No, my argument has been the same from the beginning since the pictures were adapters for a 30 pin dock for Apple thin devices and adapters for a PDMI dock for thin devices from Samsung.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Requests Sanctions Against Samsung Delivering Default Victory in Design Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, my argument has been the same from the beginning since the pictures were adapters for a 30 pin dock for Apple thin devices and adapters for a PDMI dock for thin devices from Samsung.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this. The person to whom I responded claimed that a jury "CAN'T" see anything out of court. I was being very explicit in pointing out that a jury might be exposed to something outside of court *despite* the best efforts of its members. It appears (thankfully) in this case that they weren't, despite the big media splash that had the excluded evidence plastered all over various news sites.
It isn't a matter of "can't" or of not being able to trust them to do their best not to. If the jury *had* been exposed to the excluded evidence through Samsung's 'conveniently timed' release, that would have been a very bad thing. The fact that they weren't just makes it a risky play for Samsung that happens not to have come back to bite them. (Yet. The judge did say she's not letting this go without a full investigation, but she wants to get the trial done with, rather than letting these sorts of maneuvers derail it.)
Apple used this colour, shape, iconographic combination for their DVI-VGA cables in 2002.
In the case of Apple accessories, usually Apple creates the original design style with their hardware products, and then manufacturers of accessories create their own products in a similar style so as to be visually consistent and aesthetically compatible.
Apple used this colour, shape, iconographic combination for their DVI-VGA cables in 2002.
![mac35509-003.jpg]()
In the case of Apple accessories, usually Apple creates the original design style with their hardware products, and then manufacturers of accessories create their own products in a similar style so as to be visually consistent and aesthetically compatible.
I wasn't accusing Apple of copying, just providing an example of similar products in response to earlier posts.
I wasn't accusing Apple of copying, just providing an example of similar products in response to earlier posts.
I think the word is... intimating.
But still... I'd concur that there is a difference between creating accessories in a style that is complimentary to Apple's products, and doing what Samsung have allegedly been doing with certain products of theirs.
I think the word is... intimating.
No, I wasn't intimating anything. If you go back to my original post...
The poster I was responded to had shown some examples of designs nothing like those used by Apple but they were a lot bigger and bulkier. I just happened to have those two similar adaptors at hand.
My apologies of course if that is not the case.
It just seemed from the sentence below that it would appear that you were of the opinion that Apple did copy the style from SendStation. When it would appear that SendStation created their iPod to FireWire adapter in a style that was already established by Apple 2 years earlier.
OllyW said:
My apologies of course if that is not the case.
It just seemed from the sentence below that it would appear that you were of the opinion that Apple did copy the style from SendStation. When it would appear that SendStation created their iPod to FireWire adapter in a style that was already established by Apple 2 years earlier.
Again, that was in response to the other member's post.
SendStation had obviously used white plastic to match the style of other iPod accessories, as were most 3rd party manufacturers at the time. I was struck by the similar designs of the 2 adaptors. Apple adaptors of that period had a wire connecting the two plugs/sockets, as show in your photo.
Last edited:
They did carry it around, both in the book and the movie.
1. Bowman carrying his personal Newspad down the centrifuge ladder:
2. Moments later, Bowman randomly plopping his Newspad onto the table, just before the famous scene of them watching their news interview:
I agree with you that it seems more of a form of TeleText or the MiniTel, which Jobs loved so much.
Yes, I know, but in context of the overall conversation, I really do not think that was an unreasonable conclusion to come to, hence my posting of the Apple adapter.
But the context was misleading (though not deliberately in any way I should add, I don't think you were either aware of, or remembered that Apple had previously created the style of adapter), but by doing so inadvertently created an impression that in 2004 SendStation created this white, rounded, rectangular form, with simple iconography and then a number of years later Apple created something similar, whereas it would appear that Apple simply adapted their original adapter design for a different purpose... hence my posting of the Apple adapter.
It was a display cable. For laptops. To be plugged into external displays, of course it's going to have a cable, else you'd have to plug your PowerBook into the back of your Cinema Display.
The colour, shape and design of the plastic bit at the end is the important bit.
Anyway, it's really not important, and I didn't mean it as a slight on you either.
G
Excellent catch.
I noticed in the scene where we see Bowman jogging around the centrifuge, that the table they later eat at, there's no sign of them on the table either, so they are at least portable.
Personally, I think that's basically what it is, a portable screen with a teletext type ability, something that still would have seemed unfathomably futuristic in the mid 1960's.
From your quotes about how it was envisaged to operate and what I've seen of the device, it was capable of receiving television broadcast images. It had buttons numbered 0-9 and a series of codes printed on the back, and there appears to be no other other way of interacting with it other than those 10 buttons. It had to be plugged into another computer to access documents (presumably Wi-Fi wasn't predicted by either Kubrick or Clark which is kind of ironic when you really think about it ) so it therefore appeared to have no ability to save documents for example nor store them either.
Does this make it a valid example of prior art of a personal tablet computer? Personally I don't think so.
G
In the case of Design patent D889 ? Sure it is valid prior art as the patent does not define what it is a design for, only an electronic device :
http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889
Last I checked, those NewsPad are electronic devices, and they have quite a similar design to this design patent. Only they date back from the 60s, while this particular D889 patent was filed for in 2004.
Why wouldn't it be valid prior art ? Remember, we're discussing purely design aesthetics, not function in this particular claim for the case.
Excellent catch.
Thanks! As luck would have it, "2001" was just on cable
You know, you're right. Clarke predicted orbiting comm satellites, but failed to predict home networks. Who could predict that they could be affordable by the common person?
This reminds me of an early 1990s report I worked on for a telecom about what the future would be like with ubiquitous broadband available.
We correctly predicted mass adoption of the Internet, smartphones, tablets, video on demand, widely popular email, and cloud storage for multimedia.
Where we totally missed, was that we thought this would all come from the phone companies. Who else could afford all the computing and storage power? We simply could not conceive of hundreds of third parties and dot coms springing up with free email, media, and storage.
Lesson learned. I rarely try to predict the future in detail now
Apparently Apple thought otherwise, considering the motions they filed to get it (and other examples) barred from the trial.
Because the NewsPad, is a different shape, in a different format, with a pronounced lipped edge at the bottom which contain 10 buttons.
In other words, it bears little resemblance to an iPad. Perhaps had Samsung designed their tablet in such a shape, they probably wouldn't be in the situation they find themselves in now?
Yep, even the word Wireless was prevalent at the time, Arthur C, even submitted that article to a magazine called Wireless World.
This reminds me of an early 1990s report I worked on for a telecom about what the future would be like with ubiquitous broadband available.
We correctly predicted mass adoption of the Internet, smartphones, tablets, video on demand, widely popular email, and cloud storage for multimedia.
Where we totally missed, was that we thought this would all come from the phone companies. Who else could afford all the computing and storage power? We simply could not conceive of hundreds of third parties and dot coms springing up with free email, media, and storage.
Lesson learned. I rarely try to predict the future in detail now
There's a book on 2001, called 2001: Filming The Future by Piers Bizony, and it's brilliant. There's an article in it about Kubrick & Clarke's predictions, what they got right, what they got wrong and a fascinating insight into the whole process of 1960's thinking and futurology. Well worth a read... if you can source a copy.
Why risk it? I have no idea...
"Good artists copy, great artists steal...and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas"
-Steve Jobs
http://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU
-Steve Jobs
http://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU
So since the iPhone is the latest "great idea", Samsung is a great artist for stealing it!
You can't patent ideas, you patent things. If a car company decides to make a rain-sensing windshield wiper, that doesn't mean that other companies are precluded from doing so, just that they can't take that particular implementation of it (they have to design their own system for achieving the desired result).
There's no question that companies steal ideas - that essentially defines competition in the technology world (company A has a device that scans and prints, company B has a separate scanner and printer but combining their functionality will allow them to effectively compete) however, once you cross the line by taking things wholesale* then you run the risk of infringement.
* And that doesn't mean a 100% exact copy, just enough copied elements to cause confusion.
D889 is not an iPad and the Apple claim is not about the iPad, it is about D889. The newspad in 2001, both as described in the book and shown in the movie is the same shape (rectangle with rounded edges) as the D889 depicts.
Anyway, it's moot, Fiddler managed to do some expert testimony for Samsung with his Knight Ridder concept from 1994. This is the same prior art cited in the UK and Dutch case that got Apple's motions for injunctions overturned and even a ruling of non-infringement for community design reg '604 (europeen version of D889).
So really, I don't get what you're arguing here. The reason it wasn't admitted in california was tardiness to submit it as evidence for invalidating the patent (it was submitted initially in a vague way that didn't make it clear Samsung was going to use it as a prior art example).
Apple fought tooth and nail to get it rejected because it has hurt them in other jurisdictions already.
Fail at quoting much...
What did Steve Jobs really say about this in full for context...
There really is no point in this, because that jobs quote is one of the most taken out of context quotes in history, and it's sad because it only takes a second of extra reading to know exactly what he was talking about: innovation.
Trying to convince someone otherwise is futile though. To them, it means Apple just steals stuff.
It's really there to expose the two faced stance some people take when it comes to Apple. If Apple uses someone elses idea and expands upon it, they were "inspired" by the competition. They give them a pass because apparently they're innovators or something.
If another company does the same with Apple's ideas, as in takes it, expands upon it, and adds it into their OS/platform, they're nothing more than thieves stealing off Apple's good work. It doesn't matter how different it ends up being, they still copied Apple.
Case in point, I've seen quite a few people here call Android an iOS clone, despite the fact that the two platforms have only the smallest features in common. If an iOS feature ends up in Android, all kinds of hell breaks loose around here. The opposite? Well...that's okay. Because Apple are innovators.
The whole industry revolves around people expanding upon others ideas, yet we still get into the same copy copy copy copy arguments day in and day out as if Apple invents everything out of thin air, and everyone else are jackals tearing at the scraps of their good ideas.
I'm talking solely about the quote and it's meaning. Jobs was not saying "we steal other peoples stuff" and twirling his mustache. What he was saying is that Apple builds upon ideas that exist and makes them better ie innovates. Whether that statement is true or not and whether Apple innovates or not, was not my point. My point was Jobs wasn't saying "muhahaha we are thieves!!"
It is constantly taken out of context, no matter how many times you explain to people what he's talking about.
It's taken out of context on both sides of the fence. It's a dumb quote with ole Steve trying, as usual, to ride the "we're artists here at Apple" angle for all it's worth.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. There's a news story going on all the sites showing that Judge Koh is fed up with the whole petty ordeal, and is about two steps away from lobbing off heads. The most recent fiasco in a case absolutely filled with them is Apple's lawyers submitting 75 pages of objections, which prompts a rather apt "are you on crack" response.
No one is coming out of this one unscathed. There are going to be no winners in this case.
Lucy Koh is Korean descent
Interesting, according to wiki, judge Lucy Koh is korean descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh
Interesting, according to wiki, judge Lucy Koh is korean descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh
She's Korean? I THINK WE'VE FOUND OUR SMOKING GUN, PEOPLE! GOOD THING YOU BROUGHT THAT UP! I COULD TELL SHE WAS ASIAN BY HER LAST NAME AT ALL!