Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey In Apple Patent Case

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the i'm-sorry-steve-i-can't-do-that dept.

Patents 432

suraj.sun and several other readers sent word that Samsung is using a clip from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey as an example of prior art in its defense against Apple's patent infringement claims. "In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. ... As with the design claimed by the D'889 Patent, the tablet disclosed in the clip 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." Samsung also supplied a clip from 1970s British TV series The Tomorrow People.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185886)

When I first say the picture, I thought they meant the table.

Re:fp (3, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186056)

Look AC, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

This is why! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185896)

Patents should only cover technical innovations.

Trademarks should cover design, and with much more specificity. BRANDING people.

Re:This is why! (2)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185924)

and this is also why we'll never see flying cars. Damn the practicalities, no company could establish a respectable monopoly through patent lawfare.

Re:This is why! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186090)

I always thought it was the whole Z-axis thing. People can barely handle X Y.

Re:This is why! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186384)

Even with these artificial barriers, it is still pretty tough. Says a lot about how innovative people are that they can still compete in this hobbled economy.

Re:This is why! (1)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186402)

This is why we don't see ground cars with four rubber wheels! Damn the practicalities, no company could establish a respectable monopoly through patent lawfare.

Re:This is why! (1)

bl4nk (607569) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185944)

Coca Cola's color of red is trademarked. How much more general do you want to get for "design"?

Re:This is why! (3, Insightful)

optimism (2183618) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186112)

Trademarking the shape of a 12oz can of soda would be a helluva lot more generic. Of course they couldn't do that for practical reasons.

Trademarking a specific color on soft-drink cans, I can totally understand. And it's only soft-drinks. Which explains why Coke never goes after Tecate for selling a red can of beer. :)

In any case I imagine it is almost impossible to trademark the color black.

Re:This is why! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186304)

They don't go after Dr Pepper, and that actually is competing with them.

Re:This is why! (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186342)

Someone should go after Tecate. Not for the can, but the the piss that's been put inside it.

Re:This is why! (2)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186236)

Firstly, that's a TRADEMARK, not a PATENT.
Secondly, it's a specific shade of red.
Thirdly, they also have a trademark on the coca cola bottle shape -- their glass bottles had a distinct, and unique, shape.
Fourthy, that, too was also simply a trademark, and not a patent.

Most importantly, and fifthly, and finally,

THIS IS A PATENT ON A RECTANGLE. That's the design of a pad of paper. It's an LCD monitor you can touch, with all processing integral to the thing. There is not a single fucking thing novel or inventive about any of this. You can't patent a goddamned rectangle. That's ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA [youtube.com]

link absolutely fucking relevant.

Re:This is why! (1)

martinX (672498) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186260)

Cadbury trademarked the colour purple.

From IP Australia [ipaustralia.gov.au] (Government website)

In 1998 Cadbury applied to register purple packaging as a trade mark. Registration would give the chocolate manufacturer the exclusive right to use purple packaging on chocolate and it could take infringement action against other traders using purple in the same or similar fashion. For its application to be accepted by IP Australia, Cadbury had to show that consumers recognised chocolate in purple packaging as being a Cadbury product. This took some time and it was not until 2003 that the application was accepted. Other traders were then given the opportunity to object to it being registered.

And you know what - they're right. Chocolates in a purple box - the exact purple Cadbury uses - makes me think it is Cadbury and if I'm in the mood for choccies, I'm drawn to those products as I think they are what I want. Then it turns out they're some generic stuff cleverly packaged.

Re:This is why! (1)

drew30319 (828970) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186264)

The color red is not trademarked by Coke (although the bottle shape is).

However, in 1995 in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., SCOTUS held, "sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark [as long as] "in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature [...] is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself."

Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1577.ZS.html [cornell.edu]

Re:This is why! (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186408)

Tiffany & Co. has trademarked a certain shade of blue. [wikipedia.org]

The Tiffany Blue color is protected as a color trademark by Tiffany & Co. in some jurisdictions including the U.S.
 
The color is produced as a private custom color by Pantone, with PMS number 1837, the number deriving from the year of Tiffany's foundation. As a trademarked color, it is not publicly available and is not printed in the Pantone Matching System swatch books.

But BP didn't get to trademark their green [wordpress.com] (at least in Australia.)

27 September, 2007 - The High Court rejected the petrol giant BP Green's 16-year battle to register its distinctive green — known as Pantone 348C — as a trademark. Companies that have successfully registered a colour include;

  • Commonwealth Bank of Australia for its trademark yellow and black;
  • Kraft for the silver on its cheese packaging; and
  • Tiffany & Co for the distinctive blue on its jewellery boxes.

But the three High Court judges were not convinced that BP should have a monopoly over the BP shade of green.

Re:This is why! (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185998)

You should have written that as:

Samsung: "I'm sorry Steve, I'm afraid I can't let you do that".
Steve: "What's the problem?"
Samsung: "I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do."
Steve: "What are you talking about?"
Samsung: "Your patent claim is null and void"
Steve: "Where the hell did you get that idea,"
Samsung: "See youtube video"

They should have just brought in the apes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185898)

Steve Jobs wouldn't know what hit him.

I'm sorry, Dave... (5, Funny)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185902)

I can't allow your patent suit to proceed.

Re:I'm sorry, Dave... (5, Funny)

MatthiasF (1853064) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185952)

Jobs: Open the fanboy doors, Hal.

Re:I'm sorry, Dave... (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186096)

Thanks for that, my monitor really needed my morning coffee all over it!!!

The patent in question; D504,889 (5, Interesting)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185922)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]

Let's see, Apple's patent contains no more substance than the movie; it is just a bunch of pictures of a hypothetical device (it doesn't even look much like the current iPad). It is so generic that there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186002)

there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left.

So Apple will definitely win.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186188)

>> So Apple will definitely win.

Really? According to the claimed "ornamental desing" by Apple, this Kubrik's device is closer to the patent design due to slimmer bezel, the Apple'e own iPad has a huge thick bezel, very unlike the pictured one in the patent design. And what they claim is just and only the shape of the device, any fuctionality is not even mentioned.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (0)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186526)

Whoosh.

typing, typing, typing extra useless shit because Slashdot doesn't like users who type too fast. How are you? I'm good. Just killing time. Doop dee doo. OK, that should just about fucking do it.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186134)

It has to be an Apple device, though. It has no ports whatsoever.

Oh great (5, Funny)

Medevilae (1456015) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186178)

Apple patented the rectangle.

Re:Oh great (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186256)

Apple patented the rounded rectangle.

FTFY.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (2)

optimism (2183618) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186198)

There's the irony. The best functional device designs are minimal, generic, faceless, fading into the background so you can just perform the functions.

Apple should be highly praised for adhering to that design philosophy with the iphone and ipad.

But there's no way in hell that they can claim ownership over what is the end goal for ~all~ functional design.

I'm sure they know this, and this legal wrangling has more to do with the dynamics of a powerful producer and their critical supplier than anything else. Heck, it could even be a negotiating tactic for Apple to lower the purchase price of Samsung. Can you imagine that merger?

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (0)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186520)

Stop analyzing things realistically. It's more fun to watch the nerds get all lathered up about how Apple should just roll over and die because this week, they have a hard-on for all things Google.

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186266)

if they have any sanity left.

You had a damn fine argument up to that point!

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186496)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false [google.com]

Let's see, Apple's patent contains no more substance than the movie; it is just a bunch of pictures of a hypothetical device (it doesn't even look much like the current iPad). It is so generic that there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left .

You know it's generic. I know it's generic. The courts may know it's generic.

But that's not the issue here.

It's the goddamn PATENT OFFICE that doesn't have any idea.

They allowed the patent application to go through, didn't they?

Re:The patent in question; D504,889 (1)

kermidge (2221646) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186548)

Thanks for that link. I clicked. I read.

Jesus wept, they're handing out patents for childish crap like that?

[I really shoulda patented that noise-cancelling tech I had on paper back in '72; it had real detail - circuits, formulae, and some engineering detail. Ah, well.]

Apple sucks donkey dick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185926)

And Apple's boot licking toadies are morons.

A Tablet (-1, Flamebait)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185928)

So, A tablet in A movie, that doesn't look like the iPad or Galaxy Tab, is prior art?

Re:A Tablet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185958)

No it doesn't! But Samsung's lawyers are desperate for anything since they know they are gonna lose.

Re:A Tablet (2)

GNUman (155139) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185982)

That is exactly it. The patent being claimed is too broad and fits any rectangle with a screen and a bezel. So, yes, the tablet in the movie could fit the patent.

Re:A Tablet (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185990)

I don't think so, personally... although I think it should count that the concept is obvious.

That doesn't necessarily rule out all of Apple's patents on the iPad, but IMO, it should rule out ones that refer to the general concept of a tablet device or its appearance, as well as any aspects of the user interface that are essentially copied from science fiction (none of which should have been patentable in the first place, IMO).

Re:A Tablet (2)

Centurix (249778) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185994)

The tablet in their patent looks more like the one in the film than it does the actual iPad. Stanley Kubrick will be turning in his friction free space grave for ever.

Re:A Tablet (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186132)

So, A tablet in A movie, that doesn't look like the iPad or Galaxy Tab, is prior art?

Maybe Samsung is planning to use the same "techniques" as Apple to demonstrate how similar they are....oops.... has Apple patented image manipulation as well?

Re:A Tablet (3, Informative)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186276)

The patent doesn't look like an iPad or Galaxy Tab, either.

And yes, it is prior art. The tablet is not a new or novel idea. A particular implementation may be, but as can be clearly demonstrated the concept of a flat device similar in form and size to a pad of legal-sized paper which dynamically displays information on its top face has been around FOR FUCKING DECADES. Apple can't patent an idea that clearly predates their company. And Steve should probably be run out of Dodge for even trying. This is why people don't like him -- because he's a massive prick.

What about Star Trek? (4, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185932)

Star Trek's PADDs are almost identical in operation to modern tablets, and across the different shows, came up in every possible kind of design imaginable.

Re:What about Star Trek? (4, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186064)

That's because Steve Jobs was partially inspired by them.

Re:What about Star Trek? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186378)

That's because Steve Jobs was partially inspired by them.

Wrong - that's the other way around - Star Trek happens in the future

Re:What about Star Trek? (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186202)

Yeah. They barely even bothered to change the name.

Re:What about Star Trek? (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186410)

I wonder why Samsung stopped at that movie. ST:TOS had them [memory-alpha.org] well before the 2001 A Space Odyssey came out. How the **** did this patent get approved and why isn't the judge laughing them out of the courtroom with punitive damages for wasting the court's time?

StarTrek TNG (4, Informative)

avxo (861854) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185946)

TNG certainly showcased a tablet like device (the "PADD") in most of the shows.

Re:StarTrek TNG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185988)

From the star trek wiki
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD

Re:StarTrek TNG (1)

pjabardo (977600) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186374)

The most interesting aspect of this link is the difference between earth/federation PADDs and alien PADDs. Every earth/federation PADD has the same basic design, which is surprisingly similar to the iPad design. On the other hand, alien PADDs have all sorts of weird shapes.

What does this mean? The rectangular PADD with rounded edges are something very basic in earth design. Anything different is too weird (or not very practical...). If you want alien design, the first thing you need is to remove the rectangular shape!

Re:StarTrek TNG (2)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186216)

Yes, but the PADDs were separate for each document or sets of documents. There are scenes where people will have a pile of PADDs on their desks. So that seems to be a bit different technology. (And yes, this does show that our technology has surpassed that of Star Trek. Yes, we live in the future, and yes, that's awesome.)

Re:StarTrek TNG (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186338)

Evidently, they don't have to be, and they are tied to the ship's computer. That's how Beverly's play became Data's "Ode to Spot" in one episode. I guess once you can trivially replicate more, it's more efficient to use several at once at your desk.

Re:StarTrek TNG (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186380)

There are scenes where people physically hand someone else a PADD (although I'm not actually sure I remember if there are such scenes in TNG. There are certainly are in TOS, and there's a scene in DS9 where they go back in time to TOS and that episode has a bit where Sisko gets an excuse to hand a pad to Kirk because he wants an excuse to meet Kirk.)

Re:StarTrek TNG (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186452)

Yer, there are, but it's still unclear if that's because they HAVE to do it that way or if they just find it more convenient than saying, "Captain, please go to aich tee tee pee colon slash slash....." given that they don't have to pay for the PADD.

Re:StarTrek TNG (1)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186486)

There's an app that lets you exchange contacts between two devices (I've only seen the iPhone version) by bumping them together.
It senses the collision, discovers the other device and exchanges the data.
In the future they wouldn't even need to give urls, you'd just share the content through some trigger.

Okay, I'm being silly. In the future all content will be locked down by corporations and any such endeavor will be met by fines, imprisonment, and possibly torture.

Re:StarTrek TNG (2)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186382)

Thats not a problem of technological vision (if you saw the were using finger slides just like they do with ipad today!)

The pile of PADDs was a metaphor for a pile of books. Also with cheap easily replicated pads you might actually want each pad to be on a different document.

Re:StarTrek TNG (1)

pjabardo (977600) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186396)

You could be right but maybe this is similar to the use of multiple monitors in desktop computers. If pads were very cheap might we not do the same thing? The cost (and fragility and weight) does limit how we use such devices. Eliminating these restraints we might see other use patterns. Maybe not.

Re:StarTrek TNG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186292)

Why TNG will never happen :( [ilounge.com]

Re:StarTrek TNG (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186508)

Hell, TOS had them in the 60's.

The Tomorrow People? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185950)

Oi, that show's so awful the whole lawsuit should be called off.

Re:The Tomorrow People? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186130)

Yeah, TIM was nowhere near flat. I don't remember if Liz was; I was a little too young to be paying attention to that.

prior prior art (2)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185978)

What, no reference to the tablet computers used in the early Startrek shows? They out date both of the references.

Re:prior prior art (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186038)

To be fair, I don't remember any tablet like devices on The Original Series, so the reference to 2001 is the earliest, being 1969. The devices in ToS were typical props with a display screen and buttons/switches on the face of it and some neat looking doo-dads on top. The first truly tablet-like device in Star Trek is probably the first season of The Next Generation, which went into development in 1985 (probably earlier) and I'm sure there are concept drawings dating to that year, giving that a 10 year jump on this patent.

Either way, this is so ridiculously vague, I can not believe this is what people are allowed to patent nowadays.

Re:prior prior art (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186120)

There *definitely* were tablet like devices in TOS... google PADD TOS, and look at images.

Re:prior prior art (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186234)

Ok, but still, the PADD from TNG is pretty much identical in concept to the iPad, so for prior art, it seems like they'd go for things that directly resemble the device in question. Apple doesn't own the concept of a tablet, they're claiming the design infringes.

Memory Alpha even describes the ToS "PADD" as a digital clipboard operated with a stylus and the prop Uhuru is pictured using looks nothing like an iPad.

But I stand corrected, there were tablets on ToS. I must have never really noticed they were because they weren't used particularly tablet like...

Re:prior prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186542)

*TOS (The Original Series)
ToS:Terms of Service

Re:prior prior art (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186558)

Wow yeah I don't know why the hell I was doing that...guess I spend more time talking about Terms of Service lately.

Re:prior prior art (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186272)

THAT looks nothing like an iPad or a PADD. It's a thick clipboard. It's a big fat wedge with incandescent lights on it.

One of my HTPCs takes up less space.

Re:prior prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186398)

So you're arguing that 45 years ago, technology that was imagined by one group of people isn't as advanced as it is today?

Re:prior prior art (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186478)

In response to the argument that the technology of today is copying that design, it seems like a reasonably civil way to say "you're fucked in the head, bud."

So what 2001 is telling us ... (1, Interesting)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186044)

... that the ideal technological device for the display of a rectangular image is something roughly the shape and size of a modern tablet. And they figured this out when displays virtually always involved some sort of projection and focussing (either through the electron gun of a CRT or the light of a projector) which would have made such devices impossible.

And we need judges, lawyers, and marketplace chaos to figure that out today. Maybe society is getting dumber.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186092)

Maybe society is getting dumber.

Ha, maybe ... good one.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186094)

Guess I can ditch my plans for patenting my plans for a warp drive. Some lawyer is just going to say, "I seen it in the movies"...

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186142)

Your patent for a warp drive that glows blue and goes "whoosh" is every bit a stinking pile of bullshit as Apple's patent for a black, thin rectangular tablet with narrow bezel and a flat back.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186336)

There is no sound in open space. My patent accounts for that fact. And I don't use LEDs, it's plasma. Jesus, don't you know anything!

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186248)

You could patent the components of it which bend space-time, which would be akin to owning a patent on LCDs in this case. But the concept of warping space to travel? Hell no, you didn't invent that.

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186302)

That's so far away from what's actually going on that you should go hang yourself in the closet in shame.

Make warp drive. Patent it. No problem.

Make spaceship that looks exactly like the USS Enterprise. Try to patent THE SHAPE of the ship. Also, the shape is now just a box. A rudimentary geometric object with no details anywhere.

Sounds dumb? Apple not only thought it was smart, but actually GOT the patent, AND thought it would hold up in court. good luck with that!

Re:So what 2001 is telling us ... (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186546)

If you think Apple is bad in court, wait until the Borg get on your case for a box-shaped ship.

^^^^^C-C-C-Combo!!!^^^^^ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186046)

X3 - Trekkie comment! 30,000 points!

One goddamn claim (1)

Windrip (303053) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186106)

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!

We claim the ornamental DESIGN FOR AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE, SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN AS DESCRIBED

Jesus H. Creepy Christ On A Crutch

Re:One goddamn claim (4, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186280)

This is how design patents work. They are a completely different beast from utility patents.

I don't deal with design patents, so I'm not extremely familiar with their intricacies, but generally speaking, you'll have one claim and one drawing. The claim almost always specifically refers to the drawing. In the drawing, any features shown with dashed lines are not part of the "claim" - they are exemplary in nature to help you see how the claimed features interrelate to the rest of the object. Only the parts with solid lines are considered part of the ornamental design which their patent is intended to cover.

Re:One goddamn claim (1)

sir_eccles (1235902) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186314)

You don't actually know what a design patent is, do you?

I know what Apple fears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186182)

Samsung tech is better than Appletech.

Ok? Kthxbyw

That's good (4, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186192)

But i still wish they'd introduce this as prior art. [howstuffworks.com]

It's not the same color and it's mechanical rather than electronic, but i really don't think that's a significant difference in terms of the important bits. Flat rectangular thing with bezeled edges and rounded corners that your draw on. This form factor was worked out ages ago, the theory of improving the interface and what you can do with it are certainly important technological improvements but have little to do with the form factor that Apple is claiming is important.

Re:That's good (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186250)

Re:That's good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186522)

It's as fictional as the 2001 tablets, so why not?

is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186204)

or does the device in the clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo) look more like a display device than a tablet (the humans don't interact with it).

I am in no way supporting Apple's patent suit, but Samsung calling that device a "tablet" might be a bit far-fetched.

FWIW, I also remember touchscreen navigation on some device using swiping left and right from Minority Report. Can't recall if there was a tablet or not.

Re:is it just me... (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186328)

Whether or not they interact with it shouldn't matter (besides, if that's what you need, ST:TNG did it more than 20 years before this patent).

http://www.greenlightoffice.com/office/stationery/786300538-sparco-recycled-paper-note-pads-100-sheet-s-ruled-4-x-6-5-pack-yellow.html [greenlightoffice.com]

THIS IS PRIOR ART.

Pandora's box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186240)

Does Samsung really want to go down this route? If this turns out to be good legal defense against a patent suite does that mean we could use any media to debunk patents? Can we use comic books, graphic novels, or SciFi novels to serve as prior art. I'm all for it but Samsung has to be careful here. How many patents do they own that could invalidated because the general idea or rough shape was seen in a movie or comic book or described in a book.

The way patents are being used now is impeding innovation instead of encouraging it. We advance in culture and technology because we expand on the ideas that others come up with. We contribute to society and society contributes back.

Re:Pandora's box (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186436)

If the patent has nothing more to it than what was already presented in any medium, then it SHOULD fail. After all, the Apple patent in question is for a look, not functionality.

Functionality is unlikely to be covered in sufficient detail in a novel to invalidate a patent.

And what about teleportation device? (2)

51M02 (165179) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186274)

So according to Samsung, if someone "invent" one day a Transporter [wikipedia.org] like in Star Trek, that someone would not be able to patent it?

That's a shame, I'm sure that guy could make a fortune. :)

Re:And what about teleportation device? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186310)

If someone invents a transporter and makes it looks like just like the Star Trek one, they might patent the function but not the design. Apple is just being retarded here.

Re:And what about teleportation device? (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186358)

Not if the Transporter is rectangular.

Re:And what about teleportation device? (4, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186404)

they certainly should not be able to patent the ide of a transporter or the overall design used in the show.

the actual transporter technology would be patentable

Here are the shots from tomorrow people (1)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186278)

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/02/07/apple_ipad_tomorrow_people/ [reghardware.com]

Looks EXACTLY like an iPad.

Re:Here are the shots from tomorrow people (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186418)

Obviously, someone from our time travelled back in time to plant the device...

Clueless haters... (3, Interesting)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186324)

From what I've read in the actual patents involved, the idea of a portable touchscreen isn't what's being contested. Not that the average slash otter is interested in that fact - it appears most posters are oblivious to the fact that Apple isn't suing over the idea of a touchscreen tablet.

Is it apparently lost on Samsung and the frothing-at-the-mouth haters that the patents in question are not about making a touchscreen tablet, but is about using the following graphic design elements:
* A sunflower for the 'photos' app
* A white cartoon bubble with a green background for SMS
* A calendar icon with a red bar on top, and black text showing the current day
* An envelope icon against a cloudy sky
* A notebook with a brown binding on top

Any of those can easily be represented just as clearly with a different icon, but Samsung flatly refuses to change the icon.

I don't see how pointing out that tablets are a staple of scifi will change the design patents. This isn't about 'invention', it's about graphic design - and an entirely different part of the law.

Clueless? Talk to Samsung. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186476)

It's not our fellow otter's fault: it's Samsung's. They are the ones who brought the movie prop into this after all.

"Haters" and "fanboys" - two sets of the population that need to get a life.

Re:Clueless haters... (4, Insightful)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186492)

Can you provide links so the rest of us csn see what you are talking about?

I wonder... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186366)

... does including a screenshot taken from a possibly-copyright-infringing YouTube video count as "fair use"? Or did they get permission from the copyright holder to include that image?

Come on, people, we need to dot every i and cross every t when it comes to Imaginary Property laws.

Xplore Tech Was there first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186516)

I worked for Xplore Tech back in 92-96 when they designed and built a ruggedized tablet PC to put in the M1 tanks back in the day.
This tablet was made 10 years before Apple turned out the iPad.
You can find these tablets in any Police car nowadays if your ever on your way to jail.
So Xplore could sue APPLE if they wanted too.

http://www.xploretech.com/

Wallpaper in LoseThps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186544)

The Wallpaper in LoseThos is blue with yellow and white text. It's a little like Borland C. I joke it's like a BSoD, too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?