In courts across the world, Apple has accused Samsung of pilfering ideas from the brains of Jobsian fondleslab engineers. And Samsung has now responded by accusing Apple of pilfering ideas from the brain of Stanley Kubrick. As noticed by inveterate Android watcher Florian Mueller, Samsung recently filed a court brief in …
No, no, not at all
Wouldn't even THINK of saying that the Nokia 770 looks like an iPad. Good gracious me. The former looks like a professional palmtop computer, after all; the latter looks like, well, it doesn't much look like ANYTHING, to be honest.
And it just wifi connection *again* :( What DO you call hardware that looks posh and can't fulfill its function for love or money? Oh, wait. Has anyone FOUND its function yet?
@Phillip RE "Well if you are going down that line of argument"
To continue your analogy so that it *can* be compared with what Apple are trying to get away with we can, for example, suggest Sikorski. Consider a situation where they had sued every other helicopter maker on the grounds that the other manufacturers offerings had an *appearance* that was too much like the *appearance* of Sikorski's helicopters even though the engineering/hardware clearly had *not* been copied from Sikorski. Would one not then be absolutely right to cite Leonardo de Vinci and prior art?
Perhaps because 30 years ago you were told that in 10 years time there would be an exciting world of Knowledge-Based Systems and 5th generation computers, LOL. Ok, we have the InterWeb, but interesting AI is always a decade away.
It's a shape people
It's always struck me as bizarre that anyone thought they could patent the rectangle. General Motors might as well try to patent the idea of having 4 wheels on a car.
"has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table's surface), and a thin form factor,"
Whereas a truly innovative company would have designed a tiny screen, smothered in huge borders, using a concave front and a convex back. Oh, and about as thick as 2 bricks, or half a Samsung lawyer.
Too late, Clive Sinclair did that last century with that shitty pocket TV ;)
you beat me to it
"Whereas a truly innovative company would have designed ... and a convex back"
Ahh, so that is why my Wife's iPod 2 has a convex back, so that it scoots away from you on the desk when you try to click links in the borwser?
A world of difference
Between Film/TV props and a working device. Science fiction 'invented' the Jet Engine a couple of decades before Frank Whittle.
I'm not saying that Apple or whoever is right but there are many products in use today that were inspired by Fiction.
On the subject of the 2001 prop. I can't remember it from the set. I was an apprentice carpenter at Shepperton Studios from 1967-1971. Mind you I was blown away with the set overall.
Regarding the prop
The pads in the picture are fixed to the table, they have no backs and line up with holes cut into the table top, the actors legs jostle for space with film projectors mounted under the table which provide the graphics and I'd imagine gently cook their shins.
In scenes where the actors wander about with a pad it's either off or displaying a static image.
Of course even if the pads were real, they'd still be fixed to the table along with the actors, as the whole set was designed to revolve, must have been fun going round and round while Kubrick retook the scene. Best set ever.
And somewhat related, I heard Arthur C Clark is suing everyone that ever put a satellite in orbit
If it was an implimentation patent, your point would stand,
but as an appearance panent, .... the appearance-as-prior-art (art in the most literal sense in this case) is there for all to see.
When they are saying its the shape that's the problem then, well the shape has been used before. Even if it is in a sci-fi film, someone had to design it.
Kubrick made the form factor few decades before Apple
Palm done the interface a decade before Apple
The only thing Apple have done with the iPad is marry those two ideas. If you call that inventive then using 4 wheels on a car should give you Nobel prizes in physics and world peace, at least.
2011 - Resurrection
And the author of "Resurrection" is suing him for coming back from the dead to do so?
Incredible prior art example
The most damning prior art against Apple's lies is "The Tablet" video from 17 years ago. This for me utterly destroys all Apple's claims. (Work started on The Tablet 19 years ago).
If you haven't seen the video of The Tablet yet?, its shocking how good it was as a prediction of now. Here's the link:
It can even be argued in court the look of current smart phones are just a smaller scaled down version of this tablet. They even call it "The Tablet".
I'm tempted to email this to Samsung because they have got to use it against Apple. :(
I just did.
In the video...
...there is an apple Mac if I am not mistaken, showing just how advanced Apple were at the time that the tablet video was made... :)
@Asgard Interesting news item in the tablet video...
7 minutes in there's a close up on news items that the user will be interested in. At the bottom of the page there is a news item about the US warning china not to oppose sanctions that they want to place on Libia. Struck me as rather topical!
This is amazing
It is basically a modern tablet, business model and even shows the local advertising goals that Google is now working to now.
Much better prior art than then Kubrick's 2001 video.
And I just mailed BT...
...as it seems to me Knight-Ridder are infringing their 'HyperLink' patent...
I do hope that clip
isn't infringing any copyright
Stan the NASA Man
Did Stanley Kubrick film the Moon landings for Nasa
Kubrick's Odyssey: Lunar Hoax Pt. 01
You post that utter toss here? Really?
Every claim of the "no-moon-landing" nut jobs has been debunked. Every. Single. One.
From the reflections, the waving flag, the shadows, stars and (apparent) multi-light sources.
ALL OF THEM.
*** REPEATEDLY ***
You can even debunk them yourself, go watch a few "Mythbusters" episodes or look up some of the NASA/other responses to find out how. Some of them are a piece of piss to debunk, make a good weekend project for you and the kids. "Hey kids, lets investigate the difference between evidence and paranoid-hokum bullshit!".
At worst, at absolute worst, NASA (or third parties) may have sexed up a few shots for magazines. This is called a "PR puff" and is not a sign of the International Illuminati Jewery Masonic Conspiracy of the Elite Greys.
I mean, really, Occam's-bloody-Razor. Do you think, as a species, we are so accomplished as to keep a conspiracy on that scale quiet? Do you not watch the news? Has the whole Cryptome and Wikileaks thing just passed you by?
You don't even have to consider the claims.
Just ask yourself why the USSR didn't denounce the landings as fake. Or do you think it was in on the hoax, and that the Cold War wasn't real?
NO! That just proves that the USSR were in on it all the time. It PROVES the conspiracy! Froth, rant, rave.....
You are, of course, quite correct. The USSR, China, N.Korea, FSM-knows-who-else would have loved to have shown the USA up if it had been fake. Heck, the reporter that broke that story would now be a gazillionaire.
But yet these complete, dribbling, morons still think it was all a put-up job.
I really don't have the words to express my contempt. Well, not words I'd use in polite company.
You do know that in 1969
it was easier to go to the moon than it was to fake the pictures?
Humans have broadly similar:
4) ergonomic requirements
So is it really any wonder that nice products all start to look kinda the same? Apple created the consumer tablet market (pretty much) but the limitation of us meat-sacks mean that *ALL* tablets will end up looking alike. Just all cars of a particular class look alike, all motorcycles of a class look alike, all [non-novelty] coffee mugs look alike, all LCD monitors look alike and so on.
The only people who can tell them apart are the primadonna fanbois, no one else gives a toss (unless there is passing-off).
Anyone with a 1080P Bluray of 2001:A Space Odyssey will be able to see that the pads are clearly badged "IBM Telepad". What's more, the "telepad" badge is in the classic Thinkpad font and at 45 degrees!!! Would be great if IBM had patented it and can go after Apple.
How long do you think a patent lasts?
Re: IBM Telepad
As that's a considerable number of years before there was a Thinkpad, it's probably more accurate to say that the Thinkpad badge is in the classic Telepad font and at 45 degrees!!!
doesn't matter if the patent has run out.. prior art is prior art!
Acorn were there first?
How about the Acorn (ART) NewsPAD - http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Computers/NC.html#NewsPAD?
Saved me the effort. Though, just for fun, I'll add this link:
@Justin - so the first person to copy is... being original ?
Apple claim that Samsung are copying Apple.
Samsung are simply pointing out that Apple's idea wasn't actually their idea in the first place and if Samsung are copying anyone then so are Apple.
Mines the one with a HAL in the pocket.
No-one is suing Apple for copying their product.
That's because Apple are the only one claiming that the design belongs to them.
Yes.. yes they are.
Lt Cmd Data is a typical ipad user
Short clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7ZyS_g0DQ
Yes, exactly, a completely illogical decision and explanation, but oh so typical! ;-)
All Samsung's Radio Patents Belong To us
I'm sorry Samsung but prior art called Star Trek showed radio communicators that invalidate any and all of your mobile and satellite radio technology patents. Time to close shop and hand me the keys as your days are over.
Wow, that must have been a REALLY dull episode
When they went over all of those chip designs in fine detail. Glad I missed that one.
...Or just maybe Samsung's patents originate in their R&D department, and Apple's in the marketing department...
Patient laws are getting stupid. They need to be changed.
Title says it all
It's in the execution
..apple just made it really cool but for the form factor.. have to agree with most of the blokes here, IMO it is prior art.
Sci-Fi Prior Art Legal Precident...
In Robert Heinlein's novel "Stranger In A Strange Land" he described a hydraulic bed. The descriptions of this bed were used as prior art in a patent lawsuit and the prior art wone the day. The result was that the Heinlein Estate owns the patent for the Water Bed. Robert Heinlein promptly placed the Water bed patent in the public domain, which is why water beds are so inexpensive (or so I have been told).
If this can happen with a water bed, I think there must be suficient prior art in the 1950's and 1960's pulp Sci-Fi magazines (e.g. Amazing Stories and Fantasy & Science Fiction) to blow any computer patents out of the water, not to mention the Sci-Fi greats like Heinlein, Asimov, EE Doc Smith, etc.
But I'm not a patent attorney - just a tosser who reads the reg. :-)
You're all forgetting about the stack of tablets sitting on Jean Luc Picards desk STNG. They tossed them around like nothing.
Anyone else remember an old late 80s issue of Personal Computer World magazine...
..which featured a two page article about the tablet PCs of the future (including illustrations)? The main emphasis was that the PC would become a 10 or 12 inch hand held touchscreen device with an onscreen keyboard. and (if I remember correctly) a 2048px wide screen and would be used for the day to day computing the author expected of us - reading news, checking our calendar and downloading pron. I can't remember what networking functionality this was assumed to have. I thought it was pretty far fetched at the time (I was about 10 years old) but nowadays everything seems pretty close. The only major difference to current tablets was that the device was a clamshell, and purple.
My dad probably still has it knocking around in the garage.
I remember something closer to an iPhone (and advanced one with a borderless full glass face and yes telephony was mentioned) but it's been a long time. Been trying to track down some ref to it for a while now, when the pile got too high I dumped most of my copies.
Seems it's just the 2 of us that remember it :(
rectangular shape with a dominant display screen
"rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface and a thin form factor"
Piece of paper? Sinclair thingy.
That you can even think of copyrighting something like that let alone patenting it is
is ...there's no other way of putting it... fucking insane.
Patent on a design?
Does that mean I can patent the Ford Mondeo design, ooh, or a Porsche 911?