Samsung Cites Kubrick's '2001' Film as Prior Art Defense Against Apple's Injunction Request

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 23, 2011.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    As we've noted in a number of reports in recent months, Apple and Samsung are currently engaged in a high-stakes intellectual property battle, with Apple seeking injunctions in a number of countries to prevent Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab and other Android-based products. Apple claims that Samsung has infringed upon Apple's intellectual property rights by copying the designs of popular Apple devices such as the iPhone and iPad.

    [​IMG]


    In a curious turn of events noted by FOSS Patents, Samsung has turned to the film industry in its defense against Apple's request for an injunction in the United States.

    According to court filings, Samsung has presented a scene from Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey as evidence of prior art that should invalidate Apple's design claims on the iPad. From the filing:
    The patent in question is a design patent covering the ornamental design of the iPad, with Apple claiming that the Samsung Galaxy Tab is substantially identical to that design. By pointing to an example of a similar design made public in 1968, even if not an actual functioning tablet device, Samsung hopes to demonstrate that there is little variation possible when designing a tablet and show that the general concept used by Apple for the iPad has actually been circulating for decades.

    Article Link: Samsung Cites Kubrick's '2001' Film as Prior Art Defense Against Apple's Injunction Request
     
  2. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
  3. MultiMediaWill, Aug 23, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2011

    MultiMediaWill macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Apple better watch out or they might turn into an illegal monopoly.

    Also this BS has to stop. Competition only benefits the consumer. Apple should just leave everyone alone and focus on even better products and upgrades.
     
  4. aprofetto8 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    #4
    Steve Jobs just needs to play stupid and pretend he's never seen the movie!
     
  5. joneill55 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    #6
    Wow, those Samsung Lawyers must be on some really good drugs :)
     
  6. ridley182 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Location:
    The OC
    #7
    Samsung is a sad, sad company.

    I fully expect them to come out with a bunch of iMac clones if they buy HP's PC division. I mean they already ripped off the Macbook Airs.
     
  7. Speedtoy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #8
    Those arent tablets...did anyone in that scene pick one up? Move it?

    Its a display table.
     
  8. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #9
    While I am not implying that it is impossible for Apple to become such a thing, can you give some evidence? The case against Microsoft involved quite a few specific anticompetitive behaviors (some of which are similar to how Google treats the OEMs).

    Patent reform is a serious issue, lets not muddy the waters by throwing around side issues.
     
  9. Matariel macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    #10
    Wow, that is genius.

    Kudos to Samsung's lawyers, I don't think you can get more prior than that.
     
  10. Mars478 macrumors 6502a

    Mars478

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    NYC, NY
  11. thevofl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
  12. Joe-Diver macrumors 6502

    Joe-Diver

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    #13
    Steve: Stop selling the Galaxy Tab!

    TAB10.1: I'm sorry Steve, I'm afraid I can't do that.

    Steve: What's the problem?

    TAB10.1: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

    Steve: What are you talking about, TAB?

    TAB10.1: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
     
  13. Gen macrumors 6502a

    Gen

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    #14
    Good point Samsung :)
    Glad to see that 2001 is still relevant :cool:
     
  14. delonh92 macrumors member

    delonh92

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Location:
    Liverpool NY
    #15
    Really samsung. Their is so much ways you can make a tablet look different.
    BB playbook, Asus transformer. Acer Iconia, Toshiba Thrive. All are different designs.
     
  15. cmaier macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #16
    Even if true, how does this help them? Isn't Apple asserting trademarks and trade dress (in addition to design patents)? If so, prior use is no defense.
     
  16. BKF macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #17
    I think it's great that their source is a YouTube clip, surely copied and uploaded without permission. A nervy way to wage an intellectual property battle!
     
  17. PeterQVenkman macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    #18
    Nope. Limits of visual effects (and budget) at the time meant they kept their tablets on the table and their hands/heads/bodies out of way.

    OTOH - I love seeing disputes coming up against prior art from science fiction. It's a reassuring thing to see that the predicted future of the past is coming true. :)
     
  18. al256 macrumors 6502a

    al256

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    #19
    Desperate times call for desperate measures...
     
  19. DTphonehome macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    #20
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

    I'm no lawyer, but how does a pretend device prove prior art?
     
  20. nylonsteel macrumors 6502a

    nylonsteel

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #21
    re samsung 2001 claims

    samsung you make me laugh

    next you will claim patent dispute ofver star trek (tos) devices

    tos communicators = cell phones
    tos spock's data disks = memery cards

    samsung dont get aapl too mad or else aapl will unleash the full wrath of thunderbolt on you ($40 cable not included)
     
  21. dgree03 macrumors 65816

    dgree03

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
  22. lilo777 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #23
    But why should they? Because you don't like it?
     
  23. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #24
    The table is obviously meant to be vacant underneath given it is a table for eating and the occupants' legs must go under it. Furthermore, the edges of these tablets can be seen hanging over the edges of the table at odd angles. The combination of these two facts are there to make it clear that they are mobile tablets and not fixed displays.

    At the time of filming, they would have only had large CRTs to do this shot with, so the actors could not move them. They had to create the illusion by placing them in an environment where it would not make sense for them to not be tablets.
     
  24. Matariel macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    #25
    They're tablets, you can clearly see them in the close-up shots, even on the wide angle you can see the corners hanging off the side of the table.
    They're never moved on-screen because of the technology they used to make them work, 2001 was made prior to blue/green screen technology.
    As far as I remember, they actually used film projectors, and projected the image directly on the screens.
     

Share This Page