I was a best buy, near their new tablet display tables. I head some young adult say "sweet iPads" latter when I passed the display it was actualy the galaxy, it made me do a double take. The iPad booth was ironically the in a separate section from all the other tablets.
How can a non-functioning special effect from a forty year old movie be patented?
Such a special effect cannot be patented. You can rest easy. And BTW, nobody who knows what they are talking about claims otherwise.
But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?
Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?
I wonder if this will be the first case where a grasping at straws defence was based on the hyperbolic rants of fanboys spread far and wide over tech sites across the Internet.
It could set an interesting precedent if it succeeds.
I was a best buy, near their new tablet display tables. I head some young adult say "sweet iPads" latter when I passed the display it was actualy the galaxy, it made me do a double take. The iPad booth was ironically the in a separate section from all the other tablets.
Sounds like iPad might quickly become generic for tablet computers, much like "Thermos" or "Heroin". Apple might better start calling it an "iPad brand tablet" PDQ.
There's a good reason why they call them "Kleenex brand tissues".
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder about those Samsung lawyers. This is not "prior art" it's a fantasy product. Even if it were a render of a "concept" it wouldn't be prior art.
It's not even close and it's embarrassing that their lawyers don't seem to know that.
Not to mention the fact that the IBM movie prop looks nothing like the iPad. Hopefully, common sense will prevail. I'm really starting to wonder if Samsung's lawyers are looking to the hardcore android fanbase for legal advice.
Sounds like iPad might quickly become generic for tablet computers, much like "Thermos" or "Heroin". Apple might better start calling it an "iPad brand tablet" PDQ.
There's a good reason why they call them "Kleenex brand tissues".
A interesting thought. But don't products like the tablets and computers and phones rely more on there ability to be distinguished from the other competition in the field.
The prior Samsung is citing is imaginary. It's a movie prop.
It is a design patent though, which might not require actual operation to be valid. However, it doesn't look anything like an iPad in terms of its design cues. It takes a total dope to confuse the two, but not so much with some Samsung products against the Apple counterpart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Clarke came up with the space elevator (et. al.), so grab him for good measure.
The idea of a space elevator probably isn't patentable, but I'm sure a lot of the technologies needed to build it, make it operate and endure will be.
What's with all the shock and horror that certain "inventions" cannot be patented because of existing prior art in works of fiction?
You do realize that if no one can patent something then it is in the public domain, so EVERYONE can use it? Surely that would mean stronger competition amongst manufacturers and therefore lower profit margins, but consumers only benefit. The long term winners would be those companies that manage to make enough profit despite the competition, so that they can reinvest in further product development...
Yes, I know that patents protect companies from losing their investments in IP, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING should be patented; certainly not obvious things that require no expensive research.
What's with all the shock and horror that certain "inventions" cannot be patented because of existing prior art in works of fiction?
You do realize that if no one can patent something then it is in the public domain, so EVERYONE can use it? Surely that would mean stronger competition amongst manufacturers and therefore lower profit margins, but consumers only benefit. The long term winners would be those companies that manage to make enough profit despite the competition, so that they can reinvest in further product development...
Yes, I know that patents protect companies from losing their investments in IP, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING should be patented; certainly not obvious things that require no expensive research.
Hypothetically, I agree, but with respect to this story, but other than the color and rectangular screen, the 2001 tablet looks nothing like an iPad, so that reasoning doesn't apply in this situation.
Hypothetically, I agree, but with respect to this story, but other than the color and rectangular screen, the 2001 tablet looks nothing like an iPad, so that reasoning doesn't apply in this situation.
I was referring to a number of consecutive posts where some smartypants were listing a bunch of useless "invention" and saying something to the effect of "crap, now I can't patent this, so it will never be possible to make it". Pretty silly IMO.
As to Samsung, I have repeatedly stated that their insistence on copying Apple is to their detriment in almost every possible aspect.
But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?
Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?
I will agree with you on that point. I do think it's over-reaching on Apple's part to try and patent the extruded rectangle. However they really do have a case against Samsung when it comes to the details. Conceptually there are thousands of different ways to create a tablet computer; there are thousands of combinations of shapes, UI's, colors, input methods, etc available to create a truly unique product. They could probably create a really nifty circular tablet with a radial interface that is navigated by the way your eye twitches: something that is 90% different from the iPad. But they didn't. Samsung chose to copy Apple, from the tab's form factor all the way down to the color of it's app icons.
It's no secret that Samsung's tablet efforts have been an attempt to fool consumers into buying what they believe to be iPads. If I took a Galaxy and showed it to my 8 year old niece, she would call it an iPad. Apple trapped lightning in a bottle with the iPad, and collected a ton of revenue because of it. Samsung is just now trying to capitalize on that success by flooding the market with cheap knock-offs.
Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
But maybe we need to be careful about the meaning of "invention" in this context. Back then this was not an invention - it had not been invented. It was just an imaginary future functionality.
I'm truly shocked at the number of "Yeah, good point Samsung!" posts I'm reading on other sites. How can a non-functioning special effect from a forty year old movie be patented? When a Boeing or Sikorsky suddenly invents a hovering car, will they have to call Robert Zemekis for his approval?
I think if anything Samsung's 2001 defense hurts them. The movie came out 43 years ago. Samsung took 43 years to produce a tablet similar to those seen in 2001, and that was 6 months after Apple came out with their own tablet. What was Samsung producing for those other 42 and a half years? Nothing close to 2001.
It's funny. When the Samsung lawsuits first started, they argued that they didn't copy Apple. Now it feels like they've admitted to copying Apple, and are simply trying to justify their actions.
First of all, Ipad and Galaxy Tab are tablet computers, but they are different. If you think GT is copy of Ipad, then you are still looking at the images manipulated by Apple. The same applies to S2.
I think this 'prior art' issue by Samsung has got a good ground. It is clearly demonstrated that tablet idea had alread existed when Apple filed the design whatever it is called later on.
No, I dont think Samsung is admiting that they copied Apple. I think this copy thing first mentioned by Jobs and some pro-Apple blogers and medias kept refering it. That why, I think, some of Apple royal fans heavily brainwashed.
Beside the court cases going on, I think Apple copied from the Samsung digital photo frame in Ipad.
Comments
Samsung could copy this form factor and avoid the apple suit, but the 10.1 tablet clearly infringes on Apple's trade dress
Were the article about trade dress, you might have a point. But the article is about design patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
How can a non-functioning special effect from a forty year old movie be patented?
Such a special effect cannot be patented. You can rest easy. And BTW, nobody who knows what they are talking about claims otherwise.
But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?
Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?
It could set an interesting precedent if it succeeds.
I was a best buy, near their new tablet display tables. I head some young adult say "sweet iPads" latter when I passed the display it was actualy the galaxy, it made me do a double take. The iPad booth was ironically the in a separate section from all the other tablets.
Sounds like iPad might quickly become generic for tablet computers, much like "Thermos" or "Heroin". Apple might better start calling it an "iPad brand tablet" PDQ.
There's a good reason why they call them "Kleenex brand tissues".
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder about those Samsung lawyers. This is not "prior art" it's a fantasy product. Even if it were a render of a "concept" it wouldn't be prior art.
It's not even close and it's embarrassing that their lawyers don't seem to know that.
Not to mention the fact that the IBM movie prop looks nothing like the iPad. Hopefully, common sense will prevail. I'm really starting to wonder if Samsung's lawyers are looking to the hardcore android fanbase for legal advice.
Sounds like iPad might quickly become generic for tablet computers, much like "Thermos" or "Heroin". Apple might better start calling it an "iPad brand tablet" PDQ.
There's a good reason why they call them "Kleenex brand tissues".
A interesting thought. But don't products like the tablets and computers and phones rely more on there ability to be distinguished from the other competition in the field.
The prior Samsung is citing is imaginary. It's a movie prop.
It is a design patent though, which might not require actual operation to be valid. However, it doesn't look anything like an iPad in terms of its design cues. It takes a total dope to confuse the two, but not so much with some Samsung products against the Apple counterpart.
Clarke came up with the space elevator (et. al.), so grab him for good measure.
The idea of a space elevator probably isn't patentable, but I'm sure a lot of the technologies needed to build it, make it operate and endure will be.
You do realize that if no one can patent something then it is in the public domain, so EVERYONE can use it? Surely that would mean stronger competition amongst manufacturers and therefore lower profit margins, but consumers only benefit. The long term winners would be those companies that manage to make enough profit despite the competition, so that they can reinvest in further product development...
Yes, I know that patents protect companies from losing their investments in IP, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING should be patented; certainly not obvious things that require no expensive research.
What's with all the shock and horror that certain "inventions" cannot be patented because of existing prior art in works of fiction?
You do realize that if no one can patent something then it is in the public domain, so EVERYONE can use it? Surely that would mean stronger competition amongst manufacturers and therefore lower profit margins, but consumers only benefit. The long term winners would be those companies that manage to make enough profit despite the competition, so that they can reinvest in further product development...
Yes, I know that patents protect companies from losing their investments in IP, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING should be patented; certainly not obvious things that require no expensive research.
Hypothetically, I agree, but with respect to this story, but other than the color and rectangular screen, the 2001 tablet looks nothing like an iPad, so that reasoning doesn't apply in this situation.
Please don't quote the whole story, you didn't need to do that to make a two sentence reply.
Apologies, that was inadvertant. Had no idea I had done so until you mentioned it.
Hypothetically, I agree, but with respect to this story, but other than the color and rectangular screen, the 2001 tablet looks nothing like an iPad, so that reasoning doesn't apply in this situation.
I was referring to a number of consecutive posts where some smartypants were listing a bunch of useless "invention" and saying something to the effect of "crap, now I can't patent this, so it will never be possible to make it". Pretty silly IMO.
As to Samsung, I have repeatedly stated that their insistence on copying Apple is to their detriment in almost every possible aspect.
But think about this: What if somebody tried to get a design patent for a building which is composed of 4 equilateral triangles forming a square on the bottom and tapering to a pointy top?
Think about that one for a half-second or so, and then tell me if the design is novel enough to warrant a patent. And if the patent is somehow granted, might somebody who is sued for infringing it point to the prior art in Giza?
I will agree with you on that point. I do think it's over-reaching on Apple's part to try and patent the extruded rectangle. However they really do have a case against Samsung when it comes to the details. Conceptually there are thousands of different ways to create a tablet computer; there are thousands of combinations of shapes, UI's, colors, input methods, etc available to create a truly unique product. They could probably create a really nifty circular tablet with a radial interface that is navigated by the way your eye twitches: something that is 90% different from the iPad. But they didn't. Samsung chose to copy Apple, from the tab's form factor all the way down to the color of it's app icons.
It's no secret that Samsung's tablet efforts have been an attempt to fool consumers into buying what they believe to be iPads. If I took a Galaxy and showed it to my 8 year old niece, she would call it an iPad. Apple trapped lightning in a bottle with the iPad, and collected a ton of revenue because of it. Samsung is just now trying to capitalize on that success by flooding the market with cheap knock-offs.
Oh yeah, maybe I should patent 'The Force' while I'm at it.
Chance your arm, you should.
But quick, before Google does it.
Samsung just took the short bus to Crazy Town.
That or they thought "2001" the movie was actually made in 2001 and the IBM tv was real....
Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
But maybe we need to be careful about the meaning of "invention" in this context. Back then this was not an invention - it had not been invented. It was just an imaginary future functionality.
I recall a few Star Trek episodes where Cap Kirk held an iPad like device. The concept is over 40 years old.
Which is why apple isn't suing samsung over the concept of a tablet computer. They're suing samsung for copying apples design of a tablet computer.
Here's a screen cap of my HD DVD rip of the movie for a larger, higher-quality shot.
Love that the tablet's an IBM product. Maybe Samsung should be suing them instead.
And HAL is IBM minus 1 letter before above in the alphabet
I'm truly shocked at the number of "Yeah, good point Samsung!" posts I'm reading on other sites. How can a non-functioning special effect from a forty year old movie be patented? When a Boeing or Sikorsky suddenly invents a hovering car, will they have to call Robert Zemekis for his approval?
I think if anything Samsung's 2001 defense hurts them. The movie came out 43 years ago. Samsung took 43 years to produce a tablet similar to those seen in 2001, and that was 6 months after Apple came out with their own tablet. What was Samsung producing for those other 42 and a half years? Nothing close to 2001.
It's funny. When the Samsung lawsuits first started, they argued that they didn't copy Apple. Now it feels like they've admitted to copying Apple, and are simply trying to justify their actions.
First of all, Ipad and Galaxy Tab are tablet computers, but they are different. If you think GT is copy of Ipad, then you are still looking at the images manipulated by Apple. The same applies to S2.
I think this 'prior art' issue by Samsung has got a good ground. It is clearly demonstrated that tablet idea had alread existed when Apple filed the design whatever it is called later on.
No, I dont think Samsung is admiting that they copied Apple. I think this copy thing first mentioned by Jobs and some pro-Apple blogers and medias kept refering it. That why, I think, some of Apple royal fans heavily brainwashed.
Beside the court cases going on, I think Apple copied from the Samsung digital photo frame in Ipad.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...-movies-music/