or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments

post #1 of 111
Thread Starter 
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh issued an order on Thursday denying Samsung's motion to use devices seen in the films "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Tomorrow People" to invalidate Apple's design patents.

Although the Apple v. Samsung trial didn't meet in court on Thursday, Judge Koh filed an order denying six Samsung attempts to invalidate Apple's patents including an argument leveraging fictional devices seen in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi classic "2001: A Space Odyssey."

Samsung's intention to use the devices against Apple was first revealed in a 2011 opposition filing where the Korean company points out a scene in which astronauts are "using personal tablet computers." The citation was meant to validate the "Space Odyssey" devices as prior art.

In a previous filing, Judge Paul Grewal ordered the evidence be barred from factoring into Samsung's prior art claims and Thursday's order from Judge Koh agrees with his assessment. Thursday's order was in response to Samsung objections against Judge Grewal's findings.

Judge Koh notes in her order that while Samsung did present the evidence during the preliminary injunction briefing, the company "did not disclose that it intended to use the evidence to support its infringement and invalidity theories" until after the close of discovery. Due to the change of tactics, Apple didn't have the necessary time to find appropriate counter evidence through fact discovery, thus Samsung's motion for relief from Judge Grewal's order was denied.

2001: A Space Odyssey
The representation of an IBM-made tablet-like device in '2001: A Space Odyssey.'


Also during the preliminary injunction stage, Samsung argued the 1994 Fidler Tablets and the Compaq TC1000 rendered Apple's D504,889 patent for a tablet computer obvious but failed to note the prior art references would later support non-infringement claims. For the same reasons as the "Space Odyssey" denial, the Fidler and Compaq exhibits won't make their way to court.

Denials
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


In addition to the two prior art claims, the order summarizes the inadmissibility of expert testimonies as well as a "blue glow" patent which describes a UI function in some Samsung smartphones created to get around Apple's overscroll or "rubber-banding" patent. The judge reiterated that the Sony Stye Design argument, which caused a kerfuffle this week when Samsung leaked the excluded evidence to the media, is also not admissible.
post #2 of 111
Samsung just gets more and more ridiculous. I can't wait for the Samsungistas to argue how this is proof that Apple hasn't created anything and how the Judge is biased.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 111

"My God, it's full of prior art!"

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #4 of 111
It's funny that they have not shown any of their own "prior art."
post #5 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"My God, it's full of prior art!"

 

I would argue the tablets in 2001 were not tablets anyway, but it makes it simpler now that they aren't even included in the trial.  

post #6 of 111
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post
I would argue the tablets in 2001 were not tablets anyway, but it makes it simpler now that they aren't even included in the trial.  

 

Well, in the movie I'm sure they were really CRTs (or backlit projectors) built into that table, but in-universe they seem to be somewhat close to what you'd call a tablet today. Maybe just a "video consumption device". Not a touchscreen, physical buttons, but still.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #7 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Well, in the movie I'm sure they were really CRTs (or backlit projectors) built into that table, but in-universe they seem to be somewhat close to what you'd call a tablet today. Maybe just a "video consumption device". Not a touchscreen, physical buttons, but still.

 

I'm almost certain (haven't seen it in a while) that the actors never actually pick them up off the table so if I was the lawyer I would argue that the perception of them as separate tablets is just an assumption.  Anyway, moot point really. nm

post #8 of 111

Space Odyssey is a great film, especially the part with the guy reading the instructions on how to use the toilet in space.  Somehow seems appropriate.

post #9 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I would argue the tablets in 2001 were not tablets anyway, but it makes it simpler now that they aren't even included in the trial.  


The 1998 Star Trek episode "Image in the Sand" tablet would have been more convincing ...
post #10 of 111

Samsung's uselessly embarrassing itself. Guess it has no choice!

post #11 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"My God, it's full of prior art!"

 

LMAO... Samsung's legal team is honestly the biggest bunch of idiots since the Three Stooges.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 111

Oh man, Samsung is just slinging crap everywhere in the hopes something sticks to the walls.  This is just downright embarrassing.  If this is the best lawyers that Samsung could get, I'd be asking for my money back.  Just a bunch of monkeys jumping up and down in the courtroom for theater.

Shameful.

If they were going to use 2001 to prove prior-art, they may as well used the entire image a of CRT-monitor stuck to the bottom of the table with a faux-tablet frame glued on it.

Wait, I can't patent my time machine because H.G. Wells already created one?!!    

post #13 of 111
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #14 of 111
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.

 

I'm trying to think of a scenario where you don't end up whining about how the trial goes, and it's not coming to me.

 

Say she rules in favor of Apple, you immediately demand an appeal and accuse her of being biased.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #15 of 111

I curious what is considered prior artwork, if you can invalidate apple's ipad patents based on an stage prop then most products patents today would be invalidate. The Cell phone inventor from Motorola said his whole inspiration for a flip cell phone came from Star Trak, that is why once they made it small enough it was called the startac cell phone.

post #16 of 111

I’m surprised Samsung didn’t go further and claim this movie proves Apple stole the idea of a tablet computer from IBM in the year 2001.

 

(I won’t be happy with this hilarious drama until the Newton shows up in court!)

post #17 of 111

Maybe I'm hard-headed, but can someone explain to me how this trial is supposed to work?

 

I thought it was supposed to be:

Apple: "you're infringing"

Samsung: "this is why we're not infringing"

 

not:

Apple: "you're infringing"

Samsung: "apple you have no claim because stuff completely unrelated to our actions makes your patents invalid"

 

It seems like Samsung is the bad child who when accused of breaking a cookie jar, tries to tell his parents that he's adopted, so it doesn't matter?

post #18 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'm trying to think of a scenario where you don't end up whining about how the trial goes, and it's not coming to me.

 

Say she rules in favor of Apple, you immediately demand an appeal and accuse her of being biased.

you dont think much do you?

 

Samsung wins and apple is force to pay legal and patent fees. AKA Google vs Oracle minus patent fees.

post #19 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I curious what is considered prior artwork, if you can invalidate apple's ipad patents based on an stage prop then most products patents today would be invalidate. The Cell phone inventor from Motorola said his whole inspiration for a flip cell phone came from Star Trak, that is why once they made it small enough it was called the startac cell phone.

 

I've wondered about this before too.  At least in my country, it always used to be that "prior art" had to be prior engineering art (in the case of engineered devices), not just visuals.  Someone posted here a while ago when this question came up with evidence of actual trials where this sort of stuff passes as prior art.  It makes no sense to me.  

 

It's the same issue as people being allowed to patent general concepts without any implementation details.  In terms of an engineered device with hardware patents, those patents should be based on implementations, and "prior art" should be a case of someone figuring out the same or similar implementations.  

 

Things are muddied by the fact that there are "trade dress" patents and "design patents" at issue here that are different from the run-of-the-mill "regular" patents. 

post #20 of 111

"Dammit Jim,  You know using a Stylus obviates this as Prior Art!"

 

700

post #21 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjourni View Post

Maybe I'm hard-headed, but can someone explain to me how this trial is supposed to work?

I thought it was supposed to be:
Apple: "you're infringing"
Samsung: "this is why we're not infringing"

not:
Apple: "you're infringing"
Samsung: "apple you have no claim because stuff completely unrelated to our actions makes your patents invalid"

It seems like Samsung is the bad child who when accused of breaking a cookie jar, tries to tell his parents that he's adopted, so it doesn't matter?

Either one. Samsung is accused of violating Apple's patents and copying their design. They can defend themselves in a number of ways:
1. Claim that they didn't violate the patents or copy the designs and that their products are not infringing.
2. Claim that the patent is invalid by showing prior art (there are also other ways to show that a patent is invalid - such as showing that the claimed inventorship was wrong).
3. Claim that Apple's actions have rendered the patent unenforceable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.

How about some specifics? Ruling against Samsung isn't evidence of bias. So where's the evidence of bias?

Oh, and BTW, isn't it interesting that she was the greatest judge on the planet when she initially ruled in Samsung's favor and only became incompetent and biased when she ruled against Samsung?
"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 #22 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.

Thank you for proving me right.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #23 of 111

Samsung needs to bust out the Chewbacca defense, its the only way....

post #24 of 111
This should be tossed on the grounds that they didn't mention Picards PADD

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #25 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

"Dammit Jim,  You know using a Stylus obviates this as Prior Art!"

 

700

 

This also clearly invalidates the "wedge shaped computer" patent for the MacBook Air.  :-/

post #26 of 111
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post
I'm almost certain (haven't seen it in a while) that the actors never actually pick them up off the table

 

Poole is shown carrying one in one shot, but when he puts it down, its screen is white! Obviously it's just a front for a back-projected thing.

 

1000

 

1000

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #27 of 111

That ruling should silence one of the dumbest `prior art' arguments ever gone viral since these lawsuits began; and let us hope less arm chair IP Lawyers learn before they speak.

post #28 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.

 

 

 

Quote:

In a previous filing, Judge Paul Grewal ordered the evidence be barred from factoring into Samsung's prior art claims and Thursday's order from Judge Koh agrees with his assessment. Thursday's order was in response to Samsung objections against Judge Grewal's findings.

 

Hmm, right, DaHarder. TryHarder next time please.

"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 #29 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I curious what is considered prior artwork.

(Note that "prior art" does not necessarily have anything to do with artwork.)  

Examples of invalidating prior art might be previous patents of the same idea, public disclosure of the idea prior to the patent filing - even disclosure by the inventor! - or any other previous public exposure of the idea anywhere that would preclude its novelty or compromise its subsequent non-obviousness.

BTW, didn't Alan Kay's Dynabook (circa 1968) come in a tablet incarnation?   I wonder if his original presentation actually predated the premiere of 2001:A Space Odyssey in April 1968...?

post #30 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioinside View Post

(Note that "prior art" does not necessarily have anything to do with artwork.)  

Examples of invalidating prior art might be previous patents of the same idea, public disclosure of the idea prior to the patent filing - even disclosure by the inventor! - or any other previous public exposure of the idea anywhere that would preclude its novelty or compromise its subsequent non-obviousness.

BTW, didn't Alan Kay's Dynabook (circa 1968) come in a tablet incarnation?   I wonder if his original presentation actually predated the premiere of 2001:A Space Odyssey in April 1968...?

 

Kay's Dynabook had a keyboard on it, but it was in a flat rectangular shape.  It was to be programmed in Smalltalk.  

 

The tablets in 2001 were to be programmed in HALtalk.

 

"Close the Case statement, HAL.   HAL?  HAL, Close the Case statement.  HAL do you read me?"

post #31 of 111

This judge seems so eager to not only exclude Samsung's evidence, but keep the company from going public with information that the jury isn't going to see--evidence that's already publicly available. Imagine a murder trial where solid evidence of innocence that's been in the press is excluded because the prosecution won't have time to prepare a counter-argument. This is like that.

 

Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story. You can find them at:

 

http://www.groklaw.net

 

Here's a summary of Samsung's rather impressive arguments in their defense, arguments that follow this remark:

 

"Mr. Quinn is one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world, so what is going on? To understand, let's itemize his main points, because you will see a master at work:

 

Quote:
1. It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). "Samsung‟s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys‟ communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose “information in a public record.” As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records. Further, Rule 5-120(C) specifically provides that “a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client.”

2. There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards.

3. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. (See Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open." Also the order, docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”)

In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's DeclarationExhibits 56, and 8 [PDFs].

4. Apple released some of the information itself, in Docket Numbers 1428-1, 1438-2 (Tucher Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Enforce), 1429-13 (Walker Declaration in support of Samsung‟s Opposition to Motion to Enforce), and 1451 (Cashman Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave).

5. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times,Huffington Post and CNET.

6. The media has been reporting "in salacious detail" Apple's allegations of Samsung's "copying". If, then, talking to the media is a problem, he seems to be saying, why is Apple getting away with it? Samsung has a right to correct the public's false impression.

7. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsung‟s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks."

8. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning."

 

This is shaping up a bit like the Google Book Settlement in that lazy reporters, unwilling to read the actual settlement terms, repeated Google's deceptive talking points until those better informed mounted enough effective opposition to kill it. Except in this case it is Apple who is duping the clueless reporters.

post #32 of 111

Samsung's legal representative must be called Dave...

 

700

post #33 of 111

Out with the new, in with the old.

 

Anybody want to bet against me that this will be Samsung's next attempt to claim prior art...

 

 

700

 

 

post #34 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.

One side repeatedly making absurd arguments does not make the judge partial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

This judge seems so eager to not only exclude Samsung's evidence, but keep the company from going public with information that the jury isn't going to see--evidence that's already publicly available. Imagine a murder trial where solid evidence of innocence that's been in the press is excluded because the prosecution won't have time to prepare a counter-argument. This is like that.

Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story. You can find them at:

http://www.groklaw.net

Here's a summary of Samsung's rather impressive arguments in their defense, arguments that follow this remark:

"Mr. Quinn is one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world, so what is going on? To understand, let's itemize his main points, because you will see a master at work:



This is shaping up a bit like the Google Book Settlement in that lazy reporters, unwilling to read the actual settlement terms, repeated Google's deceptive talking points until those better informed mounted enough effective opposition to kill it. Except in this case it is Apple who is duping the clueless reporters.

Most of the reporters are going on statements made in court. The only out-of-court statements have come from Samsung attorneys.

It appears you may have missed Groklaw's heavy pro-defense leaning in IP cases.
post #35 of 111
Might just be coincidental but....
...if you piss off the judge...
...well, this sorta thing is gonna happen.

Again and again.
And here's me thinking yanks don't do irony. Judge Lucy Koh, I bow in admiration.

I think it's becoming more obvious by the day, that Samsung and legal team know the situation is hopeless and are playing the long game by appearing to be amateurish - late submissions, hopeless appeals, knowing they will be rejected. All the while playing to the baying gallery and a few influential senators who will demand a retrial because of bias. Delay, delay and delay again.
It's a dangerous game tho'.
post #36 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Out with the new, in with the old.

Anybody want to bet against me that this will be Samsung's next attempt to claim prior art...






"Samsung tries to invalidate Apple's localization patents"

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #37 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.

and AI should consider DaHarder to recuse him/herself for the same reason hehe

post #38 of 111

How fucking embarrassing. At least now you can clearly call those defending Samsung's actions and statements at this point either insane, or without a shred of objectivity. Using science fiction movies as a defence is now ok? They're purposely making a mockery of the court, and being as sensational and duplitious as possible in order to muddy the waters. 

post #39 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by See Flat View Post

and AI should consider DaHarder to recuse him/herself for the same reason hehe

Sounds fair to me.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #40 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Samsung should consider asking Judge Koh to recuse herself as she's shown on a number of occasions more than a hint of bias/partiality.

 

You should recuse yourself as you've shown your ignorance on a number of occasions. Edit: Someone beat me to it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Groklaw is doing an excellent job of covering this story.

 

You're kidding, right? Groklaw is so biased against Apple and MS it's not even funny. Even funnier is how they make themselves out to be neutral and non-biased.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments