And HAL is IBM minus 1 letter before above in the alphabet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Chandra
"Utter nonsense! Half of us come from IBM and we've been trying to stamp out that story for years. I thought that by now every intelligent person knew that H-A-L is derived from Heuristic ALgorithmic."
Dr. Who has every idea beaten. Sorry but let's face it, given he was there when Earth formed no one can beat his claims. Now where is my sonic screw driver ...?
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.
Proves how badly the current patent system needs to be redone, how bogus most claims (Apple included) really are, because we allow things like "Bread Refreshing Method" (U.S. Patent Number 6,080,436 - recently featured on "This American Life") to be patented.
Yes, you read that correctly. Someone in 1999 filed, and later, in 2000, was awarded, a patent for toast...
Nah, more like Samsung and and especially their lawyers are so desperate. Embarrassing even to be a Korean (regardless political affiliation). No, I'm not \
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.
We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid.
So yes, we need to be careful about mixing in the concept of invention, because it is all but irrelevant.
Don't forget "Minority Report". Talk about multi-touch!
Bah, that was johnny come lately in the multi touch interface. Robotech had multi-touch transparent displays and much more and I imagine they were conceptually inspired by things before and before and before.
All exo-frame design patents and even control methods should be invalidated. If you follow the various near future genres even meta-material sciences, nano. Fark firewalls could be.
Mind you I actually agree with all this. There are no ideas in isolation, no invention unique. Okay there are but it is thin on the ground and exotic physics based stuff
...and the tablets that Hitachi and IBM patented (Which Apple didn't copy.), what about those?
There is room for plenty of designs and plenty of patents.
And most previous tablets were created for resistive screens, which necessitated certain design compromises (larger bezel, physical buttons, stylus, etc) But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.
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.
I was in Vietnam recently and an elderly woman asked me if my phone (3GS) was a Samsung Galaxy ><
And most previous tablets were created for resistive screens, which necessitated certain design compromises (larger bezel, physical buttons, stylus, etc) But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.
It maybe that the idea had long been existed. I also think the 'Padd' and 'Tablet newspaper (1994)' more points for Samsung.
For some die-hard Apple royal fans. This is the 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)' which pretty much handles what my Ipad 2 does!
But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.
Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2
We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid.
So yes, we need to be careful about mixing in the concept of invention, because it is all but irrelevant.
Except that your original quote above clearly refers to representations of "inventions" being used to invalidate design patents, so it is not irrelevant. I assumed that your argument was that an invention had been depicted back then that could now invalidate Apples design patent claim? Maybe I misunderstood your point.
We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid...
If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?
By that logic couldn't Gene Roddenberry's estate and Paramount sue all cell phone makers for copying the Original Star Trek Communicator for Flip Phones?
If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?
It is an interesting issue. I think that what is being argued is that the fictional representation of a fictional invention (as opposed to a real invention) can subsequently be used to invalidate a claim of a design patent on a real invention.
That would seem a bit unreasonable, and lead to the obvious question: do the real invention and the fictional invention have to be similar in function or not?
To take the time machine analogy, if I depict a fictional time machine, and a company subsequently manufactures a real time machine that looks a bit like my fictional one, does this prevent them from claiming a design patent on it?
What if their invention is actually an unusually designed washing machine that looks like my fictional time machine? Still no design patent, or is that a different case?
I find it hard to believe that the rules were intended to work this way.
Except that your original quote above clearly refers to representations of "inventions" being used to invalidate design patents, so it is not irrelevant. I assumed that your argument was that an invention had been depicted back then that could now invalidate Apples design patent claim? Maybe I misunderstood your point.
I didn't write the original statement, DED wrote it. I think that a better word could have been used. Perhaps "object"?
For example, the Statue of Liberty received a design patent, but it is a piece of art, and not an invention. So design patents can cover the design of an invention, but can cover other objects as well.
The point is that if somebody gets a design patent for their object, but they merely copied pre-existing design, like Apple is claimed to have done, their design patent can be invalidated. The object could be an invention, but it ca also be, for example, a distinctive bottle (like Coca-Cola's iconic bottle), which is not an invention.
It is an interesting issue. I think that what is being argued is that the fictional representation of a fictional invention (as opposed to a real invention) can subsequently be used to invalidate a claim of a design patent on a real invention.
That would seem a bit unreasonable, and lead to the obvious question: do the real invention and the fictional invention have to be similar in function or not?
To take the time machine analogy, if I depict a fictional time machine, and a company subsequently manufactures a real time machine that looks a bit like my fictional one, does this prevent them from claiming a design patent on it?
What if their invention is actually an unusually designed washing machine that looks like my fictional time machine? Still no design patent, or is that a different case?
I find it hard to believe that the rules were intended to work this way.
or how about this,
that time-machine / tablet 'design' should not be patented from the beginning if it is that easy or coincidental to manufacture something with similar purposes to embrace similar looks.
which is exactly what samsung tries to prove (but poorly).
By that logic couldn't Gene Roddenberry's estate and Paramount sue all cell phone makers for copying the Original Star Trek Communicator for Flip Phones?
If they patented the ideas, they technically could. (It was actually one of the set designers who came up with the Padd, it was to make set budgets cheaper, same reason they came up with transporter)
But most writers wouldn't patent ideas they came up with. Hopefully it won't ever come to that. Sci-fi inspires a lot of "real"scientists, or people who become scientist. Introducing them to the future with patent encumbered ideas would be toxic.
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...
And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?
If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?
Why not? The claim is that each of the elements that Apple says was designed by them existed before they set pen to paper.
I'm not sure that functionality or capability enters into the design aspects of the device,
The statement from Samsung that Apple has become litigious "rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung" is uttered without a hint of irony. There is a powerful disincentive to innovate if competitors are allowed to freely pilfer and profit from your innovations.
That's what I've been trying to tell people for a while now. People have this idea in their heads that Apple should essentially "turn the other cheek" when others are trying to piggyback off of their hard work. They think that Apple should respond to copycat behavior by trying to out-innovate their copycats, never mind that out-innovating one's copycats does nothing to prevent copycat behavior.
A lot of people have remarked that they jumped off the Microsoft bandwagon because Microsoft was becoming too cut-throat. According to those same people, Apple is becoming the corporation that they were supposedly trying to beat. To those who harbor this notion, I've got news for all of you. Business is a cut-throat game. And some of the accusations against Microsoft have been blown way out of proportion. Microsoft stepped over the bounds of the law a few times and got busted for such behavior. But other than those instances where they did illegal things, all those other business practices of Microsoft are a part of business. Like I said, business is a cut-throat game.
Also, a lot of people seem to harbor extremely naive notions about Google. One of these is their stance on intellectual property. I don't believe a word of what Google has been saying about patents. It sounds like sour grapes to me. Google should have made better business decisions but they didn't, and now they're trying to blow some smoke and make themselves look like the white knights. We will see Google's true colors when someone begins to threaten one of their core businesses, like search. Google is not going to try to out-innovate those who copy them. They will go after those who dare copy them with every weapon in their arsenal.
Comments
And HAL is IBM minus 1 letter before above in the alphabet
"Utter nonsense! Half of us come from IBM and we've been trying to stamp out that story for years. I thought that by now every intelligent person knew that H-A-L is derived from Heuristic ALgorithmic."
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/
...and the tablets that Hitachi and IBM patented (Which Apple didn't copy.), what about those?
There is room for plenty of designs and plenty of patents.
Proves how badly the current patent system needs to be redone, how bogus most claims (Apple included) really are, because we allow things like "Bread Refreshing Method" (U.S. Patent Number 6,080,436 - recently featured on "This American Life") to be patented.
Yes, you read that correctly. Someone in 1999 filed, and later, in 2000, was awarded, a patent for toast...
Nah, more like Samsung and and especially their lawyers are so desperate. Embarrassing even to be a Korean (regardless political affiliation). No, I'm not
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.
We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid.
So yes, we need to be careful about mixing in the concept of invention, because it is all but irrelevant.
Don't forget "Minority Report". Talk about multi-touch!
Bah, that was johnny come lately in the multi touch interface. Robotech had multi-touch transparent displays and much more and I imagine they were conceptually inspired by things before and before and before.
All exo-frame design patents and even control methods should be invalidated. If you follow the various near future genres even meta-material sciences, nano. Fark firewalls could be.
Mind you I actually agree with all this. There are no ideas in isolation, no invention unique. Okay there are but it is thin on the ground and exotic physics based stuff
...and the tablets that Hitachi and IBM patented (Which Apple didn't copy.), what about those?
There is room for plenty of designs and plenty of patents.
And most previous tablets were created for resistive screens, which necessitated certain design compromises (larger bezel, physical buttons, stylus, etc) But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.
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.
I was in Vietnam recently and an elderly woman asked me if my phone (3GS) was a Samsung Galaxy ><
And most previous tablets were created for resistive screens, which necessitated certain design compromises (larger bezel, physical buttons, stylus, etc) But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.
It maybe that the idea had long been existed. I also think the 'Padd' and 'Tablet newspaper (1994)' more points for Samsung.
For some die-hard Apple royal fans. This is the 'Tablet Newspaper (1994)' which pretty much handles what my Ipad 2 does!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
But what samsung is trying to show is that the idea of "minimalist rectangle" design isn't something new. It's surprising they didn't include their own frame, the Star Trek Padd, or the 1994 digital newspaper concept.
Likely they did.
Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid.
So yes, we need to be careful about mixing in the concept of invention, because it is all but irrelevant.
Except that your original quote above clearly refers to representations of "inventions" being used to invalidate design patents, so it is not irrelevant. I assumed that your argument was that an invention had been depicted back then that could now invalidate Apples design patent claim? Maybe I misunderstood your point.
We're not talking about an invention. We're talking about a design. And the claim is that the design predated the date of Apple's design patent, rendering the design patent invalid...
If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?
If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?
It is an interesting issue. I think that what is being argued is that the fictional representation of a fictional invention (as opposed to a real invention) can subsequently be used to invalidate a claim of a design patent on a real invention.
That would seem a bit unreasonable, and lead to the obvious question: do the real invention and the fictional invention have to be similar in function or not?
To take the time machine analogy, if I depict a fictional time machine, and a company subsequently manufactures a real time machine that looks a bit like my fictional one, does this prevent them from claiming a design patent on it?
What if their invention is actually an unusually designed washing machine that looks like my fictional time machine? Still no design patent, or is that a different case?
I find it hard to believe that the rules were intended to work this way.
Except that your original quote above clearly refers to representations of "inventions" being used to invalidate design patents, so it is not irrelevant. I assumed that your argument was that an invention had been depicted back then that could now invalidate Apples design patent claim? Maybe I misunderstood your point.
I didn't write the original statement, DED wrote it. I think that a better word could have been used. Perhaps "object"?
For example, the Statue of Liberty received a design patent, but it is a piece of art, and not an invention. So design patents can cover the design of an invention, but can cover other objects as well.
The point is that if somebody gets a design patent for their object, but they merely copied pre-existing design, like Apple is claimed to have done, their design patent can be invalidated. The object could be an invention, but it ca also be, for example, a distinctive bottle (like Coca-Cola's iconic bottle), which is not an invention.
It is an interesting issue. I think that what is being argued is that the fictional representation of a fictional invention (as opposed to a real invention) can subsequently be used to invalidate a claim of a design patent on a real invention.
That would seem a bit unreasonable, and lead to the obvious question: do the real invention and the fictional invention have to be similar in function or not?
To take the time machine analogy, if I depict a fictional time machine, and a company subsequently manufactures a real time machine that looks a bit like my fictional one, does this prevent them from claiming a design patent on it?
What if their invention is actually an unusually designed washing machine that looks like my fictional time machine? Still no design patent, or is that a different case?
I find it hard to believe that the rules were intended to work this way.
or how about this,
that time-machine / tablet 'design' should not be patented from the beginning if it is that easy or coincidental to manufacture something with similar purposes to embrace similar looks.
which is exactly what samsung tries to prove (but poorly).
By that logic couldn't Gene Roddenberry's estate and Paramount sue all cell phone makers for copying the Original Star Trek Communicator for Flip Phones?
If they patented the ideas, they technically could. (It was actually one of the set designers who came up with the Padd, it was to make set budgets cheaper, same reason they came up with transporter)
For Padd story (REALLY good read) http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-years-ago.ars
But most writers wouldn't patent ideas they came up with. Hopefully it won't ever come to that. Sci-fi inspires a lot of "real"scientists, or people who become scientist. Introducing them to the future with patent encumbered ideas would be toxic.
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...
And how do you expect a company to make "enough profit", if they cannot protect their ideas from copying by their competitors?
If the issue is prior art regarding the design of a tablet computer, can these images be of any value when they show no functionality or capability beyond that of a flat-screen TV?
Why not? The claim is that each of the elements that Apple says was designed by them existed before they set pen to paper.
I'm not sure that functionality or capability enters into the design aspects of the device,
The statement from Samsung that Apple has become litigious "rather than seeking to innovate in the face of legitimate competition from Samsung" is uttered without a hint of irony. There is a powerful disincentive to innovate if competitors are allowed to freely pilfer and profit from your innovations.
That's what I've been trying to tell people for a while now. People have this idea in their heads that Apple should essentially "turn the other cheek" when others are trying to piggyback off of their hard work. They think that Apple should respond to copycat behavior by trying to out-innovate their copycats, never mind that out-innovating one's copycats does nothing to prevent copycat behavior.
A lot of people have remarked that they jumped off the Microsoft bandwagon because Microsoft was becoming too cut-throat. According to those same people, Apple is becoming the corporation that they were supposedly trying to beat. To those who harbor this notion, I've got news for all of you. Business is a cut-throat game. And some of the accusations against Microsoft have been blown way out of proportion. Microsoft stepped over the bounds of the law a few times and got busted for such behavior. But other than those instances where they did illegal things, all those other business practices of Microsoft are a part of business. Like I said, business is a cut-throat game.
Also, a lot of people seem to harbor extremely naive notions about Google. One of these is their stance on intellectual property. I don't believe a word of what Google has been saying about patents. It sounds like sour grapes to me. Google should have made better business decisions but they didn't, and now they're trying to blow some smoke and make themselves look like the white knights. We will see Google's true colors when someone begins to threaten one of their core businesses, like search. Google is not going to try to out-innovate those who copy them. They will go after those who dare copy them with every weapon in their arsenal.