Judge Koh allows Samsung to present Fidler tablet concept as iPad prior art - Page 2

 

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’.

 

 

 

Ooh, you're gonna get accused…

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

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. 

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

"Does… not… compute!" 

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.

 

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

Just because...



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.


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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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?

That's what the Guardian of Forever is for.

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.

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

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.

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

[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.

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

I rest my case

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.

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.

I love you.

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?

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.