The props weren't fictional, they were real props (technically though they weren't props since the actors didn't handle them).
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 props weren't fictional, they were real props (technically though they weren't props since the actors didn't handle them).
I see lot of fanboys who are talking crap about Samsung. I think Samsung got this. I am an apple supporter; however, I don't like when Apple has to go low and fight about this issue. It's counter-productive. Ever since Apple has to fight for their "patents," there are no more innovated products coming out. I'm sick of "refresh" products.
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)
It's a clever defense by Samsung, but Apple isn't defending the rectangle screen. Nowhere in this video did I see a grid of icons, with the most commonly ones held in a dock at the bottom center, with small dots (and one large on) showing pagination.
Nice try fellas.
It's a clever defense by Samsung, but Apple isn't defending the rectangle screen. Nowhere in this video did I see a grid of icons, with the most commonly ones held in a dock at the bottom center, with small dots (and one large on) showing pagination.
Nice try fellas.
And you don't think that sound ... generic? I get that *legally* someone might make an argument out of those requirements. My respect for people who do and those that don't ignore such schmucks drops considerably. I'm sad Apple has made these cases. I'm sad that Samsung hasn't brought up how ridiculous these cases is. It is more debilitating that the courts haven't thrown them out as frivolous.
Generally speaking: companies suing each other over patents is a big game for law firms.
There are even specialty companies that buy up patents with the only intention to throw them at companies, see what sticks, and cash in.
That's counterproductive to innovation.
There are even specialty companies that buy up patents with the only intention to throw them at companies, see what sticks, and cash in.
That's counterproductive to innovation.
I have a book from 1970 called "The Making of Kubricks 2001" that had this in the photo insert in the book...
I have 2001 on Blu-Ray and I watched that scene and it looks like the device had an IBM logo on the bottom right corner.
I have 2001 on Blu-Ray and I watched that scene and it looks like the device had an IBM logo on the bottom right corner.
Personally, I think they do sound generic. But I have no idea what the standards are for design registrations in the EU. It's obvious Samsung copied every single one of these points, so assuming Apple's legal team is aware of EU standards, this case isn't going to be refuted by Kubrick's prop newspads that don't utilize all of the registered design elements.
My point was to refute the silly arguments that are repeated over and over that Apple is suing over rectangles.
Apple Suing Samsung, Aliens Suing Apple
I may have one better. Check out this scene from the 1983 TV miniseries V. Does this device looks familiar to you?
See here for video: http://www.holaphil.com/post/9319611106/apple-samsung-lawsuit
I may have one better. Check out this scene from the 1983 TV miniseries V. Does this device looks familiar to you?
See here for video: http://www.holaphil.com/post/9319611106/apple-samsung-lawsuit
Attachments
Samsung is RIGHT here.
Sure, Galaxy Tab looks similar to iPad, but if you were to make a tablet, how else would you make it.
I remember seeing a post when Appleinsider had an IDIOTIC image showing Samsung's early ventures to tablets; aka. now dead UMPC.
It used bloody Intel CPUs. There was no way to make that slim.
The success of iPad shouldn't be attributed to design. There is something more important -- iPad was FAST. And I mean REALLY REALLY FAST. And all that was due to Apple's custom SOC chip (A5, was it?). Without it, iPad would be rubbish. It's the smooth scrolling and smooth transitions that make it fun to use and the rest is just eye-candy.
Can someone honestly justify giving Apple the privilege of being the only company allowed to make "thin tablets with big screens"? Seriously...
The trick they did was to release iPad at the right time when the technology made the leap to make it possible (anyone remembers Newton?).
Sure, Galaxy Tab looks similar to iPad, but if you were to make a tablet, how else would you make it.
I remember seeing a post when Appleinsider had an IDIOTIC image showing Samsung's early ventures to tablets; aka. now dead UMPC.
It used bloody Intel CPUs. There was no way to make that slim.
The success of iPad shouldn't be attributed to design. There is something more important -- iPad was FAST. And I mean REALLY REALLY FAST. And all that was due to Apple's custom SOC chip (A5, was it?). Without it, iPad would be rubbish. It's the smooth scrolling and smooth transitions that make it fun to use and the rest is just eye-candy.
Can someone honestly justify giving Apple the privilege of being the only company allowed to make "thin tablets with big screens"? Seriously...
The trick they did was to release iPad at the right time when the technology made the leap to make it possible (anyone remembers Newton?).
From what I remember though, those "pads" in 2001 didn't have a touch interface. The interface was using voice commands to a sophisticated, murderous, paranoid computer system that controlled everything.
That might be a tough sell to consumers.
That might be a tough sell to consumers.
Samsung lawyers are correct-ish
Loathed as I am to concede the point to Samsung, the video linked to at the base of this post shows conclusively that the device being used by the 2001 astronauts is a tablet-like device. In this footage Dave actually carries the thing to the table and puts it down. So there is no doubt that this 'video clipboard' could be argued as inspiration for the design of an iPad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vEDmNh-_4Q&feature=player_embedded
Mind you... is HAL the inspiration for Microsoft Bob?
Loathed as I am to concede the point to Samsung, the video linked to at the base of this post shows conclusively that the device being used by the 2001 astronauts is a tablet-like device. In this footage Dave actually carries the thing to the table and puts it down. So there is no doubt that this 'video clipboard' could be argued as inspiration for the design of an iPad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vEDmNh-_4Q&feature=player_embedded
Mind you... is HAL the inspiration for Microsoft Bob?
I don't know, but the thing Bowman sets down is clearly not the same size or color as the thing Poole is looking at. It appears to be paper which suggests a clipboard or file of some sort.
And as far as not seeing the screen on the table from a distance, I'm pretty sure 2001 is a movie, not a documentary which means there could be filming and continuity errors.
Coupling that with what the book describes, I'd say it's a big stretch to argue that these are tablet devices.
Dude, give it up. it's clear that kubrick had different vision to the book and reading the book a million times won't help you.
Bowman sets down the tablet, he then walks over to the food machine and picks up food. He did not move the tablet in any way, so there's none of this "he moved the clipboard to put in a tablet." the fact that the size was different could just be a continuity error, as you said yourself, and you're basing your whole argument on it?
all these people who argue based on one clip without watching the movie shouldn't bother.
Apple isn't suing Samsung for creating a "Tablet-like device."
Apple wasn't granted a patent on a rectangular tablet computing device. It didn't ask for one, and wouldn't have been granted one if they had. So the "prior art" argument is pretty much irrelevant.
Apple WAS granted numerous trademark and patent protections on various design and functional elements (the metallic bezel, the shape, color, arrangement, etc. of the System App icons) as well as their Trade Dress (ie. Apple's destinctive packaging.)
That is what Apple is suing Samsung over - NOT the "idea" of a tablet computer or touchscreen smartphone.
Would one of you Samsung-apologists kindly aknowledge this very simple (and frankly incontrovertible) fact?
Please read this analysis for further proof.
Please also note: Just because Apple has these Patents doesn't mean a) that they will stand up to court review or b) that Samsung necessarily infringed upon them. That is for the lawyers to argue and for the courts to decide. But saying Apple is suing Samsung over the "idea" of a rectangular tablet is flat out wrong.
Actually they are a wide array from various vendors, but the CPU SoC Design is by Apple, along with other controller chips and no Samsung doesn't get credit for Assembly and stamping their name on it thus calling it their Design.
----------
So is a Platex Pad and various other types of Pads, but each Ladies moisturizing dampener applies and gets patents for their design, however similar.
----------
It does have the IBM logo which led to the idea that IBM was this grand designer of computers for the future and Stanley's movie uses the obvious mainframe vendor who was King at that time.
If HP thought they had a case they would have sued before Apple released the product. They know they didn't have a case.
Stop insulting these massive corporations with decades of product development and technology groups by insinuating they were asleep during Apple's iPad development cycle. It really cheapens their legacy of talent both legally and technologically.
You're going to find it hard to get a response, as not to many will be thinking they are 'Samsung-apologists'. I would fall into your category, though I didn't claim they were suing for 'idea' of a rectangular tablet.
Apple has been granted the Trade Dress. Without a picture of the various icons, one *might* confuse which belonged to who. With the icons you have demonstrated twice now, I'm saddened it wasn't laughed out of court. Lawyers have to make their money somewhere, I guess, or anywhere, as your incontrovertible facts show.
Now will you acknowledge that comparisons between the two are frivolous for anything other than legal (and should include legal if the courts had anything resembling justice.) and your post claiming 'blatant copying' was as stupid as claiming apple 'patenting a rectangle'? Only ignoramuses would claim Apples even inspired the Samsung's icons, let alone copied --- once such individuals have actually looked at the facts. The closest two (and the distinctions between them are quite apparent) are the phone and notepad --- generic style icons for the past decade.
Samsung's stuff doesn't look like Apple's. If Samsung had sold all that under an Apple logo I could understand it.
Last edited: