Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmgregory1 

I had this dream, I was sitting at my desk at work, which happened to be a company that manufactured cheap plastic craft and photo products, back when I worked there in the late 80's and as usual, I was tired of dealing with the boring number crunching I had to do for Wal-Mart, my largest customer, on the plastic canvas we sold them.  This was back in the day when computers were still a thing that not everyone had and the ones we were using were horrible, at best, green screen monitors that we could run our company system on.  In the dream I see myself pushing aside this crappy computer and grab a hold of this shiny, like glass, black edged object.  It's seems to be a little less than 10" diagonally in size, rectangular in shape with rounded corner and just a single button towards the bottom middle of the screen within the black edge band - or frame.  That is what it looked like a frame, given the company produced a wide range of photo frames that were sold into the mini-lab and mass markets.  So I touch this button at the bottom of the frame, or maybe it's the side, I can't tell for sure.  It turns on, or whatever it was doing to light up the screen with a full color display sharper, brighter and more bold than any tv or computer I've ever seen.

 

On the screen are a number of square characters/symbols and when I accidentally brush my hand across the screen, the symbols disappear and on the screen appears a movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey.  My god, what is this I thought?  A movie player - but it couldn't be because it could no way ever hold a VHS cassette.  And it wasn't connected to any cables or jacks, so it couldn't just be a new fangled thin tv.  Frightened, and a little excited, I push the button on frame again and the movie stops and the screen goes back to showing all the symbols.

 

I was so flustered, I woke up and wrote down all these details, including a pencil drawing of what I saw in the dream.  I notarized the drawing, just in case something like this ever was produced, so I could show people and prove I had some crazy future dream.  Little did I ever expect to be in the position I am with proof positive that my dream IS the prior art that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Apple was not the first to create a tablet computer with the design that has now become ubiquitous with tablet computing.  I'm even a little dizzy with excitement now just thinking about being put on the stand to prove out Apple should have their iPad design patent pulled.  Gosh, all that from a crazy dream.  Who'd a thunk?

In order for prior art to prevent or invalidate a patent, that prior art must have been available to the patent filer or patent holder. It is up to the patent filer to do the research for prior art before filing. The patent office will also review the patent claim before issuing the patent to see if any prior art exist. However, if your ideas was locked up in a safe place and in a sealed notarized envelope that only you knew about, then it was not available to the patent filer (or Patent Office) and the patent filer can claim that he arrived at his invention without using any of your ideas as prior art. Even though you can prove that your ideas preceded the patent, it doesn't matter because no one but you knew of it. There's such a thing as two inventions, that does the same thing, being independently developed by its' inventor without any knowledge of the other. In which case, it's first to file that will get the patent. You need to file that idea with the patent office now (or at least publish it in some trade magazine), if you want to be a patent troll in the future. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


I don't think that had either a capacitance or multi-touch screen, both of which have become the standard for modern smartphones since the iPhone's arrival.

But that's hardly something you can credit Apple for.... it would have happened anyway.

What Apple brought is a device that's incredibly simple to operate, very high-quality, and finger-oriented from the OS up, at a time when most people considered that ridiculous.

I still like a real keyboard, but I guess it's a thing of the past now ^^

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

If Samsung ever goes to court for violating Localization patents they'll probably use the Rosetta Stone as prior art.

They would not be completely wrong about that... let's hope there is no patent over the concept of "translating the same document in several languages"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 


That's true, it only had resistive touch
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php
How anyone could compare phones like that one to an iPhone is beyond me. But good thing that he thinks diffent than me, otherwise we wouldn't even have this court soap show to begin with.
Although, soap, I fully agree with Apple that they 'shouldn't be the inventor for everything' and they want and should protect their designs and engineering. However, if Apple wins this and all the other cases, I cannot possibly believe all of the infringing products will be taken off the shelves and the world afterwards will only see devices like the Surface, N700 and Apples' iPad and iPhone. How will a judge create a balance? By having all of Apples' competitors make slight changes to their current infringing products?

What could be amazing would be an order to take all infringing products off the shelves. It would force companies like Nokia to take their revolutionary prototypes (the things they show off once in a while and never really build) from vaporware/protoware to real products. I'm thinking, for example, of that: http://www.fonearena.com/blog/11330/nokia-patents-flexible-cellphone.html or the Samsung flexible phone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


I don't think that had either a capacitance or multi-touch screen, both of which have become the standard for modern smartphones since the iPhone's arrival.

The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type.

Isn't an Iphone just a result of natural evolution?

Touch screens existed before Iphone....Apple used the lates tech and made a phone that excelled the competition, but it was still just a evolutionary step

Big screen existed on other phones like LG Prada

Icons for launching applications existed on phones, computers, printers, etc.

black borders on phones, televisions, pc-screens existed before Iphone

Apps (applications) existed before iphone on other phones

What Apple did right was to melt it all together in a packaged that was better than the competition at that point, but simplisticly speaking they didn't do anything new

They clearly got their inspiration for a phone from other manufacturers like Samsung, Sony, Nokia, etc... They did not invent the phone.

I wonder, can Apple sue Samsung for creating smart TV? Isn't that just a big Ipad? Or is it Apple that has copied Samsung since Ipad is just a small Samsung TV?

Even though the Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fiddler table one can say that the idea about tablet is not new. The idea about a table has

been around for ages and actually creating one is just a normal evolution and shouldn't be patentable.

I wish you couldn't patent something without having a working prototype!

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjb 


As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.

I'm having trouble understanding your point. No, his point wasnt nonsense, but you seem confused. Yes, even if they developed this phone in 2006, SO WHAT? Read my post again. Their argument was that this phone was similar to an iPhone, and the point I made is that it absolutely had no relation to the iPhone, functionally, hardware wise, software wise, etc. Its irrelevant when they made this phone because it doesnt jive with their argument that their phones were headed in the iPhone's direction- this one clearly wasn't, for all the obvious reasons I listed. And this is what they consider their strongest case of that argument. Their goal was to prove their were working on an iPhone like design before the iPhone, and this phone is anything but, and in no way, shape, or phone resembles an iPhone.  Again, whats your point? You don't seem to understand the basic premise of the argument yet you're intent on vaguely disagreeing. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjb 


As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.

I'm having trouble understanding your point. No, his point wasnt nonsense, but you seem confused. Yes, even if they developed this phone in 2006, SO WHAT? Read my post again. Their argument was that this phone was similar to an iPhone, and the point I made is that it absolutely had no relation to the iPhone, functionally, hardware wise, software wise, etc. Its irrelevant when they made this phone because it doesnt jive with their argument that their phones were headed in the iPhone's direction- this one clearly wasn't, for all the obvious reasons I listed. And this is what they consider their strongest case of that argument. Their goal was to prove their were working on an iPhone like design before the iPhone, and this phone is anything but, and in no way, shape, or phone resembles an iPhone. Yes, they would have designed it anyway, which proves absolutely nothing and does not help their argument in the slightest. The fact that they presented an utterly misleading photo of the phone shows that Samsung themselves knew this.   Again, whats your point? You don't seem to understand the basic premise of the argument yet you're intent on vaguely disagreeing. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.? 

Does the Etch-a-Sketch resemble Apple's design patent? Rather than make a silly comparison, simply look at Apple's design patent, then tell me what technology they specify for the display. There's your answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.? 😒
PS: Addabox and NasserAE have this list of steps that people take to discounting anything Apple ever invents. I don't remember the whole thing but it first starts off with the anti-Apple crowd saying how stupid and pointless their new product is, followed by claims that it won't sell. And it ends with those same people saying how obvious the whole thing was from the start after it's sold very well and a rush of me-to imitators have rushed in behind them.

So true. I remember how the original phone was mocked and derided, how the virtual keyboard was utterly 'ridiculous', as was the single button (the WIN button), that the screen was too big for ones pockets, and every other facet of the phone that was different than those at the time. It was consistently compared to all other smartphones, as evidence as to how they were all better/superior/etc. Now, of course, these same people now mock the phone for even having a physical home button and claim how other phones that adapated almost every aspect of iPhones concept are so superior for having all virtual buttons, larger screens, pretend they never cared about a physical keyboard, and assert that the iPhone design was nothing special and was the obvious progression. A ball of hypocrisy, revisionist history, self-deception, etc. This exact same process happens with every new Apple product, including the iPad, as well as the Macbook Air, which was similarly mocked and derided upon release (LOL NO OPTICAL DRIVE ON A $1000 COMPUTER), but now because almost every ultrabook is a clone, the design is 'obvious' and 'progress', with no other possible way to design those machines. Its pretty despicable and shows the utter lack of shame and integrity these types of people have. 

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 
Does the Etch-a-Sketch resemble Apple's design patent?

Well, it and the iPad both have 'shake to undo'. I guess Etch's owners can sue Apple for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidW 

In order for prior art to prevent or invalidate a patent, that prior art must have been available to the patent filer or patent holder. It is up to the patent filer to do the research for prior art before filing. The patent office will also review the patent claim before issuing the patent to see if any prior art exist. However, if your ideas was locked up in a safe place and in a sealed notarized envelope that only you knew about, then it was not available to the patent filer (or Patent Office) and the patent filer can claim that he arrived at his invention without using any of your ideas as prior art. 

Actually, this situation is not un-heard of: Inventor A develops a invention, keeps its design private as a "trade secret" and then goes on to make a successful product/business out of that design.  Inventor B independently develops an identical invention and publicly files to patent it, then creates his own successful product/business based on this patented invention.  Inventor B subsequently proves that Inventor A's previous trade-secret-protected product is identical to his own patented product (because the secret was somehow exposed) and successfully sues Inventor A to halt sales and production of the original product for patent infringement.  Prior art arguments don't have any application in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Well, it and the iPad both have 'shake to undo'. I guess Etch's owners can sue Apple for that.

Well played sir... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


Now you're talking about the technology they specify for the display after you wrote, "The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type."? It's this kind of back and forth crap that is probably not fairing well for Samsung's lawyers either.

Soli, I've no idea what you're getting at. The screen technology isn't described in the Apple design patent, nor should it be as it's not pertinent if it's not germane to the look. So why do you want to claim it matters? Are you wanting to validate the argument that any similar designs that might have pre-dated the Apple patent don't matter if they don't have capacitive screens? That's a argument without merit.

This is really cracking me up.   What were Samsung's lawyers thinking?     A simulation of a device using special effects is now considered prior art?    In that case, I guess if anyone ever truly invents a transporter, they can't patent it because Star Trek did it first.     I guess Apple should lose any iPhone patents because Dick Tracy had one on his wrist.   And I guess Universal Studios (for Frankenstein) should own any patents relating to organ transplants.  

I suppose this would mean that if I set up a bunch of toys on a table, shine a light on them and use animation to move them around, I can claim I invented holographic television because I emulated what that would be like?

Besides, back when Sculley was still at Apple, they put together a clip where Sculley goes to the park, sits on a bench and opens a paper-thin device that then beeps like a Mac and enables him to read a book.   I believe it had a foldable screen, so it looked like the double-page spread of a book, but it worked essentially like a tablet, although it might have used a stylus.     So Apple was still there before Samsung, according to Samsung's legal fantasies.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.?

I read Apple's actual wording in their design patent, and strangely enough they assert it applies even to a toy!

"The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein.

Just look at the stunt the Koreans pulled in the Olympics, and that will tell you everything you need to know about the unethical Koreans and Same Old Song.