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.
Samsung Cites Kubrick's '2001' Film as Prior Art Defense Against Apple's Injunction Request
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The worst part about all this is that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't even have the same aspect ration as the iPad.
Galaxy Tab 10.1 Aspect Ratio - 16:9
iPad Aspect Ratio - 4:3
I like Apple and how innovative they are but they have to stop this crap. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't look like the iPad.
Although, I do believe Samsung having a single button on the Galaxy S phones is bit of a rip off. All the other Android phones have 4 keys and in fact the 4 hardware keys actually make some of the interaction easier. Samsung should have stuck to the 4 keys instead of using a single home button.
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? What it just so happen they started using 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.
Perhaps it's not coincidence, only wrong knowledge by your part.
PDMI is used only on tablets (like the Dell Streak) , not on phones, the Tab doesn't have a dock and are you saying hat Apple invented that form of packaging?
And this without considering that nor the quick launch nor the connector are part of the case
Galaxy phones have three buttons, the home button and two capacitive buttons, all of them physical
Question for someone who has seen the movie: are the devices ever portrayed as being anything other than portable viewscreens? From the clip, both pads are just being used as the equivalent of portable televisions, with no user input or other functions.
Um....
So how are they tablets?
They are a screen then.
A projection screen != iPad.
Hell, do they interact with them?
Nope.
So how can Samsung claim that a projection screen from a movie equates to a physical computing device?
Well, it is adaptation of the book and it the novel the device (called Newspad) is pretty well described. It's amazing how far ahead of the curve some SF writers were.
Wow, those Samsung Lawyers must be on some really good drugs
Mushrooms.
They are like a person gasping for that last breath as they go under.
HAL was a supercomputer
Duh, perhaps someone already responded similarly. Perhaps a history lesson for the Samsung layers in needed.
The panel displays aren't a computer, though Apple as yet isn't claiming patent on the flat-panel aka LCD display.
Duh, perhaps someone already responded similarly. Perhaps a history lesson for the Samsung layers in needed.
The panel displays aren't a computer, though Apple as yet isn't claiming patent on the flat-panel aka LCD display.
Hey Samsung lawyers:
This is from a wonderful little paperback called "The Making of 2001" from 1970, Editor: Jerome Agel.
The point aren't the stills which you can get anywhere. Read the caption. The point is that in case there is any doubt what the filmmakers intended those devices to be, more than 40 years ago someone looked at them and interpreted them thusly: A general purpose presentation device.
This is from a wonderful little paperback called "The Making of 2001" from 1970, Editor: Jerome Agel.
The point aren't the stills which you can get anywhere. Read the caption. The point is that in case there is any doubt what the filmmakers intended those devices to be, more than 40 years ago someone looked at them and interpreted them thusly: A general purpose presentation device.
Attachments
Tricorder? What about those tiny Ultrasound Gadgets in the Emergency Rooms now?
Sure as hell looks like the device Dr.McCoy used to scan Jim's abdomen on might I say, "more than one occasion".
Prior Art I Say!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Apple,
Game over. Time to fold your hand.
Don't forget the original space egg Imac:
Yes, the iRon.... http://www.theapplecollection.com/iMac/iStore/iron.html
Just so all the Samsung-apologists understand, Apple's US case against Samsung contains multiple claims of infringement. The best write-up I've seen is found here - but basically Apple is alleging infringement of seven utility patents, three design patents, trademarks on the iPhone system-app icons, and the Trade Dress registrations on the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, as well as the packaging they each come in.
Not all of Apple's claims are as strong as others. But some of them, at least, seem extremely convincing. This isn't simply Apple claiming to have patented a Tablet Computing Device or Smartphone. It is very specific about how Samsung uniquely among competitive smartphone makers chose to blatantly copy elements of the Apple devices that had been granted Trademark or Patent protection.
Of particular interest (at least for the tech-minded) is Apple's claim that Samsung infringed patent #7,863,533, a good-old hardware patent, that covers the cantilevered pushbutton with multiple funcrums and contacts. This is a hardware innovation that Samsung (again, apparently alone among Apple competitors) chose to copy without licensing.
This ISN'T about "stifling" innovation. Plenty of other companies managed to create smartphones and tablets that are in no way such blatant "copycats" as Samsung. IMHO Samsung's conduct rises far beyond the normal sort of tech-patent suit-countersuit folderol that usually results in an out-of-court settlement, a token payment, and a cross-licensing agreement.
You may not agree with Apple's position in this case. But it is certainly worth noting that Apple's claims - and evidence - seem to have been solid enough to have persuaded Judges in Australia and Europe to issue injunctions against Samsung. The fact that Samsung is resorting to such laughable "prior art" claims - citing a movie, ought to give anyone defending Samsung pause.
Not all of Apple's claims are as strong as others. But some of them, at least, seem extremely convincing. This isn't simply Apple claiming to have patented a Tablet Computing Device or Smartphone. It is very specific about how Samsung uniquely among competitive smartphone makers chose to blatantly copy elements of the Apple devices that had been granted Trademark or Patent protection.
Of particular interest (at least for the tech-minded) is Apple's claim that Samsung infringed patent #7,863,533, a good-old hardware patent, that covers the cantilevered pushbutton with multiple funcrums and contacts. This is a hardware innovation that Samsung (again, apparently alone among Apple competitors) chose to copy without licensing.
This ISN'T about "stifling" innovation. Plenty of other companies managed to create smartphones and tablets that are in no way such blatant "copycats" as Samsung. IMHO Samsung's conduct rises far beyond the normal sort of tech-patent suit-countersuit folderol that usually results in an out-of-court settlement, a token payment, and a cross-licensing agreement.
You may not agree with Apple's position in this case. But it is certainly worth noting that Apple's claims - and evidence - seem to have been solid enough to have persuaded Judges in Australia and Europe to issue injunctions against Samsung. The fact that Samsung is resorting to such laughable "prior art" claims - citing a movie, ought to give anyone defending Samsung pause.
"overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface, and a thin form factor"
How are the other tablets you mention not like that too?
I think it is total BS that Apple think they can patent a square piece of flat glass that is flat with thin edges, I mean come on
This whole thing is just silly. Apple should just move on. Nobody does it better. They need not worry or waste their time on such lawsuits. Nobody can touch them. Not even close.
I agree with your position, but it shows how prior art is really just a "Wouldn't it be cool if..." I think we are in need of some serious patent law reform. Especially when you consider how hedge funds and large corporate groups are buying up thousands of these cocktail napkin patentsin anticipation of doing nothing but suing those that actually develop marketable products. At some point, I believe this will begin to stifle innovation.
Sorry if I'm behind the times but wasnt the EU ban lifted due to Apple tampering with evidence to make Samsung devices look more like Apple ones?
Bad apple
Think theyre out taking a stroll on the moon watching TV? In a very weird format just to be hip (i.e. portrait for tv)?
Samsung also ripped off the docking port, it looks identical, it is same shape.
A friend has the tablet and when he connected it I really thought he plugged it into an iPhone cable, I had to check if my iPhone would plug in - I also unplugged the cable and showed someone who has never seen the Samsung products who also think that this lawsuit is stupid, but when they saw the cable he just shook his head and was saying that even the cable is a blatant rip off.
These units or similar are on sale here in Korea and many people say they look like iPad's. Until you see one in real life you can measure each side, but you show them the unit and ask them what it is by looking at it from the front - they will say its an iPad.
Samsung is using Apples success to gain market share, this is the only tablet Apple complained about, the previous model Apple didn't care, the 7inch apple didn't care, this model is a copy.
Actually, last number I saw was 11 cases in 9 countries.
So Apple is at risk of being branded an "illegal monopolist" in 9 countries? Or more? Or less?
... it's going to happen.
Arthur C. Clarke should sue every company/nation that has put up a stationary satellite. Hell, the estate of Jules Verne should just start suing everyone. Patent laws are getting stretched to the limit in my opinion.
Last edited: