Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fidler Tablet arguments

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 114
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hjb View Post


     


    If you see the table in here, you would see that Koh would have denied F-700 anyway.  Basically all crucial evidence in this case rejected by the Judge.  How would it be fair?



     


    Crucial Evidence? Huh? The F-700, the phone with the slide out physical keyboard (which was shown at an angle to make the keyboard invisible), and the launcher/UI that looked absolutely NOTHING like the iPhone or their current phones (again, shown with the screen off so nobody could asess this)- this is the phone that Samsung claims '"would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design"- a phone that was designed before the iPhone announcement, that Samsung wants us to believe is similar to the iPhone, but actually has absolutely NOTHING in common, either in hardware, or software, with the iPhone, except being black and having a screen. To the contrary, it proves how drastically SAmsung's phones changed from this phone after the iPhone was released.


     


    Ladies and gentlemen, the F700:


     


    image


     


     


    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/heres-the-phone-samsung-insists-the-apple-jury-must-see/


     


    Howbout a video? Sure. Dated March 15, 2007, 2 months after the iPhone reveal. The phone barely works.


     



     


    From TheVerge:


     


    Quote:


    "In many ways," Patel writes, "the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose to drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style."



     


    Is someone seriously going to argue similarity to the iPhone, even conceptually? It was INTRODUCED 2 months after the iPhone.  If anything,  it shows how far behind Samsung was, and the radical, drastic change of course they later implemented. It would have fit right in on that slide with those other phones where SJ was making the argument that a new paradigm for a phone needs to emerge. This would have been laughed out of court, and absolutely destroyed by Apple if they were given an official channel to respond inside the courtroom, and actually present the phone fully to the jury.  Samsung knows this, so they create this charade, and leak this 'smoking gun' (which is anything but) to the media, and whine about how unfair it is that this 'evidence' is being excluded, in order to pollute the proceedings and sway those who are to ignorant to actually look into the phone further. If anything, that phone strengthens Apple's argument, yet Samsung is playing a game of PR to make people think it's some critical evidence that would win them the case. Its become clear how weak Samsung's case, and defense is, if this joke of 'evidence' is indeed what they've decided to play up. I've read all their statements/arguments that have been made public, and I fail to see how an objective individual can deny that Samsung is trying its best to pollute and distort the facts with irrelevant, false, and laughable claims. The 2001 Space Odysey 'prior art' is icing on their pathetic little cake. 

  • Reply 82 of 114
    sennensennen Posts: 1,472member


    In addition to Slurpy, again this link:


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/20/talk-picture-samsung-f700/

  • Reply 83 of 114
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    slurpy wrote: »
    The F-700, the phone with the slide out physical keyboard (which was shown at an angle to make the keyboard invisible), and the launcher/UI that looked absolutely NOTHING like the iPhone or their current phones (again, shown with the screen off so nobody could asess this)- this is the phone that Samsung claims '<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:19px;">"would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design"</span>
    - a phone that was designed before the iPhone announcement, that Samsung wants us to believe is similar to the iPhone, but actually has absolutely NOTHING in common, either in hardware, or software, with the iPhone, except being black and having a screen. To the contrary, it proves how drastically SAmsung's phones changed from this phone after the iPhone was released.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the F700:

    [...]

    I don't think that had either a capacitance or multi-touch screen, both of which have become the standard for modern smartphones since the iPhone's arrival.
  • Reply 84 of 114
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    slurpy wrote: »

    Ladies and gentlemen, the F700:

    [...]

    I don't think that had either a capacitance or multi-touch screen, both of which have become the standard for modern smartphones since the iPhone's arrival.

    That's true, it only had resistive touch
    http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php

    How anyone could compare phones like that one to an iPhone is beyond me. But good thing that he thinks diffent than me, otherwise we wouldn't even have this court soap show to begin with.

    Although, soap, I fully agree with Apple that they 'shouldn't be the inventor for everything' and they want and should protect their designs and engineering. However, if Apple wins this and all the other cases, I cannot possibly believe all of the infringing products will be taken off the shelves and the world afterwards will only see devices like the Surface, N700 and Apples' iPad and iPhone. How will a judge create a balance? By having all of Apples' competitors make slight changes to their current infringing products?
  • Reply 85 of 114
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,053member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post


    I had this dream, I was sitting at my desk at work, which happened to be a company that manufactured cheap plastic craft and photo products, back when I worked there in the late 80's and as usual, I was tired of dealing with the boring number crunching I had to do for Wal-Mart, my largest customer, on the plastic canvas we sold them.  This was back in the day when computers were still a thing that not everyone had and the ones we were using were horrible, at best, green screen monitors that we could run our company system on.  In the dream I see myself pushing aside this crappy computer and grab a hold of this shiny, like glass, black edged object.  It's seems to be a little less than 10" diagonally in size, rectangular in shape with rounded corner and just a single button towards the bottom middle of the screen within the black edge band - or frame.  That is what it looked like a frame, given the company produced a wide range of photo frames that were sold into the mini-lab and mass markets.  So I touch this button at the bottom of the frame, or maybe it's the side, I can't tell for sure.  It turns on, or whatever it was doing to light up the screen with a full color display sharper, brighter and more bold than any tv or computer I've ever seen.


     


    On the screen are a number of square characters/symbols and when I accidentally brush my hand across the screen, the symbols disappear and on the screen appears a movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey.  My god, what is this I thought?  A movie player - but it couldn't be because it could no way ever hold a VHS cassette.  And it wasn't connected to any cables or jacks, so it couldn't just be a new fangled thin tv.  Frightened, and a little excited, I push the button on frame again and the movie stops and the screen goes back to showing all the symbols.


     


    I was so flustered, I woke up and wrote down all these details, including a pencil drawing of what I saw in the dream.  I notarized the drawing, just in case something like this ever was produced, so I could show people and prove I had some crazy future dream.  Little did I ever expect to be in the position I am with proof positive that my dream IS the prior art that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Apple was not the first to create a tablet computer with the design that has now become ubiquitous with tablet computing.  I'm even a little dizzy with excitement now just thinking about being put on the stand to prove out Apple should have their iPad design patent pulled.  Gosh, all that from a crazy dream.  Who'd a thunk?



    In order for prior art to prevent or invalidate a patent, that prior art must have been available to the patent filer or patent holder. It is up to the patent filer to do the research for prior art before filing. The patent office will also review the patent claim before issuing the patent to see if any prior art exist. However, if your ideas was locked up in a safe place and in a sealed notarized envelope that only you knew about, then it was not available to the patent filer (or Patent Office) and the patent filer can claim that he arrived at his invention without using any of your ideas as prior art. Even though you can prove that your ideas preceded the patent, it doesn't matter because no one but you knew of it. There's such a thing as two inventions, that does the same thing, being independently developed by its' inventor without any knowledge of the other. In which case, it's first to file that will get the patent. You need to file that idea with the patent office now (or at least publish it in some trade magazine), if you want to be a patent troll in the future. 

  • Reply 86 of 114
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    If Samsung ever goes to court for violating Localization patents they'll probably use the Rosetta Stone as prior art.
  • Reply 87 of 114
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I don't think that had either a capacitance or multi-touch screen, both of which have become the standard for modern smartphones since the iPhone's arrival.




    But that's hardly something you can credit Apple for.... it would have happened anyway.


     


    What Apple brought is a device that's incredibly simple to operate, very high-quality, and finger-oriented from the OS up, at a time when most people considered that ridiculous.


    I still like a real keyboard, but I guess it's a thing of the past now ^^

  • Reply 88 of 114
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    If Samsung ever goes to court for violating Localization patents they'll probably use the Rosetta Stone as prior art.




    They would not be completely wrong about that... let's hope there is no patent over the concept of "translating the same document in several languages"...

  • Reply 89 of 114
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    That's true, it only had resistive touch

    http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_f700-1849.php

    How anyone could compare phones like that one to an iPhone is beyond me. But good thing that he thinks diffent than me, otherwise we wouldn't even have this court soap show to begin with.

    Although, soap, I fully agree with Apple that they 'shouldn't be the inventor for everything' and they want and should protect their designs and engineering. However, if Apple wins this and all the other cases, I cannot possibly believe all of the infringing products will be taken off the shelves and the world afterwards will only see devices like the Surface, N700 and Apples' iPad and iPhone. How will a judge create a balance? By having all of Apples' competitors make slight changes to their current infringing products?




    What could be amazing would be an order to take all infringing products off the shelves. It would force companies like Nokia to take their revolutionary prototypes (the things they show off once in a while and never really build) from vaporware/protoware to real products. I'm thinking, for example, of that: http://www.fonearena.com/blog/11330/nokia-patents-flexible-cellphone.html or the Samsung flexible phone.

  • Reply 90 of 114
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I don't think that had either a capacitance or multi-touch screen, both of which have become the standard for modern smartphones since the iPhone's arrival.


    The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type.

  • Reply 91 of 114
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Crucial Evidence? Huh? The F-700, the phone with the slide out physical keyboard (which was shown at an angle to make the keyboard invisible), and the launcher/UI that looked absolutely NOTHING like the iPhone or their current phones (again, shown with the screen off so nobody could asess this)- this is the phone that Samsung claims '<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:19px;">"would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design"</span>
    - a phone that was designed before the iPhone announcement, that Samsung wants us to believe is similar to the iPhone, but actually has absolutely NOTHING in common, either in hardware, or software, with the iPhone, except being black and having a screen. To the contrary, it proves how drastically SAmsung's phones changed from this phone after the iPhone was released.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the F700:

    700


    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/02/heres-the-phone-samsung-insists-the-apple-jury-must-see/

    Howbout a video? Sure. Dated March 15, 2007, 2 months after the iPhone reveal. The phone barely works.

    http://youtu.be/wMuC0vDNlQo

    From TheVerge:


    Is someone seriously going to argue similarity to the iPhone, even conceptually? It was INTRODUCED 2 months after the iPhone.  If anything,  it shows how far behind Samsung was, and the radical, drastic change of course they later implemented. It would have fit right in on that slide with those other phones where SJ was making the argument that a new paradigm for a phone needs to emerge. This would have been laughed out of court, and absolutely destroyed by Apple if they were given an official channel to respond inside the courtroom, and actually present the phone fully to the jury.  Samsung knows this, so they create this charade, and leak this 'smoking gun' (which is anything but) to the media, and whine about how unfair it is that this 'evidence' is being excluded, in order to pollute the proceedings and sway those who are to ignorant to actually look into the phone further. If anything, that phone strengthens Apple's argument, yet Samsung is playing a game of PR to make people think it's some critical evidence that would win them the case. Its become clear how weak Samsung's case, and defense is, if this joke of 'evidence' is indeed what they've decided to play up. I've read all their statements/arguments that have been made public, and I fail to see how an objective individual can deny that Samsung is trying its best to pollute and distort the facts with irrelevant, false, and laughable claims. The 2001 Space Odysey 'prior art' is icing on their pathetic little cake. 

    Thanks for this long response. Sorry for this late. It is 11pm on Friday here, I have been out with my family.

    Samsung said F-700 is crucial to this case. What they are saying is that they developed F-700 in 2006 and registered it in Korea Patent office in 2006 December. Would you want to here what they are saying in the court? I think they will present the Korea patent along with ther argument in the court.

    If they could prove that they developed F-700 in 2006, then Samsung could not possibly have copied or more than inspired from iPhone. it's entirely possible they both were heading to the same direction.

    About Odysey, I posted what I think here;
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151713/samsung-issues-rebuttal-to-apples-request-for-sanctions-in-motion-to-strike-u/40#post_2160976
  • Reply 92 of 114
    dajomudajomu Posts: 1member


    Isn't an Iphone just a result of natural evolution?


    Touch screens existed before Iphone....Apple used the lates tech and made a phone that excelled the competition, but it was still just a evolutionary step


    Big screen existed on other phones like LG Prada


    Icons for launching applications existed on phones, computers, printers, etc.


    black borders on phones, televisions, pc-screens existed before Iphone


    Apps (applications) existed before iphone on other phones


     


    What Apple did right was to melt it all together in a packaged that was better than the competition at that point, but simplisticly speaking they didn't do anything new


    They clearly got their inspiration for a phone from other manufacturers like Samsung, Sony, Nokia, etc... They did not invent the phone.


     


     


    I wonder, can Apple sue Samsung for creating smart TV? Isn't that just a big Ipad? Or is it Apple that has copied Samsung since Ipad is just a small Samsung TV?


     


    Even though the Judge denies Samsung's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Fiddler table one can say that the idea about tablet is not new. The idea about a table has


    been around for ages and actually creating one is just a normal evolution and shouldn't be patentable.


     


    I wish you couldn't patent something without having a working prototype!

  • Reply 93 of 114
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    9secondko wrote: »
    Gee.
    I suppose Apple could just drop the bomb and reveal the NEWTON in court. Grid style launch screen. Check. Dock at bottom. Check.
    Rectangular. Check. Touch input. Check.
    Samsung looking for anything that is rectangular with a screen now? Shameless.
    Samsung sure seems to be so obsessed with trying to find problems with apples originality that they are leaving themselves open for the big question:
    Where is yours?
    NO mockups. Design exercizes. Etc.

    It's even worse than that. Samsung prepared an exhibit of all the prototypes that they DID consider. They apparently did consider quite a few different designs that don't look very much like the iPhone - and then settled on one that was a near-exact copy of the iPhone rather than one of the ones that was easily distinguishable. The fact that so many of their prototypes didn't look exactly like an iPhone undercuts their argument that there's only one way to design a phone (of course, considering how many different phone designs there were before Apple came into the picture, that's a silly argument, anyway).
  • Reply 94 of 114
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member
    jragosta wrote: »
    It's even worse than that. Samsung prepared an exhibit of all the prototypes that they DID consider. They apparently did consider quite a few different designs that don't look very much like the iPhone - and then settled on one that was a near-exact copy of the iPhone rather than one of the ones that was easily distinguishable. The fact that so many of their prototypes didn't look exactly like an iPhone undercuts their argument that there's only one way to design a phone (of course, considering how many different phone designs there were before Apple came into the picture, that's a silly argument, anyway).

    As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.
  • Reply 95 of 114
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    hjb wrote: »
    As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.

    So? The F700 is a phone with a slide-out keyboard like a number of phones that came earlier and looks very little like an iPhone in most respects. What does it have to do with Samsung's design philosophy: "make a bunch of prototypes and choose the one that looks the most like Apple's product"?
  • Reply 96 of 114
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hjb View Post





    As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.


    I'm having trouble understanding your point. No, his point wasnt nonsense, but you seem confused. Yes, even if they developed this phone in 2006, SO WHAT? Read my post again. Their argument was that this phone was similar to an iPhone, and the point I made is that it absolutely had no relation to the iPhone, functionally, hardware wise, software wise, etc. Its irrelevant when they made this phone because it doesnt jive with their argument that their phones were headed in the iPhone's direction- this one clearly wasn't, for all the obvious reasons I listed. And this is what they consider their strongest case of that argument. Their goal was to prove their were working on an iPhone like design before the iPhone, and this phone is anything but, and in no way, shape, or phone resembles an iPhone.  Again, whats your point? You don't seem to understand the basic premise of the argument yet you're intent on vaguely disagreeing. 

  • Reply 97 of 114
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    The screen technology wouldn't matter in a design patent. That it has a display area is good enough, no matter what type.

    So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.? ????


    PS: Addabox and NasserAE have this list of steps that people take to discounting anything Apple ever invents. I don't remember the whole thing but it first starts off with the anti-Apple crowd saying how stupid and pointless their new product is, followed by claims that it won't sell. And it ends with those same people saying how obvious the whole thing was from the start after it's sold very well and a rush of me-to imitators have rushed in behind them.
  • Reply 98 of 114
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hjb View Post





    As usual, you pouring out full of nonsense here. Samsung is saying that they developed F-700 and even registered patent in 2006 before the first iPhone was released. Sticky to the point and make it short and precise. Don't waste your and others valuable time.


    I'm having trouble understanding your point. No, his point wasnt nonsense, but you seem confused. Yes, even if they developed this phone in 2006, SO WHAT? Read my post again. Their argument was that this phone was similar to an iPhone, and the point I made is that it absolutely had no relation to the iPhone, functionally, hardware wise, software wise, etc. Its irrelevant when they made this phone because it doesnt jive with their argument that their phones were headed in the iPhone's direction- this one clearly wasn't, for all the obvious reasons I listed. And this is what they consider their strongest case of that argument. Their goal was to prove their were working on an iPhone like design before the iPhone, and this phone is anything but, and in no way, shape, or phone resembles an iPhone. Yes, they would have designed it anyway, which proves absolutely nothing and does not help their argument in the slightest. The fact that they presented an utterly misleading photo of the phone shows that Samsung themselves knew this.   Again, whats your point? You don't seem to understand the basic premise of the argument yet you're intent on vaguely disagreeing. 

  • Reply 99 of 114
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.? 


    Does the Etch-a-Sketch resemble Apple's design patent? Rather than make a silly comparison, simply look at Apple's design patent, then tell me what technology they specify for the display. There's your answer.

  • Reply 100 of 114
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    So Etch-A -Sketch should be submitted as evidence that Apple created nothing simply because this actual toy has a display area.? ????

    PS: Addabox and NasserAE have this list of steps that people take to discounting anything Apple ever invents. I don't remember the whole thing but it first starts off with the anti-Apple crowd saying how stupid and pointless their new product is, followed by claims that it won't sell. And it ends with those same people saying how obvious the whole thing was from the start after it's sold very well and a rush of me-to imitators have rushed in behind them.


     


    So true. I remember how the original phone was mocked and derided, how the virtual keyboard was utterly 'ridiculous', as was the single button (the WIN button), that the screen was too big for ones pockets, and every other facet of the phone that was different than those at the time. It was consistently compared to all other smartphones, as evidence as to how they were all better/superior/etc. Now, of course, these same people now mock the phone for even having a physical home button and claim how other phones that adapated almost every aspect of iPhones concept are so superior for having all virtual buttons, larger screens, pretend they never cared about a physical keyboard, and assert that the iPhone design was nothing special and was the obvious progression. A ball of hypocrisy, revisionist history, self-deception, etc. This exact same process happens with every new Apple product, including the iPad, as well as the Macbook Air, which was similarly mocked and derided upon release (LOL NO OPTICAL DRIVE ON A $1000 COMPUTER), but now because almost every ultrabook is a clone, the design is 'obvious' and 'progress', with no other possible way to design those machines. Its pretty despicable and shows the utter lack of shame and integrity these types of people have. 

Sign In or Register to comment.