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You know very well why it wasn't done in 1994. Or 2000. Or 2005. The pieces that make the latest attempt successful weren't yet in place, at least a price that made business sense. In some cases certain needed hardware wasn't available at any price. Even the capacitive touchscreens that Apple depends on weren't economically viable until the past 5 years or so.

If Apple had wanted to build the current iPad 6 years ago and make it a successful venture, they could not have. The pieces and parts were way too expensive or not available at all.

All true, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple were the first to succeed.
post #119 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

All true, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple were the first to succeed.

Which appears to be just as much about fortunate timing as anything else IMO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #120 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Not even close. It's a digital newspaper. It's mimicking a newspaper digitally. It's also vapourware. Where is the tech to make all the parts of the iPad come to life? Why wasn't this released in 1994 to 2010 before the iPad was announced? Why was the iPad seen as an abject failure because "tablets have never done well" and because "it's too different from previous tablets to succeed"? I bet you were one of the people claiming the iPad would fail miserably.

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.
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