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 - Page 2

post #41 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post


LOL, you are so funny. Thanks

 

rectangle |ˈrɛktaŋg(ə)l|nouna plane figure with four straight sides and four right angles, especially one with unequal adjacent sides, in contrast to a square.ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from medieval Latin rectangulum, from late Latinrectiangulum, based on Latin rectus straight + angulus an angle.

 

 

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 #42 of 73
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
{most recent post}

 

Ooh, you're gonna get accused…

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #43 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

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?


Wasn't saying they were the same, was only pointing out that I think the groove/indent on the Fidler is for the stylus.

post #44 of 73

Samsung is fucking hilarious. Pretty  big compliment they've been paying Apple implying the closest thing to their products were imagined in Science fiction movies and futuristic concept videos. 

post #45 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

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

 

Please…..

 

It's not prior art, it's future art. The 24th Century, to be exact.

"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 #46 of 73
R
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

rectangle |ˈrɛktaŋg(ə)l
|

noun

a plane figure with four straight sides and four right angles, especially one with unequal adjacent sides, in contrast to a square.


ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from medieval Latin rectangulum, from late Latinrectiangulum, based on Latin rectus ‘straight’ + angulus ‘an angle’.





Then no tablet is a rectangle. Curved corners a right angle does not make.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

 

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.

You don't actually have to create a product to get a design patent. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

R
Then no tablet is a rectangle. Curved corners a right angle does not make.

 

Precisely why Apple's design patent does not specify a rectangle.

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 #49 of 73
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
Precisely why Apple's design patent does not specify a rectangle.

 

"Does… not… compute!" lol.gif

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #50 of 73

According to Wikipedia the orginal Newton Message Pad was released in 1993 and that first model was discontinued in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MessagePad

AI has the wrong date for the introduction of the Newton.

post #51 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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?

 

Fiction can always be used as prior art. It doesn’t matter to what genre the prior art belongs, but what the prior art discloses. So if the Bible has a picture of sandals, that would be prior art for a design patent on sandals. But it wouldn’t speak to a utility patent claiming antigravity sandals because the Bible doesn’t enable one to make or use antigravity sandals. You understand this point, implicitly. Just don’t get hung up on labels as opposed to content.
post #52 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

 

Fiction can always be used as prior art. It doesn’t matter to what genre the prior art belongs, but what the prior art discloses. So if the Bible has a picture of sandals, that would be prior art for a design patent on sandals. But it wouldn’t speak to a utility patent claiming antigravity sandals because the Bible doesn’t enable one to make or use antigravity sandals. You understand this point, implicitly. Just don’t get hung up on labels as opposed to content.

 

Apart from the force that acted against gravity and stopped Jesus breaking the surface tension as he walked across the water

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 #53 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"Does… not… compute!" lol.gif
Just because...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

So if the Bible has a picture of sandals, that would be prior art for a design patent on sandals.

In the eyes of the law art is defian image?

The problem with looking at an 80s concept video and claiming it's the iPad is that it's not a product. It doesn't even state the technologies used or how they could even be made to be a product. Concept art should be classified as entertainment purposes only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apart from the force that acted against gravity and stopped Jesus breaking the surface tension as he walked across the water

That was 1700 years before Isaac Newton had invented gravity. :D

"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 #54 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.

 

If they "whole product concept of an iPad" is a newspaper reader using a stylus.

 

You'll notice that they have a model of Enterprise-E (ST TNG) in their lab.  Of course ST TNG features crew walking around with tablets (which did more than their newspaper thing).  Yawn.

post #55 of 73
Originally Posted by malax View Post
You'll notice that they have a model of Enterprise-E (ST TNG) in their lab.  Of course ST TNG features crew walking around with tablets (which did more than their newspaper thing).  Yawn.

 

If another Star Trek series ever gets picked up, I want them to put Apple logos on EVERYTHING in retribution for these idiotic "prior art" assaults.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #56 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If another Star Trek series ever gets picked up, I want them to put Apple logos on EVERYTHING in retribution for these idiotic "prior art" assaults.

Didn't Scotty try to speak to a Mac? Maybe while he was at it, he left the transparent aluminum specifications in it, and Corning cribbed it to make gorilla glass.

This just goes back to the point of being able to visualize something, but not produce it. The Video toaster came out in 1990, super-imposing video over objects was a typical "whoa is that cool" thing.

If the fiddler tablet came out in 1994, using the technology at the time, would have used a DSTN LCD to cut costs (For reference the Powerbook 520c in 1994 was around 4000$ and had a 9.5" screen, almost the same size as the current iPad) http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook/specs/mac_powerbook520c.html , if you were to strip off all the laptop parts to make it fit into "tablet" shape, there would have been other design compromises: CompactFlash came out in 1994, and would have had maybe 4MB of space, touch sensitivity would have sent the price of it beyond where anyone would have wanted to pay for it.

There is a reason why early PDA devices like the newton and pilot started off with monochromatic low resolution screens with stylus input, they were cheap to build. All early PDA's used RAM, not flash. As late as 2004 all PDA devices were still using RAM, not flash to store data, and were still 4" 320x400 type of screens. And they're all shaped relatively the same way because of how the resistive touch screens were made.

So by todays standards the iPad is pretty affordable and reliable.
post #57 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

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.

 

Since when do you need a working product or implementation to file for a patent?

post #58 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Since when do you need a working product or implementation to file for a patent?

In theory, it's required by law (I believe the reference is 35 U.S.C. 114. See Also 37 C.F.R. 1.91.). In practice, the patent office has not GENERALLY required you to submit a working model since early in the last century. You are, however, required to provide enough details in your disclosure to allow someone skilled in the art to build a working model. It can be demanded by the patent office at any time. The exact wording from the 37 CFR reference above is "a model, working model, or other physical exhibit may be required by the Office if deemed necessary for any purpose in examination of the application."

In the case of the Fidler and 2001 tablets, there is insufficient detail to demonstrate that the technology works and it is clear that these are fabricated mock-ups. Without demonstrating that the technology works, it is hard to see how they can be used as prior art. At best, they demonstrate that someone else had the IDEA before Apple, but that can't possibly negate a patent which is a specific IMPLEMENTATION of an idea.

In a few cases, patents have been rejected due to lack of a working model or ability to demonstrate one. Perpetual motion machines ALWAYS require a working model. And other 'far out' process have been rejected for not proving that they work:
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2006/02/pto_requests_mo.html
"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 #59 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Since when do you need a working product or implementation to file for a patent?

But is not being required to submit a working prototype the same as using a concept that in no way could be a real product?

"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 #60 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If another Star Trek series ever gets picked up, I want them to put Apple logos on EVERYTHING in retribution for these idiotic "prior art" assaults.

That's what the Guardian of Forever is for.

"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 #61 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

But is not being required to submit a working prototype the same as using a concept that in no way could be a real product?

No.

As shown above, the patent office no longer requires working prototypes - mostly due to practical reasons. There are around 8 million patents currently, so how could they store 8 million prototypes - with multiple examples of some of them. In addition, many patents are only useful if they are part of a larger device. For example, a patent might involve an improvement to the control rods of a nuclear plant. To show a working prototype, you'd need a full nuclear plant to be submitted with the application.

The patent office has the right to ask for a working prototype, but they do so only in unusual cases. However, that does not absolve you of the requirement to provide enough detail in your disclosure that a working prototype COULD be built. If you simply provide a concept, there's not enough detail to build a working product, so it should be rejected.

That's one of the key factors to be considered in filing for patents. If you don't apply for a patent, you can keep secrets for yourself. You're not protected, but if the technology is difficult enough that you think the competitors can't find it on their own, it may make sense not to file for a patent. OTOH, if you file for a patent, you have legal protection (albeit protection that costs you a lot of money to enforce), but you have to explain your invention in enough detail that it's possible for a competitor to duplicate it. It's not surprising that a lot of companies are foregoing the patent system entirely because they don't have the money to fight a larger competitor, so why disclose enough information to get a patent?

Of course, that's the way it's supposed to work and the way it should work under the law. There are certainly cases where the patent examiner allows a patent where there's not enough detail to duplicate the invention and create a working prototype. If that's the case, the patent can be challenged because of vagueness.
"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 #62 of 73

Perhaps someone might ask Samsung which Macintosh software package was used to create the visuals for the Fidler. My guess would be SuperCard, due to the use of colour.

 

Cheers

post #63 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


In theory, it's required by law (I believe the reference is 35 U.S.C. 114. See Also 37 C.F.R. 1.91.). In practice, the patent office has not GENERALLY required you to submit a working model since early in the last century. You are, however, required to provide enough details in your disclosure to allow someone skilled in the art to build a working model. It can be demanded by the patent office at any time. The exact wording from the 37 CFR reference above is "a model, working model, or other physical exhibit may be required by the Office if deemed necessary for any purpose in examination of the application."
In the case of the Fidler and 2001 tablets, there is insufficient detail to demonstrate that the technology works and it is clear that these are fabricated mock-ups. Without demonstrating that the technology works, it is hard to see how they can be used as prior art. At best, they demonstrate that someone else had the IDEA before Apple, but that can't possibly negate a patent which is a specific IMPLEMENTATION of an idea.
In a few cases, patents have been rejected due to lack of a working model or ability to demonstrate one. Perpetual motion machines ALWAYS require a working model. And other 'far out' process have been rejected for not proving that they work:
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2006/02/pto_requests_mo.html

Well that one is a design patent, thus the reason these things were probably  admitted. As you've stated before, people do apply for patents even if they can't afford the fabrication costs that would be needed for a working product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


But is not being required to submit a working prototype the same as using a concept that in no way could be a real product?

Look up some of the early software patents around things such as email and file transfer methods :P. As far as I can tell many applications were filed prior to any kind of working code. I know that's a bit different, but I already mentioned something regarding a physical product. Jragosta made a good point about details included to acknowledge something could be constructed, but I'm not sure if it applies with design patents. I am not a source of great knowledge on this topic. These are just what comes to mind. I've tried to look up some of them, but it can be difficult to sort the good information from the FUD.

post #64 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Well that one is a design patent, thus the reason these things were probably  admitted. As you've stated before, people do apply for patents even if they can't afford the fabrication costs that would be needed for a working product.
Look up some of the early software patents around things such as email and file transfer methods :P. As far as I can tell many applications were filed prior to any kind of working code. I know that's a bit different, but I already mentioned something regarding a physical product. Jragosta made a good point about details included to acknowledge something could be constructed, but I'm not sure if it applies with design patents. I am not a source of great knowledge on this topic. These are just what comes to mind. I've tried to look up some of them, but it can be difficult to sort the good information from the FUD.

Almost by definition, a design patent includes enough information to be able to duplicate the product.
"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 #65 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Almost by definition, a design patent includes enough information to be able to duplicate the product.

Unless you're claiming the "product" is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners, Apple's design patents asserted against Samsung were quite generic. No description of device thickness, overall dimensions, even side or back details are unspecified. Not even the type of device they apply to is restricted. They did describe a display face, one design patent slightly more descriptive than the other, but with only those patents in hand you could not accurately build the shell for the iPhone, not even just a front display for one. AFAIK Apple isn't even claiming that at least two of the three describe an actual Apple product. I'm not certain about the "GUI" design patent.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/18/12 at 6:39pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 73
[quote name="Gatorguy" url="/t/151990/judge-koh-allows-samsung-to-present-fidler-tablet-concept-as-ipad-prior-art/40#post_2170938"]Unless you're claiming the "product" is a flat rectangular display area with rounded corners, Apple's design patents asserted against Samsung were quite generic. No description of device thickness, overall dimensions, even side or back details are unspecified. Not even the type of device they apply to is restricted. They did describe a display face, one design patent slightly more descriptive than the other, but with only those patents in hand you could not accurately build the shell for the iPhone, not even just a front display for one. AFAIK Apple isn't even claiming that at least two of the three describe an actual Apple product. I'm not certain about the "GUI" design patent.
[/quote]

Unfortunately for your argument, the bolded is NOT what Apple is claiming.

They claimed a very specific design and configuration. You can tell from their pictures and description what they're claiming - and if you make something that looks like the pictures, you are infringing on their design patent.

You can argue all you want that the patent shouldn't have been issued but it was - and it's clear that making a product using the design patent (or the iPhone) as your template is an infringement.
"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 #67 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Unfortunately for your argument, the bolded is NOT what Apple is claiming.
They claimed a very specific design and configuration. You can tell from their pictures and description what they're claiming - and if you make something that looks like the pictures, you are infringing on their design patent.
You can argue all you want that the patent shouldn't have been issued but it was - and it's clear that making a product using the design patent (or the iPhone) as your template is an infringement.

Tell me what the design patents specifically claim Joe. You're correct that it's very clear.

 

Could the overall thickness of an Apple competitors' device be an inch and still infringe on the patent claims as long as the screen area by itself matches? How about three inches thick? Still possibly infringing? How about if the back is convex or concave? How about a wedge-shaped smartphone? Could Apple's design patents asserted in this case still possibly be infringed? I don't expect your honest answer by the way so feel free to resort to either a strawman or name-calling as your back-up rather than addressing the questions themselves.

 

Expected answer: If I can't figure out what they claim then I need more help than Jr can provide. That way Jr can avoid answering the inconvenient questions.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/20/12 at 3:11am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 73

I rest my case

post #69 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?

The fate should have been decided when you put up the samsung phone next to the original patent drawings from Apple & realized they built their device from Apple's patent portfolio.  It really isn't about how closely samsung's devices mimic the production item but how closely they mimic the design drawings/patent descriptions as those are the sorts of things they actually have access to.  When you compare those it's pretty obvious Samsung blatantly copied Apple.

post #70 of 73

Really hoping Samsung wins this case because patent law in America is broken, stifles innovation, and Apple is one of the WORST offenders in the sector. The Tab 10.1 looks nothing like an ipad to me. Ipad design is dictated by the technology within. So is the Tab. The bevel running around the edge is needed for the user to grip the device without touching the screen directly. The Tab has capacitive buttons at the bottom of the bevel because at the time hardware buttons were a requirement for most android devices. 

What about clamshell phones? Sometimes the deisgn is so obvious that it's hard to make a case for patents. The ipad is intentionally designed to resemble the size and shape of a book or a magazine. They didn't reinvent the wheel, they took the obvious design of the wheel and made it sleeker. should they then be able to sue anyone who also makes a sleeker wheel? "NOPE, EVERYONE WHO MANUFACTURES WHEELS MUST ONLY MANUFACTURE THICK WHEELS."

It's silly. And it's essentially what apple is saying.

post #71 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Tell me what the design patents specifically claim Joe. You're correct that it's very clear.

 

Could the overall thickness of an Apple competitors' device be an inch and still infringe on the patent claims as long as the screen area by itself matches? How about three inches thick? Still possibly infringing? How about if the back is convex or concave? How about a wedge-shaped smartphone? Could Apple's design patents asserted in this case still possibly be infringed? I don't expect your honest answer by the way so feel free to resort to either a strawman or name-calling as your back-up rather than addressing the questions themselves.

 

Expected answer: If I can't figure out what they claim then I need more help than Jr can provide. That way Jr can avoid answering the inconvenient questions.

I love you.

post #72 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post


Didn't Scotty try to speak to a Mac? Maybe while he was at it, he left the transparent aluminum specifications in it, and Corning cribbed it to make gorilla glass.
This just goes back to the point of being able to visualize something, but not produce it. The Video toaster came out in 1990, super-imposing video over objects was a typical "whoa is that cool" thing.
If the fiddler tablet came out in 1994, using the technology at the time, would have used a DSTN LCD to cut costs (For reference the Powerbook 520c in 1994 was around 4000$ and had a 9.5" screen, almost the same size as the current iPad) http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook/specs/mac_powerbook520c.html , if you were to strip off all the laptop parts to make it fit into "tablet" shape, there would have been other design compromises: CompactFlash came out in 1994, and would have had maybe 4MB of space, touch sensitivity would have sent the price of it beyond where anyone would have wanted to pay for it.
There is a reason why early PDA devices like the newton and pilot started off with monochromatic low resolution screens with stylus input, they were cheap to build. All early PDA's used RAM, not flash. As late as 2004 all PDA devices were still using RAM, not flash to store data, and were still 4" 320x400 type of screens. And they're all shaped relatively the same way because of how the resistive touch screens were made.
So by todays standards the iPad is pretty affordable and reliable.

Exactly! The technology dictates the design, and sometimes the design is so obvious it's ridiculous to assert intellectual rights on it. Really? You're the first person in the world to imagine a thin black slate the size and shape of a book capable of grabbing information out of the air? Really?

post #73 of 73

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/14/3242097/iphone-ipad-designs-obvious-apple-samsung-trial

"
Sherman showed four examples of prior art when discussing the iPhone, including two Japanese design patents, a Korean design patent, and the LG Prada — all of which pre-dated the iPhone. All of the examples feature rectangular shapes with rounded corners and centered screens. When taken together, Sherman said, they meant Apple's patented designs were not unique.

For the iPad, Sherman turned to two physical devices: the Compaq TC1000 tablet computer, and a mock-up put together in 1994 by Roger Fidler. The iPad patent specifies a device with a front face with edge-to-edge glass, while the Fidler concept featured a frame with an inset screen. By combining the TC1000's front face with the Fidler concept, Sherman said, you would get the elements contained in the '889 patent — and therefore the iPad design should not be protected either.Design patents cover elements that are ornamental in nature — not strictly functional — something that Sherman said invalidated Apple's patents as well. He noted that several of the design elements from Apple's patent were utilitarian: rounded corners increase comfortability in the hand, and make devices easier to pull from your pocket, for example."

I agree with Sherman.

Seriously, **** all patent trolls. Whether the troll makes a product you've convinced yourself you couldn't live without is neither here nor there. Patent law in this country has seriously run afoul of the original intent of the patent system and Apple is gleefully bathing in the by product.

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