or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Judge Koh allows Samsung to present Fidler tablet concept as iPad prior art
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge Koh allows Samsung to present Fidler tablet concept as iPad prior art

post #1 of 73
Thread Starter 
Over Apple's objections, Samsung was granted the right to present pictures of a tablet newspaper concept from 1994 as evidence of prior art refuting the originality of its iPad design patents.

According to a report by Bloomberg, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Apple's objections, stating the "issue should go to the jury.?

The Fidler Tablet

Samsung sought to present photos and a video deposition of an electronic newspaper concept developed by Roger Fidler at Knight Ridder, evidence that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington had earlier determined to be significantly different from Apple's patented iPad design.

The so called "Fidler tablet," like other electronic reader products and concept art, was only similar to the iPad in having a rectangular shape, rounded corners and a flat back, the court ruled. Apple hoped to leverage that decision in blocking its presentation in the Samsung trial.

"It?s strange to me that we?re just hearing this now," Koh told Apple's attorneys in overruling their objection. "If you thought the law was so clear cut, I would?ve appreciated that this was brought up sooner." She said Apple could bring up its issues with the evidence in cross examination in front of the jury.

Judge Koh found Apple's patented iPad design sufficiently original to order a preliminary injunction on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the US. At the same time, she also noted that Samsung had raised substantial claims of invalidity of the patents.

Pictures, but it didn't happen

In Samsung's video deposition of Fidler, he describes his mockup concept, saying he ultimately wanted to create a stylus-free touchscreen that would be thin and have a touchscreen flush with its edges just like the iPad. However, Knight Ridder, his employer at the time, was uninterested in building such a product.

Apple challenged Samsung to produce an actual prototype of the concept, which apparently does not exist. Instead, all that remains is a conceptual video that portrays what appears to be a Pantech e-reader displaying simulated images from a CRT, as the technology to deliver such a device didn't exist in 1994.



Apple itself commercially launched its Newton MessagePad in 1993, but that device was both thicker and smaller, with a profile of a paperback book and reliant upon a stylus due to the constraints of available screen sensor technology. At over $1000, the device remained unaffordably out of reach for most consumers throughout the 1990s.

Apple's Newton did, however, result in the development of ARM's efficient mobile chips that Apple subsequently used in the iPod, and which power virtually every mobile device today.

While the Fidler electronic newspaper conceptually pioneered the potential uses of mobile technology, pictures of it would not be confused for an Apple product today, as Samsung's Galaxy Tab has by consumers. Apple's iPad design patents seek to protect the product's readily identifiable design, not all of its potential uses in general terms.
post #2 of 73

Apple needs to enter into the record their own Knowledge Navigator to counter this insane Samsung argument.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #3 of 73

The truth won't come out. Too much money is at stake. What we are seeing here is a one set of high paid lawyers vs another set. 

post #4 of 73
Concept art. Like the "tablet" from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

All baloney that never existed. Rough, broad ideas that where never implemented. Prior Art my ass. All this Fidler vaporware from yesteryear is barely a step above napkin scribbles.
post #5 of 73

Newton
 

post #6 of 73

Or how about "Star Trek" as 'prior art'?

 

Please…..

post #7 of 73
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
Apple needs to enter into the record their own Knowledge Navigator to counter this insane Samsung argument.

 

Computer software that can converse with you? Are you smoking crack?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #8 of 73

this whole thing is 1 million facepalms and still doesnt illustrator the ridiculousness of it all

post #9 of 73

And she dares to be angered by Apple lawyers? Goes nuts on her own.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #10 of 73

1, This isn't a rectangle, there is a large groove running up the right hand side.

 

2 The border at the top is thinner than the border at the bottom.

 

It is not like Apple's design patent.

 

So how many extra hours will Samsung be allowed to present this thing?

 

How many extra hours will Apple be allowed to refute it?

 

Why is the Judge suddenly changing the rules?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #11 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

And she dares to be angered by Apple lawyers? Goes nuts on her own.

Yep. The Fidler tablet is absolutely nothing like the iPad. Hopefully, the jury will see that.

The really odd thing, though, is that she banned the 2001 'tablet', but allowed this one in. That doesn't make sense.
"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 #12 of 73

Am I the only one to notice that the fonts on the Fidler tablet, as well as the appearance, are all Apple Mac? Apple didn't make this, so it's clearly a fraud that is using Apple tech without authorization.

post #13 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yep. The Fidler tablet is absolutely nothing like the iPad. Hopefully, the jury will see that.
The really odd thing, though, is that she banned the 2001 'tablet', but allowed this one in. That doesn't make sense.

This can only mean two things, that she’s very smart or that she’s a dumb ass. This could actually be a very good help for Apple defense, but i think i’m digging too deep/watching too many movies.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #14 of 73

From the funny video:  "It might be difficult to conceptualize the idea of digital paper, but that's what's going to happen"

 

Yeah, real hard to conceptionalize.  What a visionary he must have been to imagine that.

 

It's interesting that in some ways this video from 17 years ago is spot on.  It just missed the Web site as the intermediate step between "physical newspaper" to "tablet news." 

 

I like the demo around the 5:50 mark where he hands her his tablet and she hands him her lunch (which he then starts eating with the silverware she had been using).

post #15 of 73

I would not doubt looking through Leonardo Di Vinci's drawings one could find prior art for a iPad device. 

post #16 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The really odd thing, though, is that she banned the 2001 'tablet', but allowed this one in. That doesn't make sense.

 

Exactly.  I highly doubt there ever was a functioning prototype of the Fidler tablet.  It looks like they filmed someone holding an unhinged laptop screen and then later edited the video to add the screen images over top.  How is that any different from the technology props in a movie?

 

Do the legwork to actually create a functioning prototype or GTFO!  This is where the patent system has become a farce.  People can dream up whatever they want, patent it, then sit back and wait for a payday thanks to the people who put in the hard work to actually create things.


Edited by auxio - 8/17/12 at 1:52pm
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #17 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yep. The Fidler tablet is absolutely nothing like the iPad. Hopefully, the jury will see that.
The really odd thing, though, is that she banned the 2001 'tablet', but allowed this one in. That doesn't make sense.

That's why the appeals process will take years, maybe a decade, no matter who "wins." By that time we'll be using completely new technology and devices.

post #18 of 73
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post
I would not doubt looking through Leonardo Di Vinci's drawings one could find prior art for a iPad device. 

 

Da Vinci invented the bicycle. Jobs said a computer is like a bicycle for the mind. The iPad is a computer.

 

"Your honor, Apple owes trillions (interest) to the estate of Leonardo Da Vinci!"

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #19 of 73
I'd almost rather all of these supposed "prior art" devices be allowed into evidence so that we can finally stop hearing all the Samsung apologists crying the "if only's".
post #20 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yep. The Fidler tablet is absolutely nothing like the iPad. Hopefully, the jury will see that.
The really odd thing, though, is that she banned the 2001 'tablet', but allowed this one in. That doesn't make sense.

So Apple objects in front of the jury using the appeals court as grounds. Even if she says no, then the jury heard it. Or they bring up the issue in cross.
post #21 of 73

No comment on whether this should be considered prior art.  However considering this was 18 years ago, they did an awesome job predicting the future.  If you think there is no commonality with iPad and other modern tablets, you're clearly fooling yourself. 

post #22 of 73
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
If you think there is no commonality with iPad and other modern tablets, you're clearly fooling yourself. 

 

Knowledge Navigator, 1987. Even had Siri, but with visuals.

 

It's… going to be an unsettling future when we can make Siri look like whoever we want her to, isn't it?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #23 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

No comment on whether this should be considered prior art.  However considering this was 18 years ago, they did an awesome job predicting the future.  If you think there is no commonality with iPad and other modern tablets, you're clearly fooling yourself. 

 

That's the beauty of making videos isn't it?  You can dream up thousands of things, and with some video editing skills, be considered a genius if/when those things are actually made.

 

Another thing I don't understand about purely using a video as prior art is the fact that, with modern video editing suites, anyone can create a video which looks like it was shot X number of years ago.  How can you possibly know when a video was made unless it was shown publicly around that time?  I'm not saying that's the case with this particular video, but just with video as prior art in general.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #24 of 73

I think the Fidler was smaller and thinner but then the Knowledge Navigator was many year before. I like the touch screen concept they had back in 1987. Really I am just sad it took so long to get tablets when they had these concepts so many years ago. I found this youtube demo of the knowledge navigator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLqJNDWx-8

 

I find it funny all the advanced concepts it presented but while he is 'busy' they couldn't conceive the idea of call waiting. Either way I think these patients are extremely ridiculous and the entire process needs an overhaul to meet the needs of the 21st century. 

post #25 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

 

That's the beauty of making videos isn't it?  You can dream up thousands of things, and with some video editing skills, be considered a genius if/when those things are actually made.

 

Another thing I don't understand about purely using a video as prior art is the fact that, with modern video editing suites, anyone can create a video which looks like it was shot X number of years ago.  How can you possibly know when a video was made unless it was shown publicly around that time?  I'm not saying that's the case with this particular video, but just with video as prior art in general.

 

Word.

post #26 of 73

Damn!  Almost done with my teleportation system  Have a prototype and the patent documentation filled out.  If samsung can copy this and use a Star Trek defense, then why bother?  Might as well give up on faster-than-light travel as well...

post #27 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

No comment on whether this should be considered prior art.  However considering this was 18 years ago, they did an awesome job predicting the future.  If you think there is no commonality with iPad and other modern tablets, you're clearly fooling yourself. 

I think this is a perfect prior art example for the socalled iPad patent. If you see the full video clip, you will see that it goes further than rectangular with rounded corners. It is basically the whole product concept of iPad.
post #28 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

This can only mean two things, that she’s very smart or that she’s a dumb ass. This could actually be a very good help for Apple defense, but i think i’m digging too deep/watching too many movies.
One way or another, appeal is a slam dunk. No judge finds it 'appealing' to have a ruling overturned on ...appeal. She is vacuum cleaning any potential arguments for the defendant to lean on a positive result further along the way to a final SC judgment, ...if Samsung/Google were to proceed forward in that way.

She just doesn't wish to suffer a highly mediatised blemish on her professional career. So, ...she's going exhaustive on the defendant's petty arguments and procedural abuses, ...acknowledging...by her apparent laxity...the obviousness of the final judgment, ...and making sure to neuter in the process any fertile ground for questioning in the future the fairness of the whole hearing process.

This case is so clear-cut, it can only be lost on technical irregularities. She wants to make sure the case is won on merit, not on her own incompetence in providing the defendant all the leeway to be acknowledged by all who matter as having been fully heard, ...in their valid argumentation as well as in their idiotic fallacies.

Justice will take care of itself. She's hereby pushing for the very crucial appearance of justice-be-served. And so would I if I were an American of South Korean extraction overseeing a jury of locals under the watchful eyes of top notch, sneaky attorneys mandated by deep pockets multinational corporations. She knows these guys can and will afford to go the distance to take her Hearings behavior apart.
post #29 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

No comment on whether this should be considered prior art.  However considering this was 18 years ago, they did an awesome job predicting the future.  If you think there is no commonality with iPad and other modern tablets, you're clearly fooling yourself. 

Get a working model then we talk otherwise they are all vaporware and ifs.

You are fooling yourself with all these.

Apple have the working models but the rest existed only on paper and make believe videos.
post #30 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

1, This isn't a rectangle, there is a large groove running up the right hand side.

 

2 The border at the top is thinner than the border at the bottom.

 

It is not like Apple's design patent.

 

So how many extra hours will Samsung be allowed to present this thing?

 

How many extra hours will Apple be allowed to refute it?

 

Why is the Judge suddenly changing the rules?

 

I don't think she's changed the rules. Samscum's shysters have one hour to burn up any way they want. If they want to show this video and dance around the judge for half of their remaining time, then sit there and huff and puff while Apple parades a dozen or two witnesses they can't do shit about. 

post #31 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

I think this is a perfect prior art example for the socalled iPad patent. If you see the full video clip, you will see that it goes further than rectangular with rounded corners. It is basically the whole product concept of iPad.

Just a concept but where is the working model?

Otherwise it just someone's imagination and nothing of substance.
post #32 of 73

The only real tablet computer in the video is the Newton Messagepad, the Fidler tablet is just a mock-up with fake interaction. Obviously the 'prior art' is the Newton before they even mocked-up the Fidler tablet. This could actually strengthen Apple's case. Maybe for once John Scully will turn out to be the visionary that saves Apple by giving the go ahead for the Newton, something that Jobs hated.

 
post #33 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

1, This isn't a rectangle, there is a large groove running up the right hand side.

 

I think this is where the stylus goes, although there is no point in the video where one removes or reinserts the stylus there.

post #34 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post


I think this is a perfect prior art example for the socalled iPad patent. If you see the full video clip, you will see that it goes further than rectangular with rounded corners. It is basically the whole product concept of iPad.

 

Apart from not being a rectangle.

 

 

 

It's convenient if you ignore that, isn't it?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #35 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

I don't think she's changed the rules. Samscum's shysters have one hour to burn up any way they want. If they want to show this video and dance around the judge for half of their remaining time, then sit there and huff and puff while Apple parades a dozen or two witnesses they can't do shit about. 

 

Just as long as this doesn't take them over.

 

Hopefully the jury is less gullible than a British judge,

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #36 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

From the funny video:  "It might be difficult to conceptualize the idea of digital paper, but that's what's going to happen"

 

Yeah, real hard to conceptionalize.  What a visionary he must have been to imagine that.

 

It's interesting that in some ways this video from 17 years ago is spot on.  It just missed the Web site as the intermediate step between "physical newspaper" to "tablet news." 

 

I like the demo around the 5:50 mark where he hands her his tablet and she hands him her lunch (which he then starts eating with the silverware she had been using).

 

Them seem to have very accurately predicted that people will ignore each other when operating their tablet or smartphone! The whole exchanging lunch and silverware is no big deal for married people, wife and I do it all the time :)

 

Thank God the term "mediamorphasis" never took off. He looked so proud having coined that term!

 

I much prefer the way the iPad (and iOS) works as compared to this imaginary Fidler tablet. Looks like it's very close to the new Surface though.

post #37 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post

 

I think this is where the stylus goes, although there is no point in the video where one removes or reinserts the stylus there.

 

Sorry, I must have missed that part of Apple's design patent, would you mind pointing out the part of it where "Groove for holding stylus" is mentioned?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #38 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apart from not being a rectangle.




It's convenient if you ignore that, isn't it?

LOL, you are so funny. Thanks
post #39 of 73
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #40 of 73
Concept art that has no barring on how the technology could possibility be made to create a working product counts as prior art? So if I use technology that allows human beings to use footwear that allows them to suspend themselves on water that allows them to walk the technology will be invalidated because it's talked about in the Bible? I guess I should also trash my idea for a food multiplier and technology to make the blond see again. Is there any other field where fiction can be used as prior art for a real product?

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Judge Koh allows Samsung to present Fidler tablet concept as iPad prior art
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Judge Koh allows Samsung to present Fidler tablet concept as iPad prior art