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

[Pedromperez]

Maybe

I think Samsung is trying to prove that they inspired their tablet in the design of the movie not of the ipad

 

[divinox]

I think Samsung is trying to prove that they inspired their tablet in the design of the movie not of the ipad

very unlikely.

 

[farmboy]

I'm no biblical scholar (far from it), but I can think of at least one much older example of using a tablet of modestly similar form factor, though far more limited in capabilities.

I'd love to see the lawyers debating the 10 commandments as prior art!

Find the Ark of the Covenant, you find the prior art. The defense now calls assignee Mr. Moses to the stand...reserve the right to call assignor Mr. Yahweh

 

[morespce54]

Yes, the issue of course being that the remnants of these are still under lock and key, pending examination by top men.

Also, not unlike the iPhone4, I heard there were durability and shattering issues with the V1 product....

No true. I saw it on eBay a few days ago!

 

[BaldiMac]

The case is about a community design, not a patent. As such, searching a patent database seems a bit dumb.

You do realize there is more than one case involved here, right? The article in the OP is about the US case. The injunction in the EU case was based on a community design document, but there are patent claims as well.

 

[divinox]

You do realize there is more than one case involved here, right? The article in the OP is about the US case. The injunction in the EU case was based on a community design document, but there are patent claims as well.

Ah ok, then im the daft one. Hard to keep up with all this nonsense flying around. Anyway, my bad. Ill blame it on my fever.

 

[ppilone]

I'm excited for the day where Back to the Future II is used as prior art. Those will be exciting times.

 

[cmaier]

So would this mean that if at some time in the future someone developed a matter to energy converter or faster than light transport technology, they could not patent such inventions? What then is the point of spending research dollars developing technology; it is almost infinitely less expensive to copy what someone else is already doing. Too bad if that meant that the drive to further advance technology was lost.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

 

[Optheduim]

??

I'm not entirely clear on why they are suing over the "shell" of another tablet anyway! I mean, all tablets pretty much look the same. I have an iPad, big poppa has an HP P.O.S. and my 95 year old grandmother calls them both a flat computer!!!

**but really? they brought in a really good, but really old movie???? so when somebody makes a new bluetooth device that is metallic will the bring in a scene from star trek?

Really? Beam me the frig up scotty!!!

 

[xraydoc]

I know this thread is already 13 pages, but I just have to say -

How is a fictional product prior art? The inventor of the hover board can't claim a patent (or patents) because some sci-fi movie once showed something similar (that didn't actually exist)?

I guess airport backscatter machine designs can't be patented because "Total Recall" showed an airport x-ray scanner people walked through. I guess CT and MRI scanner technologies can't be patented because Dr. McCoy used a medical scanner on TV. And all flying car patents are totally dead because George Jetson and Hana-Barbera own all that! And I seem to recall some kind of memory modules also used in "2001" which I presume then nullifies the patients and licensing costs of CF and SD memory cards, too, right? Or watches with communication systems since 007 and Dick Tracy have dibs on those.

I'm NOT suggesting Apple is right in claiming that a flat rectangular slate with a touch screen is their exclusive property, but I am suggesting that Samsung's ploy here is a pretty far stretch.

And IF by some miracle this defense actually works, then just about any tech company can kiss their precious inventions goodbye!

 

[Oletros]

You do realize there is more than one case involved here, right? The article in the OP is about the US case. The injunction in the EU case was based on a community design document, but there are patent claims as well.

Yes, but the zdnet article linked was about the community design case so searching for EU patents is not necessary

I know this thread is already 13 pages, but I just have to say -

How is a fictional product prior art? The inventor of the hover board can't claim a patent (or patents) because some sci-fi movie once showed something similar (that didn't actually exist)?

I guess airport backscatter machine designs can't be patented because "Total Recall" showed an airport x-ray scanner people walked through. I guess CT and MRI scanner technologies can't be patented because Dr. McCoy used a medical scanner on TV. And all flying car patents are totally dead because George Jetson and Hana-Barbera own all that! And I seem to recall some kind of memory modules also used in "2001" which I presume then nullifies the patients and licensing costs of CF and SD memory cards, too, right? Or watches with communication systems since 007 and Dick Tracy have dibs on those.

I'm NOT suggesting Apple is right in claiming that a flat rectangular slate with a touch screen is their exclusive property, but I am suggesting that Samsung's ploy here is a pretty far stretch.

And IF by some miracle this defense actually works, then just about any tech company can kiss their precious inventions goodbye!

There's a big difference between utility or function patents and design patents

 

[Oletros]

Duplicated

 

[divinox]

I know this thread is already 13 pages, but I just have to say -

How is a fictional product prior art? The inventor of the hover board can't claim a patent (or patents) because some sci-fi movie once showed something similar (that didn't actually exist)?

I guess airport backscatter machine designs can't be patented because "Total Recall" showed an airport x-ray scanner people walked through. I guess CT and MRI scanner technologies can't be patented because Dr. McCoy used a medical scanner on TV. And all flying car patents are totally dead because George Jetson and Hana-Barbera own all that! And I seem to recall some kind of memory modules also used in "2001" which I presume then nullifies the patients and licensing costs of CF and SD memory cards, too, right? Or watches with communication systems since 007 and Dick Tracy have dibs on those.

I'm NOT suggesting Apple is right in claiming that a flat rectangular slate with a touch screen is their exclusive property, but I am suggesting that Samsung's ploy here is a pretty far stretch.

And IF by some miracle this defense actually works, then just about any tech company can kiss their precious inventions goodbye!

Next time read the thread instead of vasting time writing things up. Your question has been answered over and over again.

 

[divinox]

Yes, but the zdnet article linked was about the community design case so searching for EU patents is not necessary

Ah, so even in my fevered state i actually got it right after all. Yay!

 

[kdarling]

You do realize there is more than one case involved here, right? The article in the OP is about the US case. The injunction in the EU case was based on a community design document, but there are patent claims as well.

There are three cases.

1) The original EU injunction in Dusseldorf that made all the news (and the topic of that mistaken ZDNet article) ... which is about the Community Design and iPad packaging. Basically, trade dress alone.

2) The Netherlands request, which involves (1) plus some (software, I believe) patents such as the slide-to-unlock.

3) The US lawsuit, which IIRC like (2) is about trade dress and I believe mostly software patents.

Gotta go out; will look closer at (3) when I get back.

 

[1239689]

-

 

[MacDarcy]

So by your logic, Apples and Oranges are the same?

Hey now. Im just having fun. Not taking sides. I am a total Apple head. I just think this lawsuit and counter by Samsung is funny thats all. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Personally, i think Apple is wasting their time. The whole thing is a bit silly. Apple is absolutely CRUSHING the competition. Nothing to worry about. Nobody can touch Apple's design...nor its seemless hardware/software integration.

 

[AdrianWerner]

Great job Samsung.
And for all people that are whining it's a movie or that they aren't holding the devices - Samsung lawyers are just pointing out very early design of such device. There are many others actual products that looked like that which shipped years , sometimes decades, before iPad was released. Heck....all digital photo frames look like that. There's simply not many other ways you can design a damn tablet.

----------

How is a fictional product prior art? The inventor of the hover board can't claim a patent (or patents) because some sci-fi movie once showed something similar (that didn't actually exist)?

Actually they can. That's what broken in patent system nowadays. You can actually patent an idea, without showing working prototype.

 

[*LTD*]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8L1)

Except the "prior art" is imaginary. It's a movie prop in a science fiction film.

It's funny that Samsung thinks any court should take this seriously.

 

[oldtimer2011]

Another example

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/28/futurist-predicted-the-ipad-in-1994-video/

 

[MacinDoc]

Sigh, this errenous reasoning has been refuted over and over again.
You can't patent a simple concept or idea of a technology, certainly not a hypothetical technology, what you see in sci-fi movies is just that, ideas. If someone actually invents the technology that allows for those things to happen, that invention can certainly be patented.
This case doesn't deal with the working technology of the iPad, of which 2001 describes nothing about. It's about the design concept, which was clearly established prior to the iPad if you look at 2001 and other, even real world, sources. That is prior art.
Apple has simply used existing (prior art) design concepts, claimed it to be their own and are sueing others that does the same thing.

Yes, of course, you're right, this is a patent on the physical appearance of the iPad. As strange as it seems, Samsung may have a point here.

 

[Oletros]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8L1)

Except the "prior art" is imaginary. It's a movie prop in a science fiction film.

It's funny that Samsung thinks any court should take this seriously.

Will still be funny if court takes it into account?

 

[AdrianWerner]

Will still be funny if court takes it into account?

It will be both sensible AND funny

 

[koruki]

This connector is an ANSI standard, a PDMI, so Samsung isn't copying anything.



No, this is not a dock, this is a quick launcher with a fixed set of apps that doesn't appears on the homescreen. You must launch it if you want to see it.



Ah, Apple invented packaging where you can see the product just putting off the package cover.

Yeah its a coincidence all three things seem to be on the tab that apple is accusing of copying the ipad.

As for the standard PDMI connector, I don't see them using it on their other devices? While the industry is mocking apple for not using microUSB, what it just so happen Samsung started using this connector when they release a tablet.

Each of the items mentioned is not unique by themselves, but when you find that many coincidences in a single product you gotta question if they are even trying.

 

[divinox]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8L1)

Except the "prior art" is imaginary. It's a movie prop in a science fiction film.

It's funny that Samsung thinks any court should take this seriously.

Real enough for you?