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

[kdarling]

Since no tablet looked like the iPad before the iPad even though tablets existed fir decades the idea that it was impossible to do anything else is silly.

2008 Electrovaya:

If apple did not release the iPhone and iPad there would still not be any tablets that looked like the iPad yet there still would have been more tablets created.

Aha. This is more what Apple is claiming. Not that others are copying the iPad per se, but that others are copying Apple's full-glass, edge bezel theme. In other words, that others like Electovaya above started by copying the iPhone before there was an iPad.

One problem in the US is that they waited until 2010 to apply for their iPad US design patent (Apple secrecy for the loss). Plus Apple had not sued any tablet makers for copying the iPhone style.

Finally, there's that Samsung picture frame design from 2006, predating the iPhone, to contend with:

When people think the placement of the Samsung logo is sufficiently material I know they don't understand.

As I have pointed out several times, some major trade dress cases have been lost partly because the label was sufficient to alert the buyer. Apple also never advertised the iPad's shape as a feature to look for, which detracts from their case.

Remember: trade dress cases don't rest solely on copying. The consumer must be confused at the time of buying, and courts assume that the more expensive the item and/or the more intelligent the buyer usually is, the less likely for such confusion.

 

[svenas71]

Showing a device that is practically exactly the same as an iPad, developed in 1968 is a PRETTY DAMN GOOD example.

It was a movie... so the device was hardly 'developed'...!

 

[ZAiPhone]

There was also a "Padd" tablet computer on Star Trek in '95. Lots of clips on YouTube. I'm an Apple fan but there legal department is bad for innovation. Competition is good. Remember Lisa Apples version of the Edsel. Does not matter if it was developed it's not a prior technology argument it's a prior "art" argument.

 

[divinox]

As the linked analysis noted, Apple succesfully sued E-Machines and another company for infringing on the Mac's trade-dress back in 2000 - effectvely removing them from the marketplace. This isn't the same thing as suing Microsoft for "look and feel."

As far as the icons go, I think you are being disingenuous by looking ONLY at those differences. It is not necessary to have an exact copy of a rival's trademark in order to infringe. Again, the standard isn't "an exact copy" - it is more on the line of "was it designed so that people could be confused about the origin." If you look at the list of System App icons provided, it seems pretty clear to me that Samsung made it as close as possible - and certainly in a way that Smartphones from, say, Windows Phone or Blackberry don't.

The bigger point is this: All of these items will be litigated in court. Apple may prevail on all, some, or none of the claims.

But it is also worth noting that Apple isn't being "the bad guy" here. They have every right to protect, by legal means, their investment in the iPhone and iPad. Apple paid many millions in salaries to Americans who worked long and hard designing the iPad, its packaging, and the way its software works. I think they - at the very least - have the right to use our nation's (and that of other countries) legal system in order to protect that investment, and by extension the labor if its employees.

To those of you defending Samsung, try asking yourself a few questions.

How would YOU feel if, after spending thousands of hours and dollars creating say, the perfect Flash website game, one of your rivals simply copied the entire thing, from the way animations worked, to the color of the backgrounds, to the code that ran it? This copyist simply changed a few random elements here and there to give a gloss of respectability to his theft.

Would you think it was wrong for you to go to court to prevent this copying? Would you think you were "inhibiting innovation" (among Flash developers) if you took this guy to court?

Or would you feel that his argument that "Flash websites with dragons existed long before Joe Chump made one" - somehow excused his ripping off 99.5% of the elements that made your Flash website with dragons unique was somewhat absurd?

Apple has the right to sue Samsung. Its up to the courts to determine whether or not their claims are valid.

(i) One argueable difference between Apple vs. Samsung and Apple vs. eOne is the originality of the product design. Similarly the G4 (imo) should've enjoyed some protection (not including putting a monitor on a swivel though).

As for your questions:

a) non-analogous and thus hardly relevant. further, your argument assumes originality on my part. most likely, if i were to make a game, most of the things would be anything but original.

b) if i made a 2d (or 3d) action-based rpg and went to court trying to stop everyone else that were the same, despite tons of prior art, then yes (think SMB vs. G.S. and SMBW vs. whatever). Unless of course i had some extremely original ideas that is... Which of Apples ideas (that are relevant here) do you see as extremely original?

c) What are the 99.5% that makes the ipad unique, and how did you come up with that figure?

As for your last statement: Of course they have the right to. I have the right to sue you for stealing my poop too. So?

 

[mjtomlin]

Trade Dress and Prior Art only apply to objects that are actually on the market or were at some point in time. And they only apply to specific categories. You can throw up all the photos you want of look-a-like devices that serve some other purpose, but it's not going to help Samsung's case.

Their tablet looks way too similar to Apple's tablet in both form and function. There are many other tablets on the market to prove that you don't have to copy Apple's design to produce a tablet.

 

[AppleMacDudeG4]

Star trek

I would think that using Star Trek would be a better choice as prior art. I think Samsung is getting desperate to have to resort to this.

 

[phreebsd]

I have been rewatching that scene with my Blu-Ray version of 2001. I agree with your points about the scene and how the "tablet" Dave puts down looks different from those far away camera shots than what Frank is shown to be watching (in the distant camera shots). I do think though that the tablet device Dave carries in and lays on the table is supposed to be the same device the both of them end up watching their interview on while eating (the screen must be white when it is off). If you watch the HD version of the movie you can actually see the device is called an "IBM Tele-Pad". The IBM logo is on the bottom right of the device, although you probably can't make out the "Tele-Pad" words unless you see it in HD. I Googled "IBM Tele-Pad" and a reviewer of the movie on Amazon.com also spotted it. The device also has 10 buttons that are numbered from 1 thru 9 and another character I can't make out. It seems that when Dave put the Tele-Pad on the table before getting his food he actually put it down upside down as the bottom of the Tele-Pad with the thicker bezel and the IBM Tele-Pad logo on the right can be seen. I guess you can make the assumption that Dave turned the Tele-Pad around to the viewing position it is eventually shown at when he sat down to eat. With the name "IBM Tele-Pad" you can make the assumption that this device was just meant to view television. A few scenes later you can see Dave and Frank writing on tablets while in the cockpit of the Discovery but they appear to be writing with conventional pen (or pencil) and paper on some sort of clipboard.

Someone posted this HD clip from 2001 showing the IBM Tele-Pad. You have to watch it in 720p but even at full screen it is hard to make out the text below the IBM logo. You can see it better on the Blu-Ray version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQkXSDKcslI

from 1994!

WASHINGTON, March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- TelePad Corporation (NASDAQ: TPADA) today announced that IBM will manufacture the new TelePad 3, a computing and communications tool for field force applications.
The TelePad 3 features a unique, modular-device architecture developed by TelePad. Three removable modules will accommodate hard drives, CD-ROM, video cameras, global positioning systems, and a variety of mobile communications options. Easily customized for the particular needs of any field force, the TelePad 3 adheres to industry standards, and is a powerful multimedia desktop computer, notebook and tablet.
The TelePad 3 will be manufactured at IBM's electronic card assembly and test facility in Charlotte, N.C. It incorporates IBM's 3.3 volt clock-tripled Blue Lightning microprocessor to run at speeds up to 66 MHz. Blue Lightning supports processing speeds up to 100 MHz, with corresponding upgrades planned by TelePad.
"The TelePad collaboration with IBM began with the manufacturing of the TelePad SL computer," said Ron Oklewicz, TelePad President and CEO. "TelePad and IBM each have leading edge technology, and have combined their respective talents to bring the new design to life in record time." The first public showing of TelePad 3 will be at the Federal Office Systems Exposition (FOSE), which runs from March 22-24 at the Washington Convention Center.
Scott Dankman, Chairman and founder of TelePad, noted that "The TelePad 3 concept is central to our vision for field force computing. For the first time, a computer will truly be able to be used as a tool for getting the job done outside an office."
"Beyond ease of use, the TelePad 3 is about ease of doing," added Michael V. Martucci, TelePad's Vice President of Marketing. "TelePad sees broad application for the TelePad 3 and TelePad field force solutions in inspection, multimedia electronic manuals, public safety, sales force automation, telemedicine, command and control, and much more. The TelePad 3 might be the only computer you will ever need."
Located in the data-communications hub of Metropolitan Washington, TelePad develops and markets technology for use by professionals in the field. TelePad's approach to technology is based on using an enterprise's field force to create competitive advantage.
-0- 3/15/94

 

[divinox]

I would think that using Star Trek would be a better choice as prior art. I think Samsung is getting desperate to have to resort to this.

Its in because its probably one of the first conceptions of the device. Theyll use that, and others, to show how very little has happened with regards to how one would like to make a tablet. Then theyll provide reasonable arguments to why early devices did not make said ideal (Thicker, heavier etc). Finally, theyll show how "ideal" and "reality" largely came together years before the ipad.

Very simple.

 

[mjtomlin]

There was also a "Padd" tablet computer on Star Trek in '95. Lots of clips on YouTube. I'm an Apple fan but there legal department is bad for innovation. Competition is good. Remember Lisa Apples version of the Edsel. Does not matter if it was developed it's not a prior technology argument it's a prior "art" argument.

And Apple released the Newton MessagePad in '93 ... And as far back as the mid 80's, they produced a mockup of something they called the Knowledge Navigator.

Art in the legal sense is not encapsulated in quotations. It has nothing to do with "art" and everything to do with actual production. You have to be able to describe how something works and have a real working implementation of it in order to declare Prior Art.

And while there are many posts of photos of "prior art" devices being posted here, there's a reason they aren't included in Samsung's case; they do not apply. I find it amusing that these arm chair quarterbacks post these images and think they are smarter than Samsung's legal team. If these lawyers had to dig deep enough to pull up movie magic, then they are seriously in trouble.

 

[axman]

iPad-like device also in the Movie Poster

There's also an iPad-like device in the poster, being held by one of the astronauts. http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/2001apr08.jpg

And before you say 'that could just be paper and a clipboard' look at the yellow light glowing in the astronauts' helmets. That's coming from light projected out of the tablet computer.

Was this device mentioned anywhere in the book? Could anyone confirm that? Or was it invented by Kubrick for the movie?

 

[kdarling]

Trade Dress and Prior Art only apply to objects that are actually on the market or were at some point in time.

And they only apply to specific categories. You can throw up all the photos you want of look-a-like devices that serve some other purpose, but it's not going to help Samsung's case.

Apple's US design patent for the iPad vaguely states:

"The ornamental design for a portable display device"

No mention of being in a tablet or electronic computing device category, such as some other design patents have.

.

 

[divinox]

Art in the legal sense is not encapsulated in quotations. It has nothing to do with "art" and everything to do with actual production. You have to be able to describe how something works and have a real working implementation of it in order to declare Prior Art.

And while there are many posts of photos of "prior art" devices being posted here, there's a reason they aren't included in Samsung's case; they do not apply. I find it amusing that these arm chair quarterbacks post these images and think they are smarter than Samsung's legal team. If these lawyers had to dig deep enough to pull up movie magic, then they are seriously in trouble.

Can you please share the full list of evidence that Samsung has submitted to the court. You have read it, right?

 

[mjtomlin]

Can you please share the full list of evidence that Samsung has submitted to the court. You have read it, right?

Absolutely not. Do your own research if you're that interested.

I'm responding to the article and the posts made by Samsung's legal defense here. There's no reason to read the full list of evidence as it doesn't pertain to this topic, which clearly states the use of images from a movie made in the late 60's. People can post whatever they want to disprove Apple's case against Samsung, but message boards aren't going to play into the legal defense. I don't have to know or read all the evidence submitted to the court to know that Samsung is desperate and grasping at straws and that people on this site think they're smarter than the lawyers defending Samsung.

 

[JHankwitz]

What does this have to do with what's going on?

Apple is not complaining about Samsung's tablet creation, the problem is with Samsung violating Apple copywrites, trademarks, and patents. I know of no Kubrik or Rodenbery copywrites, trademarks or patents being violated by Apple.

 

[Fukui]

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.

5 internets for you sir.

 

[mjtomlin]

Apple's US design patent for the iPad vaguely states:

"The ornamental design for a portable display device"

No mention of being in a tablet or electronic computing device category, such as some other design patents have.

.

Fortunately for Apple, that's not their only claim.

 

[Typswif2fingers]

Kubrick is a genius. I wish he were still alive making quality movies.

Image

God. That scared the living crap out of me...


I thought it was a photo

 

[clownie]

2001 Ripoff?

So what if I wanted to patent my new handheld Phaser? Cannot do it because Captain Kirk used it decades ago?
I recently had a long chat with a patent lawyer, and my evolving understanding of "prior art" doesn't include fantasy products. Douglas Adams discussed a "Not My Problem Field" in his books, but I still think I can patent mine once I get the bugs worked out! The "art" is taking an idea and making it work.

 

[BaldiMac]

If you take apart the bezel, nearly every tablet infringes the community design. This is why Motorola is being sued.

The dozens of other tablet designs posted in this thread would disagree. (And I'm pretty sure Motorola is being sued over patents and not trade dress.)

Can you explain me how can you make a tablet without using at least three of the points?

Seriously? That's just a failure of imagination on your part. And I like how you deleted the part from my quote where I clearly spelled out that ALL of the elements had to be present to infringe on Apple's claim. Three elements is not a problem. Samsung used all of them.

Lets see:

- a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners;
Unless you make edges that are sharp, you could conceivably argue all tablets have four evenly rounded corners to some degree.

- a flat, clear surface that covers the front of the product;
All tablets

- a visible metal frame around the flat, clear surface;
Any tablet made with metal instead of plastic.

- a display that is centered on the clear surface;
All tablets

- under the clear surface, a neutral margin around the sides of the display;
All tablets

- if the product is switched on, colored icons within the display.
All tablets

You only have to look at the tablet posted in this thread to realize that you are wrong. Dozens of them that don't meet all of these design elements.

So basically your argument is that because they made it out of metal instead of cheap glossy black plastic like everyone else that it must be a copy of the iPad.

Not my argument in any way. Just posting Apple's claims to refute the silly ideas repeated over and over that this is about rectangles or any subset of their actual claims.

Anyone with half a brain can see that this entire lawsuit is completely baseless, and the only reason Apple is doing it is to temporarily stall Tab adoption before they release the iPad 3.

And anyone that has spent any time researching the actual claims and the actual law would realize that it's not so simple.

Samsung voluntarily agreed to delay the release of the Tab in Australia based one of these lawsuits. One of the largest companies in the world doesn't do that if the claims are as frivolous as you make them out to be.

 

[divinox]

Absolutely not. Do your own research if you're that interested.

Translation: I have no idea what i am talking about.

I'm responding to the article and the posts made by Samsung's legal defense here. There's no reason to read the full list of evidence as it doesn't pertain to this topic, which clearly states the use of images from a movie made in the late 60's. People can post whatever they want to disprove Apple's case against Samsung, but message boards aren't going to play into the legal defense. I don't have to know or read all the evidence submitted to the court to know that Samsung is desperate and grasping at straws and that people on this site think they're smarter than the lawyers defending Samsung.

First: If you dont know why they are filing something, how could you possibly know that the act was a desperate act of grasping at straws? Think first, post later.

Second: You also clearly stated that none of the prior art posted here was included in Samsungs case. How could you possibly know that without knowing what evidence Samsung filed in the first place?

Finally: In the light of prior art that a) share more similarities with the ipad b) are real-world products, not fiction, why would these smart lawyers pick one but (like you) reject the other. Isnt that route quite counter-intuitive and irrational?

----------

So what if I wanted to patent my new handheld Phaser? Cannot do it because Captain Kirk used it decades ago?
I recently had a long chat with a patent lawyer, and my evolving understanding of "prior art" doesn't include fantasy products. Douglas Adams discussed a "Not My Problem Field" in his books, but I still think I can patent mine once I get the bugs worked out! The "art" is taking an idea and making it work.

You can (quite possibly) patent the technology, not necessarily the design that embodies said technology. Think first, post later.

 

[clownie]

Eat first, floss later...

<You can (quite possibly) patent the technology, not necessarily the design that embodies said technology. Think first, post later.>


Let the grass grow first, cut later...

Let the leaves fall first, rake later...

Listen first, filter sarcasm second, be a jerk later...


All genius.

 

[Tommigun]

Why doesn't Samsung just countersue Apple with claims of them copying their photo frame's design from 2006?

If this dispute really is about physical dimensions and not about functionality, why wouldn't that frame be relevant? And I'd bet some money on Apple actually HAVING COPIED some properties from that thing into their iPhone. And now they are turning against Samsung... it's just so wrong. Apple is a nightmare nowadays.

 

[BaldiMac]

Why doesn't Samsung just countersue Apple with claims of them copying their photo frame's design from 2006?

Image

If this dispute really is about physical dimensions and not about functionality, why wouldn't that frame be relevant? And I'd bet some money on Apple actually HAVING COPIED some properties from that thing into their iPhone. And now they are turning against Samsung... it's just so wrong. Apple is a nightmare nowadays.

Because the claim is about the totality of the design and not just a few aspects of the front of the device. Look at the frame from the sides or back, and you are not going to be confusing an iPad for it.

And then there is the fact that Apple originally registered some aspects of their design in 2004.

 

[kdarling]

Well, most debates over the EU trade dress claims are now moot, since another MacRumors news thread says that the Netherlands judge threw out all of Apple's claims except for a patent on swiping to move between photos... and that judgement doesn't apply to the Samsung Tab.

 

[Gravity]

Those arent tablets...did anyone in that scene pick one up? Move it?

Its a display table.

You know... I always thought that too... but if you look at the screen grab.. you can see corners of the screen/tablet/whatever overlapping the edge of the table, which you would NOT expect for an inset monitor. What do you think? Really take a close look and see what you think.

----------

There was also a "Padd" tablet computer on Star Trek in '95. Lots of clips on YouTube. I'm an Apple fan but there legal department is bad for innovation. Competition is good. Remember Lisa Apples version of the Edsel. Does not matter if it was developed it's not a prior technology argument it's a prior "art" argument.

Competition IS GOOD... but piracy is NOT. If Apple were cloned to high heaven and that were LEGAL... it would be very difficult for Apple to make money on their innovations. So where's the incentive? Competition is good... but patent theft lowers industry standards. It robs the industry of quality products. Might as well just get RID of patents if you don't like their lawsuits.

Think of it like people using YOUR NAME to take out credit cards. Piling up debt in your name. What's the difference? It costs you money, just as patent theft costs Apple money. It's up to the courts to judge whether the infringements actually occurred.