Apple witness builds Fidler tablet replica to disprove prior art claims
An Apple expert witness on Friday brought out a detailed recreation of the Fidler tablet concept in an effort to disprove Samsung's claims of prior art against the iPad.
In a somewhat surprising move, designer Peter Bressler brought out the replica when he was called to the stand for the second time on Friday as testimony in the Apple v. Samsung trial came to a close.
As noted by CNet, the reproduction was different than other exhibits seen during the case, including a number of phones and tablets presented by both parties to bolster their claims. Perhaps even more interesting is that Apple presented the Fidler concept recreation in testimony rather than Samsung.
Bressler, who said Samsung's designs are "substantially the same" as Apple's during testimony early in the trial, appears to have gone through a painstaking process to get the replica device built.
"This is a duplicate that I had created of Mr. Fidler's original tablet," Bressler said of the reproduction. "I went to Missouri with a model maker laser scanner and digitized the surface of [the] model, photographed them, measured them so that we could fabricated it to be exactly the same...right down to the scratches and the paint."
The designer used the custom built replica to point out how the concept does not reflect the tablet described in Apple's design patent, pointing out the obvious cutouts on the side of the device used to house memory cards and a stylus. Also contended was the edge-to-edge glass panel seen on the iPad, a feature not present with the Fidler tablet.
Fidler tablet concept. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents
Samsung brought the Fidler device up during proceedings as an example of prior art against the iPad's design, claiming Apple's tablet wasn't the first to employ rounded edges and a flat display. In addition to the concept unit, the Korean company also pointed to Compaq's TC1000 Windows tablet as an argument to invalidate the iPad's design patents.
Both parties are scheduled to present their respective closing arguments in court on Tuesday, with jury deliberations to follow.
In a somewhat surprising move, designer Peter Bressler brought out the replica when he was called to the stand for the second time on Friday as testimony in the Apple v. Samsung trial came to a close.
As noted by CNet, the reproduction was different than other exhibits seen during the case, including a number of phones and tablets presented by both parties to bolster their claims. Perhaps even more interesting is that Apple presented the Fidler concept recreation in testimony rather than Samsung.
Bressler, who said Samsung's designs are "substantially the same" as Apple's during testimony early in the trial, appears to have gone through a painstaking process to get the replica device built.
"This is a duplicate that I had created of Mr. Fidler's original tablet," Bressler said of the reproduction. "I went to Missouri with a model maker laser scanner and digitized the surface of [the] model, photographed them, measured them so that we could fabricated it to be exactly the same...right down to the scratches and the paint."
The designer used the custom built replica to point out how the concept does not reflect the tablet described in Apple's design patent, pointing out the obvious cutouts on the side of the device used to house memory cards and a stylus. Also contended was the edge-to-edge glass panel seen on the iPad, a feature not present with the Fidler tablet.
Fidler tablet concept. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents
Samsung brought the Fidler device up during proceedings as an example of prior art against the iPad's design, claiming Apple's tablet wasn't the first to employ rounded edges and a flat display. In addition to the concept unit, the Korean company also pointed to Compaq's TC1000 Windows tablet as an argument to invalidate the iPad's design patents.
Both parties are scheduled to present their respective closing arguments in court on Tuesday, with jury deliberations to follow.
Comments
W-O-W!
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/10772/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
That is a really smart move. Should nip this fidler crap in the bud. Should.....
Well, there will still be vodka....for Samsung. HA!
After this case is over, there's a certain UK judge who needs to have a closer examination of this "uncool" model, preferably at high velocity to the back of his head.
Might knock some sense into that idiot.
Apple did bring in a parade of witnesses Friday like they had planned on doing. The Samscum lawyers, with no time left on their clock, sat there like dummies and could dispute only a single thing, so, to the jury, it looked like Samscum's lawyers agreed with the testimony. What a great image for Apple to leave in the jury's minds.
One witness,Richard Donaldson, a former lead patents attorney for Texas Instruments Inc.testified, "Samsung Electronics Co Ltd abused its "monopoly power" and demanded an unreasonable royalty from Apple Inc for the use of wireless patents in the iPhone, hurting the device's commercial prospects."
Another Apple witness,New York University professor Janusz Ordover likened that rate - equivalent to $14 per $600 iPhone - to a "holdup."
"Samsung's conduct distorted the decision making process" in setting standards, said Ordover, a former deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's antitrust division. "It enabled Samsung's technology to be introduced, to become part of the standard. They have acquired holdup power."
"If other companies were to determine that this is a reasonable royalty, then the total royalty on the iPhone would be something like 50 percent," Donaldson testified. "It's neither fair nor reasonable because you could not be successful in the market."
Other expert witnesses included Michael Walker, a former senior Vodafone Group Plc research executive, who from 2008 to 2011 chaired the European telecoms standards authority. He said Samsung failed to disclose in a timely fashion the patents referred to by Donaldson.
He may not be an idiot. Remember there are different laws, a different culture, and there are different lawyers (I assume) presenting and defending the case differently. I think even what Apple was suing for is somewhat different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He may not be an idiot. Remember there are different laws, a different culture, and there are different lawyers (I assume) presenting and defending the case differently. I think even what Apple was suing for is somewhat different.
If he couldn't determine a difference between this mock up and the detailed specifics of Apple's design patents, it indicates that he only used a cursory overview when allowing it as "prior art".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He may not be an idiot. Remember there are different laws, a different culture, and there are different lawyers (I assume) presenting and defending the case differently. I think even what Apple was suing for is somewhat different.
Indeed. It was only just recently that America was pretty much the only major nation with a first-to-invent patent system whereas the rest of the world is first-to-file.
This mockup was made for the United States trial, not the UK one.
We need to consider that Apple's legal team was simply ineffective in presenting the case.
"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." ~Alonzo, from Training Day
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
We need to consider that Apple's legal team was simply ineffective in presenting the case.
"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." ~Alonzo, from Training Day
I tend to agree as well. I think that case was not as exhaustive as the one going on here in terms of presenting evidence. I think if Apple's legal team went to the level it's going right now in terms of evidence-gathering, I think the outcome would have been different.
It could happen.
A great example of how much variance a case can have is Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. Apple (Computer) ultimately won but it wasn't cut and try over the decades and lawsuits. Wikipedia does a decent job of detailing the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Again you seem to be missing that the UK has different laws and definitions. So he may be 100% correct under UK law
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He may not be an idiot. Remember there are different laws, a different culture, and there are different lawyers (I assume) presenting and defending the case differently. I think even what Apple was suing for is somewhat different.
...even a different patent. US design patents aren't applicable to lawsuits in other countries AFAIK. They have their own versions which may or may not describe the same claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...even a different patent. US design patents aren't applicable to lawsuits in other countries AFAIK. They have their own versions which may or may not describe the same claims.
Though, through WIPO there exists a system supporting the registering of a patent in multiple countries at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
He may not be an idiot. Remember there are different laws, a different culture, and there are different lawyers (I assume) presenting and defending the case differently. I think even what Apple was suing for is somewhat different.
Agreed. Anyone who thinks that Colin Birss, QC is an idiot doesn't know the English legal system at all well.