Just when I thought patent law couldn't get any more absurd. I've been posting for years that since you don't actually have to produce anything or describe exact methodology, I should have patented the "business" process of time travel, motion picture holography, the holodeck, flying cars, replicators, WARP drive, space transporters and brain-embedded automatic translators. Oh yeah, maybe I should patent 'The Force' while I'm at it.
From the article you are commenting upon: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
None of your examples have anything whatsoever to do with the subject at hand, which are design patents.
Also, it says IBM on it...if yo can find the original product, then this is a differnt story...
There isn't an original product. There was just all kinds of (very realistic) product placement in the movie based on what companies that were leaders back then that they figured would be leaders in their respective fields in 2001.
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.
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.
They know lots more than you. Study up on design patents, or, at the very least, read the article that you are responding too. Clue: The article tells you what is wrong with your analysis.
They know lots more than you. Study up on design patents, or, at the very least, read the article that you are responding too. Clue: The article tells you what is wrong with your analysis.
I'm pretty sure you are the one that didn't read the article.
For it to be prior art, it has to be a design, not just a mock up of a what-if. Heinlein wrote detailed notes on the waterbed, how it was made, how it worked etc. This is not the same thing as a slice of wood painted to look like a tablet, or in this case a tablet that is affixed to a table top because it's actually getting it's images from a 16mm projector underneath.
The "art" in prior art doesn't mean a picture it means "design art." Someone would have had to do some serious thinking about the design issues and how it all works, and goes together for it to be prior art. This is not that. Design is not just drawing a picture. Pictures are used *in* design, but a picture of something or a concept drawing does not constitute a design.
All this is made academic by the fact that a close up view of the tablet in question shows it to be much more similar in design to the kind of crap tablets samsung designed before the iPad came out anyway. It's square with sharp corners and bristling with buttons. The navigation interface is also by voice command not by gesture or swipe.
The prior Samsung is citing is imaginary. It's a movie prop.
If movie props can be used as prior art, a LOT of other products could be invalidated by patents. The mere mention of a technique in a movie to do something could invalidate any patent based on it.
If movie props can be used as prior art, a LOT of other products could be invalidated by patents. The mere mention of a technique in a movie to do something could invalidate any patent based on it.
Not a bad idea, actually.
So, I'm off to patent the teleporter...
CRAP, Star Trek beat me to it!
Don't forget "Minority Report". Talk about multi-touch!
that's not a multitouch tablet. It is a passive viewing device, aka a space television, with 10 hardware keys marked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Samsung could copy this form factor and avoid the apple suit, but the 10.1 tablet clearly infringes on Apple's trade dress from product design, to cables, plugs, packaging and accessories.
Samsung, you do make a blue ray player - go buy the disc and stop stealing from Apple and Youtube.
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.
I'm pretty sure you are the one that didn't read the article.
Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
For it to be prior art, it has to be a design, not just a mock up of a what-if. ...
The "art" in prior art doesn't mean a picture it means "design art." ... Pictures are used *in* design, but a picture of something or a concept drawing does not constitute a design.
Comments
Just when I thought patent law couldn't get any more absurd. I've been posting for years that since you don't actually have to produce anything or describe exact methodology, I should have patented the "business" process of time travel, motion picture holography, the holodeck, flying cars, replicators, WARP drive, space transporters and brain-embedded automatic translators. Oh yeah, maybe I should patent 'The Force' while I'm at it.
From the article you are commenting upon: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
None of your examples have anything whatsoever to do with the subject at hand, which are design patents.
But reality is so much more boring, eh?
They don't touch the screens and the 'tablets' aren't moved at all (mainly because there is a 16mm film projector underneath providing the 'feed')
Quick let's patent full frame video in the portrait view.
Also, it says IBM on it...if yo can find the original product, then this is a differnt story...
There isn't an original product. There was just all kinds of (very realistic) product placement in the movie based on what companies that were leaders back then that they figured would be leaders in their respective fields in 2001.
You know, like IBM? and Pan Am?
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.
They know lots more than you. Study up on design patents, or, at the very least, read the article that you are responding too. Clue: The article tells you what is wrong with your analysis.
The prior Samsung is citing is imaginary. It's a movie prop.
How is that relevant to Samsung's claim?
They know lots more than you. Study up on design patents, or, at the very least, read the article that you are responding too. Clue: The article tells you what is wrong with your analysis.
I'm pretty sure you are the one that didn't read the article.
For it to be prior art, it has to be a design, not just a mock up of a what-if. Heinlein wrote detailed notes on the waterbed, how it was made, how it worked etc. This is not the same thing as a slice of wood painted to look like a tablet, or in this case a tablet that is affixed to a table top because it's actually getting it's images from a 16mm projector underneath.
The "art" in prior art doesn't mean a picture it means "design art." Someone would have had to do some serious thinking about the design issues and how it all works, and goes together for it to be prior art. This is not that. Design is not just drawing a picture. Pictures are used *in* design, but a picture of something or a concept drawing does not constitute a design.
All this is made academic by the fact that a close up view of the tablet in question shows it to be much more similar in design to the kind of crap tablets samsung designed before the iPad came out anyway. It's square with sharp corners and bristling with buttons. The navigation interface is also by voice command not by gesture or swipe.
The prior Samsung is citing is imaginary. It's a movie prop.
If movie props can be used as prior art, a LOT of other products could be invalidated by patents. The mere mention of a technique in a movie to do something could invalidate any patent based on it.
Not a bad idea, actually.
So, I'm off to patent the teleporter...
CRAP, Star Trek beat me to it!
Since it was used on the USS Enterprise, there's prior art.
If movie props can be used as prior art, a LOT of other products could be invalidated by patents. The mere mention of a technique in a movie to do something could invalidate any patent based on it.
Not a bad idea, actually.
So, I'm off to patent the teleporter...
CRAP, Star Trek beat me to it!
Don't forget "Minority Report". Talk about multi-touch!
Quick, someone buy up rights to Jules Verne, you'll be set for life. All other sci fi writers that followed him will be trumped by his prior art.
Clarke came up with the space elevator (et. al.), so grab him for good measure.
Samsung could copy this form factor and avoid the apple suit, but the 10.1 tablet clearly infringes on Apple's trade dress from product design, to cables, plugs, packaging and accessories.
Samsung, you do make a blue ray player - go buy the disc and stop stealing from Apple and Youtube.
Samsung is copying Star Trek, Apple is copying Star Trek.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD
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.
I'm pretty sure you are the one that didn't read the article.
Hrmmmmm.......I read this: "Fictional or artistic representations of inventions can be used to invalidate design patents." (Emphasis supplied)
For it to be prior art, it has to be a design, not just a mock up of a what-if. ...
The "art" in prior art doesn't mean a picture it means "design art." ... Pictures are used *in* design, but a picture of something or a concept drawing does not constitute a design.
Got any cites for that? For design patents?