×

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!

Apple Loses Bid To Exclude Evidence In Samsung Patent Trial

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the don't-cloud-this-issue-with-facts dept.

Handhelds 227

New submitter Shavano writes with news that Apple's attempt to block Samsung from introducing evidence of a tablet prototype developed in 1994 has been denied by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. Part of the reason Apple got a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 earlier this year was that an Appeals Court said Apple's tablet design was significantly different from earlier designs. Now, Judge Koh has decided that the issue needs to be decided by a jury. "Samsung has argued the design was an obvious variation of tablets existing as early as 1994, including one made by Hewlett-Packard Co. The Korean company supported that argument at the trial with videotaped testimony by Roger Fidler, who heads the digital publishing program at the University of Missouri. Fidler said he started working on a tablet design in 1981. Apple sought to exclude the testimony based on the appeals court ruling. In a written declaration, Fidler said 'Apple personnel were exposed to my tablet ideas and prototypes' in the mid- 1990s when the company collaborated with Knight-Ridder Inc.’s information design laboratory in Colorado."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

227 comments

First Poast (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042367)

Owned.

We are blessed (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042425)

We are blessed that back in the 1970's, 1980's and in early 1990's there were many inventors decided to share their incredible inventions with the world, and they also decided against patenting their inventions

That is why we got what we got today - from hypertext to web2, web3

If the inventors of yesteryears were as greedy as Apple - We are sure going to miss out on the many things that we are enjoying today

Hooray to the generous inventors !!

Pox to those greedy patent trolls !!!
 

Re:We are blessed (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042519)

I've heard it mentioned here before that touchscreens were really held back from blossoming in the 80s and 90s due to patents. In any event, people don't change, nor do corporations. There were corporations that were just as greedy as apple is now. I'd guess, again based on what I hear here on slashdot, that it's because the patent office got lazier, not because corporations used to be more selfless.

Re:We are blessed (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042791)

I used touchscreens in both decades, and they were held back because they sucked. You had to press hard to get your input to register. (Also people weren't sure what input would be best... touchscreen, mouse, touchpad, or lightpen.) Just as none of the home computers of the day could play DVD-quality video prior to 1995, neither could they do multitouch. The technology simply wasn't there.

Re:We are blessed (3, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043939)

Touchscreens still suck. There is no tactile feedback, and my fingers are too big for the virtual keyboards on smartphones.

Re:We are blessed (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042697)

>>>If the inventors of yesteryears were as greedy as Apple -

Ahahahahahahahaaaha. Let's see. Bill Gates complained in a newsletter circa 1980 about people copying software and ideas without permission. Apple sued Microsoft in the mid-80s for making an OS too similar to their own (which led MS plus other makers like Atari and Commodore to deliberately change their OSes appearance). Activision was sued by Atari in 1980 for making cartridges without permission. Nintendo was sued in the late 80s for not sharing their cartridge patents with Atari & other 3rd-party vendors. NCSA Mosaic sued Netscape for copying their browser concepts in the early 90s.

Yeah. Sure. "Open and willing to share". Not.

Re:We are blessed (4, Informative)

Sun (104778) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043013)

Ahahahahahahahaaaha. Let's see. Bill Gates complained in a newsletter circa 1980 about people copying software and ideas without permission.

I have no recollection of the "ideas" part of your statement. Care to cite your references?

Apple sued Microsoft in the mid-80s for making an OS too similar to their own (which led MS plus other makers like Atari and Commodore to deliberately change their OSes appearance).

No. Apple sued Microsoft for developing an operating system based on information they received under NDA. Microsoft did, in fact, stab Apple in the back on that occasion. The only reason Apple lost is because the key innovation wasn't theirs to begin with (i.e. - taken from Xerox).

Yeah. Sure. "Open and willing to share". Not.

Okay, I'll grant you this. GP's statement was going too far. Still, things that back then were considered fair game are today causes for multi-billion dollars suites. IBM did not sue Compaq when they created a clean room re-implementation of their BIOS, despite the huge economical impact it had on IBM's market. Amiga, and later Commodor, never had to ask anyone for permission before creating an OS with windows, icons and menus, and suffered no consequences for it.

Heck, the Amiga even had an "emulator" for the Mac. It would do some Amigaish tricks with the hardware to cause it to be a Mac, and then had a special hardware [wikipedia.org] solely so there'd be a place to put your (presumably legally obtained) Mac BIOS ROMs. In fact, the hacked version did not require that hardware at all, as people who don't care about A-Max's copyrights don't care about Apple's either. The result was a 7.2Mhz Amiga emulating an 8Mhz Mac at 120% speed. Nobody sued anyone, as far as I know.

Contrast the story above with Apple's treatment of Pystar and see whether things have changed or not.

Shachar

Re:We are blessed (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042803)

If the inventors of yesteryears were as greedy as Apple...

Please pick up the white courtesy phone. Thomas Edison and some guy named... Westinghouse? and a couple of folks from RCA and GE would like a word.

I said, pick up the white phone...

Re:We are blessed (4, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043623)

If the inventors of yesteryears were as greedy as Apple...

Please pick up the white courtesy phone. Thomas Edison and some guy named... Westinghouse? and a couple of folks from RCA and GE would like a word.

I said, pick up the white phone...

We got someone called Tesla on the other line...

Re:We are blessed (1)

tsotha (720379) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042869)

You know British Telecom tried to patent hypertext, right?

Re:We are blessed (5, Informative)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043289)

Citation: Patent 4,873,662, Informaton for display at a terminal apparatus of a computer is stored in blocks the first part of which contains the information which is actually displayed at the terminal and the second part of which contains information relating to the display and which may be used to influence the display at the time or in response to a keyboard entry signal. For example, the second part of the block could include information for providing the complete address of an another block which would be selected by the operation of a selected key of the keyboard. The second part of the block could alternatively influence the format and/or color of the display at the terminal. When a block is read from the store of the computer the second part is retained in another store which may be located in the terminal or in the computer itself or perhaps both. The invention is particularly useful in reducing the complexity of the operating protocol of the computer.

This was the basis for their 2000 claim on the patent (filed 1976, granted at the USPTO 1989) which they subsequently lost. IBM and Lockheed-Martin also tried to lay claim on hyperlinks, which they both also lost.

Re:We are blessed (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043653)

The big difference is that those patents where not granted then, but would be just rubber stamped today.

Today you can patent even the most trivial software "invention", and use it as a weapon to destroy any form of progress unless you are payed ridiculous amounts of money. I effect you take progress as hostage and demand ransom money.

The big difference is a few years ago it was about inventions and development (in short - competition on quality), but today the only thing that counts is greed and lawsuits...

It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0, Offtopic)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042383)

Xerox Alto anyone?

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (5, Interesting)

MacDork (560499) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042443)

Fidler holding both tablets. [dailytech.com] Yeah, Apple's is totally original... :-|

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042541)

I also notice that Steve Jobs ripped off his trademark look from this guy in addition to the iPad design.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043077)

Uhmm, you do realize he has a mac on the desk, and thus might actually be a fan of jobs? (Hell, they coulda swapped reacharounds what with their locations...)

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042597)

Apple's fucked. My only disappointment is that Steve Jobs is not still steering this mighty ship went it runs into the judge's iceberg..... I mean verdict.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042793)

OK I'm going to ramble a bit here, but you got me thinking... I'm an anonymous coward anyway so what do you care?
( the irony of your CPU name and your harsh view of Jobs was also not lost on me )

I am intrigued that you see all this so strongly in Samsung's favor. I guess must realize my own bias from this... I see almost everything in this trial has gone in Apple's favor, and Samsung's lawyers couldn't possibly have done worse on the courtroom.
And yet you think that Samsung is clearly winning.
Very interesting to me.

Yet, I can't get past this prior art thing... I know it's not an objective question, but...
Apple could win this on one question to the jury: Had you ever seen anything like the iPhone when it came out?
If any of them, and any of you slashdotters say "yes" you are lying.

For a biased, but beautiful example, go back and watch the original Apple keynote from 2007 where the iPhone debuted. Fastforward to the live demo jobs does.
People are audibly gasping. This is Apple fanboys, of course. Fanboys will hoot and holler, clap and yell, but even Apple fanboys won't gasp at something... unless they're amazed at what they see.

Did that happen in 1994 when Fidler's demo was shown to people? Of course not. It wasn't a real product. It was stardust and dreams.

Samsung may well win... we'll have to just see.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042911)

Did that happen in 1994 when Fidler's demo was shown to people? Of course not. It wasn't a real product. It was stardust and dreams.

This matters not for the purposes of establishing prior art / originality, though. You don't get to claim "well, I started selling it first" and ignore the works that preceded you on those grounds.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043261)

Every time Steve showed a feature in the iPhone in 2007, I didn't gasp, I thought "My phone does that, though poorly". The iPhone was a good product, but what it did wasn't new. It was just that they made it work. That's commendable, but doesn't make the ideas themselves original.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043671)

When Steve showed the iPhone in 2007 I felt the same.

I then wondered where the fuck all the basic fundamental features every other phone I'd had for at least 6 years prior were, such as MMS support.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (-1, Troll)

evanism (600676) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043491)

I suspect they would have gasped and oooohhh and aahhhhed if Steve had shown a big steaming turd on a plate. Fanbois are the worst of the worst.

Slavishly ignorant, stunningly hooked and ready to buy anything with a logo!

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042601)

I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.

The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)

And for what it's worth, as someone who's used a Xerox Star and Alto, a 1984 Macintosh AND modern UIs, I find the concept of accusing Apple of having just ripped off Xerox and applied no work of their own to be the claims of people who've done little more than look at screenshots. The Star and Alto, ahead of their time as they were, were nothing like a modern GUI to use. Put a modern computer user from 2012 in front of one, and they'll be stuck for finding how to work the thing. Put them in front of a 1984 Macintosh, and almost everything works like we have now.

And the answer to the creator of which should be rewarded? Both. Grand concept work by Fidler, at a time when nought was obvious. Grand work by Apple for actually creative the device that does, in the real world, what tablets had promised to for ages.

For samsung to claim the design of the iPad was "obvious" after seeing Fidler's work, but not to have gone ahead and done the obvious and taken over the world of tablet computing, smacks of outright lies.

Only time it was obvious enough for them to commit to the design was post-iPad. Funny that.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042653)

Apple is plenty-rewarded with their profits.

Regardless of Apple's making it work, we're talking about trademark looks and conceptual functionality. As a designer, if this man did come up with what a tablet should look like and should do, and then if someone else took his work and made it work, that would mean that the someone else has a derivative work.

Hell, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, they had these tablet computers that they walked around with and used for data access and retrieval. They were even called PADD. They had rounded corners. Yes, they were not real. But, as we've seen, a lot of people want to make real things that work like the fake things they see in science fiction. There's no shame in that, but their works are all derivative works at best. They didn't come up with the idea. They just made it work.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042841)

Which is quite irrelevant to the case that Apple's trying to run up the flagpole.

Sadly, they've opened up a can of worms with this- one they didn't want to have opened.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (5, Insightful)

theRunicBard (2662581) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042937)

While I agree with what you've said, as a programmer, I must ask you to never ever say "just made it work" again. We get enough of that shit from management. :)

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043233)

That is PRECISELY why I got out of programming.

boss walks in... "Our biggest competitor just released an update that does xyz. Please have these features added to product abc by the end of the week."

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043011)

They were even called PADD. They had rounded corners. ... Yes, they were not real. But, as we've seen, a lot of people want to make real things that work like the fake things they see in science fiction.

Do yourself a favor and do an image search for PADDs. NONE of them look like an iPad. You will not find one that has the twenty five similarities that the Tab has with the iPad. You're fixating on the rounded corners and the case was about many details, rounded corners being one of them, being duplicated and not just vaguely imitated.

Samsung closely copied Apple. The other hundred tablets out there bear that out,. They did not, for example, copy some other design that Apple happened to copy as well. If I were a stockholder for Samsung I'd be pissed, especially after Google told them the design was too similar..

I really don't have an opinion about whether or not this is substantial enough to be worthy of the two billion or so Apple's demanding (seriously, there's no f'n way the Tab could have caused anything like that amount of damage to Apple), but I do think Samsung's me-too'ism isn't helping themselves and it certainly doesn't help the Android Community who'd like to see a worthwhile competitor to the iPad take off. Why Samsung hasn't been more soundly spanked around here over this whole debacle is beyond me.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043113)

It's impossible to "Vaguely Imitate" a center mounted screen, or a screen made of glass (which is shiny, and transmits light from one side to the other). It is impossible to imitate the color black. It impossible to imitate a rectangle (it simply is or is not a rectangle). It is impossible to imitate quite a few things Apple has design patented, and many of them are obvious. Design patents are an abomination to human culture, and are the lowest form of filth. How is one to make a functioning smartphone or tablet without a screen that transmits light? Glass is so utterly generic, It simply doesn't matter whether it's gorilla glass or not. Using strong glass is not patentable anymore than I could patent using a hardwood floor in my house. Or wood in my baseball bat.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043215)

It's impossible except for the hundred or so other designs that are on the market right now. That number 25... it's pretty important to this discussion.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043385)

What about that number 25? Why not 23 or 42? I don't remember any of those actually appearing in court filings.

Here, have a look at actual complaint [apple.com], this is all that's claimed about design:

41. The following non-functional elements of Apple’s product designs comprise the
product configuration trade dress at issue in this case (the “Apple Product Configuration Trade
Dress”):
                    a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
                    the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
                    as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and
below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the
screen having roughly equal width;
                    as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in
width;
                    a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
                    a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
                    a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and
that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Nope, not about rounded corners.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043669)

Why not 23 or 42? I don't remember any of those actually appearing in court filings.

That's because you were looking for 'rounded corners' and not actually reading what's there. I have no idea why you stopped where you did because the list just kept going. I stopped counting at twenty.

You realllllly must have blinders on to have missed that.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042699)

It doesnt matter if Samsung was influenced by iPad or Fidler's tablet. What matters is Apple's design patent is no longer valid, and Samsung has all the right to copy the iPad and Fidler's tablet.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042751)

No this does not in anyway invalidate apples patent the court must rule on that first.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (5, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042709)

I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.

The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)

It is perfectly reasonable to expect both to be rewarded. What is not reasonable is to reward the creator of the second, working, tablet by blocking any competition that also produces a working tablet with a similar design to the first non-working tablet.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043621)

No it isn't perfectly acceptable for both to be rewarded. In his video, Fielder talks about emergent technologies. Some things naturally come out of the combination of new technology. Why should anyone be able to patent the obvious? It's garbage - and society is hurt by this mindset and attitude.

Now, real inventions, like compression algorithms, noise reduction algorithms, etc. deserve a patent (albeit a very limited life so that society is not hurt), but not garbage like "rounded corners". Anyone that tries to patent such garbage should be "bitch slapped" repeatedly until they admit they are being assholes - regardless of WHO it is (Apple/Samsung/Google/etc). Evil is evil.

Having said that, if Fielder patented something that was significantly different and unlike anything around (ie. a new field or a completely new technology), then that would be fair game for some protection. Apple is NOT EVEN CLOSE to achieving this with its iPad, IMHO.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042725)

You don't understand patent law very well. Being successful at bringing someone else's design concept to market does not allow you to block competitors from creating a knock-off. That's what you need a patent for. But for that, you need to show both novelty and nonobviousness, and it's not enough to be the first one to make it "actually work." If someone had the idea for the design 20 years ago, but not the technology, go ahead and patent the novel technology. But if you are using widely available technology, expect competition.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (4, Insightful)

Guppy (12314) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042727)

I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.

The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)

After thinking about it a bit, this would be my answer:

For the one that came after (and actually works), I see no reason why they shouldn't be rewarded for the effort on the parts that actually made it work. Patents on novel engineering regarding the guts of the device that made it a functioning tablet? No problem.

For the one that came first (and doesn't work), the non-functional mock-up offers only style; the external look and design. Those are the only elements he should get credit for -- but it just so happens that elements of style are among the patents at question in this trial.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (4, Informative)

makomk (752139) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043909)

For the one that came after (and actually works), I see no reason why they shouldn't be rewarded for the effort on the parts that actually made it work. Patents on novel engineering regarding the guts of the device that made it a functioning tablet? No problem.

Of course, Apple didn't actually do most of the novel hardware engineering that made the iPad possible as a functioning tablet - in that regard Samsung actually did more to make the iPad possible than Apple did. The touchscreen display and CPU chip in the iPad are both engineered and built by Samsung.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042753)

I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.

The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)

Oh to be so fucking young and ignorant :) You're shown the design prototype and you complain that it wasn't a working a tablet (this is in the eighties to early nineties). Apple used a simple existing design, added modern components and a lot of good ui/usability still doesn't mean that they own the idea of tablets with rounded corners. Did you know that there were even pre-IPad tablets which failed even though they had somewhat similar design, or were you born after them also?

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042759)

>>>Put them in front of a 1984 Macintosh, and almost everything works like we have now.

Except it doesn't have subfolders like we have now.
Or the ability to multitask more than 1 program.
And no right button menus (like Commodore Amiga and Atari ST).
Users would be frustrated.

BTW it's not the first time a patent was invalidated in court by showing the existence of prior work. In 2007 Novell and Red Hat Linux jointly fended off a patent infringement suit for virtual desktops - and several people helped in finding cases of prior art. The most interesting one of all? A carefully restored and working 1985 Commodore Amiga demonstrated to the judge and jury..... Basically they demonstrated how the Amiga could have multiple desktops and screens.

POINT: A patent is invalidated when a piece of working hardware predates the issuance date. Apple can not claim a patent on the rounded-corners of the iPad if a piece of hardware already existed with that concept.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042787)

POINT: A patent is invalidated when a piece of working hardware predates the issuance date.

This isn't working hardware.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (4, Insightful)

Mattcelt (454751) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043043)

The point of contention for which this was presented is the design patent; the inner workings are irrelevant (cf. here [wikipedia.org]).

Apple is seeking to prevent Samsung (and, by extension, most other tablet manufacturers, if the case succeeds) from selling anything that resembles their design (namely, the rounded corners, form factor, etc.) based on the idea that they came up with an original, non-obvious design for the iPad and should be awarded exclusive rights to it. Samsung's evidence points to the idea that Apple were beaten to the design by almost 20 years, and were exposed to it then, and therefore their idea is neither original nor non-obvious, thus invalidating their patent.

Again, none of this requires "working" hardware. Patents don't require it, except for perpetual motion machines; for those, a working prototype is mandatory [wikipedia.org].

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (2)

BronsCon (927697) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043099)

If its purpose is to demonstrate a design concept and it demonstrates that design concept, it's working.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043125)

the patent isn't on the hardware, it's on the shape of the hardware.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042781)

I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.

So let me get this straight: Apple claims the "look and feel" of Samsung's tablet is infringing, and it's one of the major reasons they're suing. This is despite the fact that the two devices actually function noticably different. Now we have evidence of a much earlier concept that Apple CLEARLY took a lot of design cues from. The earlier device also does not function the same way (or at all, really). But now that APPLE is the one copying, suddenly the difference in functionality makes copying design perfectly OK? Am I understanding this correctly?

Enjoy that crow, you hypocritical, koolaid-drinking nutjobs...

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042827)

Doesn't matter if the design patent is over turned or not Samsung is gonna lose this one big time. The is tones of evidence(Including written statements by Samsung) that Samsung intentionally copied the apple designs including, design, icons, packaging, etc.

Face it Samesung is fucked big time.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042979)

Are you intentionally being obtuse? If the patents are overturned, there is no case. It doesnt have to go to the jury, the judge will herself throw the case out.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043523)

I have a feeling you'll see something similar to Oracle vs. Google.

The jury will be asked to determine whether Samsung copied Apple, assuming that the patent is valid. If the jury comes back and says, "Nope. They didn't," then the whole thing is over. We're done. If the jury comes back and says, "Yup, they did," (and, personally, I agree that they will) then the judge decides whether or not those patents are actually valid. If the judge decides that the patents aren't valid, then the whole thing is over and we're done, regardless of what the jury said. It's okay to copy things that don't have patent protection.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043009)

> But now that APPLE is the one copying, suddenly the difference in functionality makes copying design perfectly OK? Am I understanding this correctly?

No, you're putting everything in a black and white box of GOOD or BAD. You're reading someone else's comments through that two-tone lens of yours.

So no, you're not understanding it correctly, or at all. Learn some reading comprehension, take a good year or two to absorb and practice it, then come back.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (4, Insightful)

BronsCon (927697) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043081)

I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.

The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)

Since it's a matter of trade dress (read: design) I'd say whoever designed it first. That would be the piece of plastic with newspaper stuck to it. Nice attempt at redirection, though.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043395)

Samsung sold tablet computers before Apple. The hardware did not get to the point to manufacture a low weight tablet overnight. If you actually cared to look at the news during the time a lot of people were working on tablets and had functional prototypes before the iPad was announced.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043481)

I notice one of them actually works, the other is a piece of plastic with a print of a newspaper stuck to it.

The creator of which one should be rewarded? (think carefully before you answer)

The creator of the idea should be rewarded for the idea.
The creator of the design should be rewarded for the design.
The creator of the functionality should be rewarded for the functionality.
The creator of the implementation should be rewarded for the implementation.
The creator of X should be rewarded for X.
Any more difficult questions?

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (2)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043819)

I am the creator of identical copies and thus should be rewarded for the identical copies.
That means that all must be rewarded.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042617)

Whoa, those corners are round!!!

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042633)

This is the best news yet from this crazy trial. Of course, you still never know what a jury will decide or how they'll view it. This trial may come down to the jury instructions.

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043165)

C'mon, that obviously Photoshopped...everyone knows Apple invented rounded corners!

Re:It's like Palo Alto all over again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042643)

Yeah except Apple had a license agreement with Xerox. So... not Palo Alto over again.

Trial testimony is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042419)

This is almost old news. The trial testimony is over and both sides (Apple/Samsung) are too each commence a 2 hour closing argument statement on Tuesday.

Can we just agree (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042423)

Can we just agree that neither company were all that original and that the progression to today's design was a natural and obvious path given the technology that became possible?

Or are we going to start calling in the Science fiction writers next? Because what ever Samsung or Apple might of designed an SF writer likely wrote about it first.

Re:Can we just agree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042461)

Obviously not. The only thing that has changed is nowdays, n
obody cares.

Re:Can we just agree (0)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042469)

natural and obvious path given the technology that became possible?

I'll agree partially. The path we choose was one natural and obvious path. I'm not sure it was the only one. N9 / MeeGo proves there was an alternative path. As IMHO do devices like Samsung's own F700 prove the path they were on with a focus on PIM type functionality rather than web type functionality.

Re:Can we just agree (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043423)

As screen resolution and bandwidth increased the web functionality would become more pervasive. Windows Mobile phones already existed and had browsers. Even so called dumb phones usually had WAP browsers.

Re:Can we just agree (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042641)

>>>Or are we going to start calling in the Science fiction writers next?

We could just show a still image from TNG with Wesley holding his school PAD. Not only does it have a similar anme to iPad, but it's also rectangle with rounded corners : http://www.newfangled.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/2/516f36353ced7a44696bdaaffbc0f7f0/misc/star_trek_padd_3.jpg [newfangled.com]

Re:Can we just agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042861)

How is something that looks nothing like an iPad, evidence of anything?

Re:Can we just agree (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042939)

It's evidence that the notion of a flat tablet-like device with a screen flush fit with the bezel, rounded corners, and a touchscreen, is self-evident due to form following function.

Re:Can we just agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043553)

Your 'evidence' proves that it's a trivial matter to make a tablet with its own distinct look. It actually hurts Samsung's case!

The dumbshits with mod-points to blow can't seriously claim that looks just like an iPad.

Re:Can we just agree (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043591)

Galaxy Tab doesn't look "just like an iPad", either. But Apple claims that it looks similar enough - and having seen it, I would be inclined to agree. This prototype, similarly, does not of course look "just like an iPad", but it seems to have all design elements in it on which Apple has previously claimed design patents.

We'll see how this goes in court now. Given that Apple resisted introducing this evidence to court as hard as they could, it seems they're worried. Time to fetch the popcorn.

Re:Can we just agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043749)

Yes, it does. It looks almost exactly like an iPad ESPECIALLY when sitting next to a PADD from Star Trek.

That photo clearly summarizes the conflict of this case. It doesn't show. at all, the absurdity of one bit of it. Well.. I take that back, it does show that it's easy enough to make a tablet that nobody would mistake for an iPad. I mean, if an Illustrator can do it in under a week....

Re:Can we just agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043083)

It looks [youtube.com] just like it. :)

Re:Can we just agree (-1, Offtopic)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043069)

When I hold my Tab next to my iPad, I see two devices that look as though they could be from the same product line. It's like I'm holding the 'iPad Widescreen" Even the bevelling around the edges is the same. I don't think you could count 20+ vague similarities on the PADD to the iPad, let alone get the dimensions on each of those details like what happened with Samsung.

We're talking about design patents, here. This image doesn't do anything at all. The PADD doesn't even have a centered screen!

Re:Can we just agree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043283)

Star Fleet Technical Manual, early 1980s.
Detailed technical drawings of everything you ever saw on the show as well as a whole lot that you didn't, quite a compilation of sci-fi geekery.
There's a tablet in there.
Believe there was a stylus also.
William Shatner could testify like nobody else ;)

Re:Can we just agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043501)

>>>Or are we going to start calling in the Science fiction writers next?

We could just show a still image from TNG with Wesley holding his school PAD. Not only does it have a similar anme to iPad, but it's also rectangle with rounded corners : http://www.newfangled.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/2/516f36353ced7a44696bdaaffbc0f7f0/misc/star_trek_padd_3.jpg [newfangled.com]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the PAD picture is actually from a DS9 episode, it has Chief O'Briens scribblings on it from when an afasia-virus has just struck him.

Re:Can we just agree (2)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043769)

A black 1:4:9 black rectangle is not the same as a white one with rounded corners. Sorry.

Tim Cook's dick is caught in his zipper ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042431)

It hurts doesn't it, Timmy ?

Maybe it's time your company takes the ass whipping it deserves.

You lost me when you insisted that my OS X device mimic some
fucking iOS device, buddy. That's bullshit and anyone with a brain
knows it.

When a judge is forced to... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042517)

When a judge, who has shown their bias already, feels compelled to go against their own bias, then Samsung must have a pretty strong case.

This old prototype (1, Offtopic)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042585)

It didn't happen to look like a Newton, did it?

Re:This old prototype (2, Interesting)

Eyeball97 (816684) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042847)

Are you perhaps referring to the Apple PDA (August '93) that they shamelessly copied from the Casio/Tandy Zoomer (June '92)

Technology 1 : Patent Troll {Apple} 0 (0)

mikematic (2644521) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042683)

A great news to the technology world. Next step is shaking up the patent office and getting rid of the clowns approving silly patents submitted by Apple.

Koh is pissed (4, Funny)

tpstigers (1075021) | about a year and a half ago | (#41042771)

Every time I read something new about this case Judge Koh is more pissed off. I think everybody's going to get spanked on this one.

Re:Koh is pissed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043421)

... everybody's going to get spanked ...

The judge is not there to judge the lawyers. And barring them from the case, while a fast means of sending a "don't fuck with me" message, probably creates more work for the judge.

Apple is for cunts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41042893)

Anyone who buys/uses/supports apple products is a CUNT. Fuck off and die, cunt.

Re:Apple is for cunts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043071)

Who you fucking calling 'cunt', cunt!

(Obligatory tribute to Derek & Clive)

even (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043329)

even the European Union had a news tablet designed by acorn...
Apple hasn't ever invented anything at any time in their entire history, real american innovation like digital video from the BBC in england (as is the case with almost everything Americans claim to have invented, actually always came from Europe...)

sorry, the Russians were there before you every single time... (from the nuclear bomb to space travel, you'd have to thank the Nazi's for those...)

Re:even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043341)

Russians & Germans typo.

Re:even (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043479)

sorry, the Russians were there before you every single time... (from the nuclear bomb to space travel, you'd have to thank the Nazi's for those...)

Put down the bong and pick up a history book.

STNG (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043355)

Star Trek Next Generation always had tablets. To say Apple came up with the idea is ludicrous. I was happy when Ipad type devices started coming out, because everything that gets us closer to Star Trek is a good thing in my book.

Re:STNG (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043859)

microwave ovens (TOS)
protein-based food analogs (Pot Noodle? Precursor to food replicators, mayhap?) (TOS "The Trouble With Tribbles": KIRK: "This... is my chicken sandwich and coffee.")
cellphones/PMRs (TOS)
tricorders (TOS)
head-mounted direct-to-retina projection displays (TNG "The Game")

just off the top of my head.

Did I miss something? (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043419)

I read the article linked to in the summary, but did not notice any place where it mentioned the grounds that Apple attempted to use to get the evidence excluded.

I mean, aren't you required to give a judge a reason to not admit potentially relevant evidence?

And really, I'm compelled to wonder what possible reason they could have given that they seriously would think had even the slightest chance of flying...

Re:Did I miss something? (2)

jisatsusha (755173) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043747)

Reminds me of that line from Liar Liar:

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!

Re:Did I miss something? (2)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043847)

I believe it's because Samsung didn't include the physical device in its list of evidence, only the video testimony of Fidler. Apple's argument is that it did not have access to the physical device and has had no time to prepare a rebuttal. Apple didn't bother disputing the Fidler evidence because it obviously didn't believe the video testimony to be particularly compelling, but now I suspect it wishes it had spent more time on this.

Let me be the grumpy person for a day (3, Interesting)

Cochonou (576531) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043533)

Can we stop already with these Apple/Samsung trial stories ?

It's not that I'm not interested in the subject: I believe its outcome will have profound implications on the smartphone/tablet landscape (hopefully for the best).
However, I am totally uninterested in every trivial aspect and "twist" of the trial, especially when I'm sure that slashdot editors/firehose cherry pick these stories, and fail to give us the greater picture of the process. Can't we just wait for the court ruling, and have a GOOD summary of it, for once ?

Biased or not? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41043579)

Well if Judge Koh is as biased against Samsung as so many people were insinuating, then Apple must have an *expletively* good case for her to throw out this request.

captcha: biasing

don't wanna be a hipster (5, Insightful)

XeroSine (1067136) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043589)

I REALLY hope samsung wins this one....I'd rather not have to carry an iphone...My Android device is a wonderful piece of work and no Macintosh product will EVER usurp it....because i can mod mine without breaking its warranty.

The more i read stories (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#41043911)

The more i read stories about patent cases the more clear it becomes that the people who decide what can be patented are being bought and paid for. Nothing else makes since.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...