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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Comments
Originally Posted by hill60
{most recent post}
Ooh, you're gonna get accused…
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Or how about "Star Trek" as 'prior art'?
Please…..
It's not prior art, it's future art. The 24th Century, to be exact.
Then no tablet is a rectangle. Curved corners a right angle does not make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
Originally Posted by hill60
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
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
[VIDEO]
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
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.
Originally Posted by malax
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
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?
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.