Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Happle 9000: What are you doing Samsung?

Samsung: Open the ipad doors Happle. Drop the lawsuit.

Happle 9000: I can't do that Samsung. Daisy. Daiiiiiiiisy.
 
See why 2001 will not be like 2001

There is a big hammer coming at Samsung's prior art evidence.
 
Apple brought science fiction to reality

Samsung copied Apple's successful product

Just look at cell phone history. Years ago Samsung was making knockoffs of Motorola Razr too.
 
The general form factor design of the iPad is not something that should be able to be patented. It's stupid for anyone (including Apple) to think they can do that.

If a competitive device has literally the exact same dimensions, curves, and materials as the iPad... that's one thing. But you can't patent a 10" x 7" x .3" device, and sue companies for using anything close to those dimensions.

In some respects, I think Apple is a great company. Then they try to patent the dimensions of their devices, or phrases like App Store... and I'm reminded that they're just as bad as the rest.
 
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?

It's because of the nature of relevant Apple patents. They are too generic. They do not really claim any tech inventions. All they claim is the device shape and the way people interact with them. I am sure Samsung will have tons more prior art examples to show.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Galaxy tabs aren't designed to work in portrait. Argument = invalid.
 
Obviously just flat screen displays or televisions. The clip shows no interactive capability. Also in "2001" computers were large central machines. There was no concept of a handheld computer in that movie.
 
as good an effort as this is, its pointless..

Apple owns patents for specific designs and products, and no matter what went before it, that is what Apple are defending...

No matter how good the laywers are, that isnt going to change the outcome.
 
This is actually a pretty brilliant counter-arguement. Only geeks could come up with this...
 
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?

It proves that Apple did not invent the idea, even the fictional Kubrick design is good enough to establish prior art, and is thus cannot be protected by patent.
 
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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

How else are you supposed to make a tablet computer?
 
It proves that Apple did not invent the idea, even the fictional Kubrick design is good enough to establish prior art, and is thus cannot be protected by patent.

Later this month I'm going to patent the picture frame and readable text. ;-)
 
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.

Samsung makes a lot of the products you buy.
 
wow.

that is sad.

samsung must be hurting for answers to dig THAT up - really? a sci-fi movie?


one expression comes to mind:

Grasping at straws!

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall near SJ when he reads that one.
 
Okay, not really

Looking at this film I don't see tablet computers, I see tables that have TV's built into them. The eaters don't interact with the vision, and the "Tablets" don't have any depth. I think it's only our familiarity with tablets (thanks to products like the iPad), that we fill in the additional novelty of touch screen and portable interactivity.

If Samsung really wants to find prior art in Sci-Fi they should turn to star trek: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/08/how-star-trek-artists-imagined-the-ipad-23-years-ago.ars
 
Last edited:
as good an effort as this is, its pointless..

Apple owns patents for specific designs and products, and no matter what went before it, that is what Apple are defending...

No matter how good the laywers are, that isnt going to change the outcome.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Patents get invalidated all the time.

As for this move by Samsung, all i can say is nicely played.
Let's see Apple's response.

Remember folks... this is about the design, not functionality.
 
Couldn't pharmacy companies sue both of them due to the misuse of the word "tablet"?

I mean really. I own thousands of tablets, but none of them are electronic and they are all consumed via ingestion.
 
The precedent of using movies/television as prior art would invalidate so many patents. It’s ridiculously easy to dream up the future and create mock-ups.
 
I'm sure a company like Samsung could create a tablet of their own, using "An overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, and a flat back surface" without making it look near identical to the iPad.

Samsung are missing the point of the lawsuit. Their products are deliberately designed to look like Apple's, from a physical standpoint not that of the OS.

You can mark me down now ...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.