I'm referring to Samsungs claim that 2001 is evidence of prior art to the iPad. There is nothing there indicating how the device work or even what it is exactly.
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
I'm referring to Samsungs claim that 2001 is evidence of prior art to the iPad. There is nothing there indicating how the device work or even what it is exactly.
I'm sorry, but this must be the most retarded statement I've ever read here. BS is to steal "openly" the IP from your competitor, rip off the product and trying to hide in court to explain why they stole. It's not called competition when you steal, rather do invent your own stuff and trademark it. Every company has the right to defend their intellectual advances in the digital age, after all that's really what makes the world go around. Samsung had secret knowledge about the development as a supplier / manufacture to Apple's products.
Everyone wanted for years tech to enter our lives. But tech is based on algorithms that human create in painful long sessions and hence can be patented.
D
what about Star trek?
In an early episode of the original series Spok uses swipe gestures when changing the image on the view screen .
The tricorder could be argued that its an advanced ipod with sensing apps....i think there is even an episode where a tricorder is used ti make music of sorts.
In Star Trek the next gen characters are always using iPad like devices.
And don't forget the star trek communicator a cell phone...
What is interesting is now that Google own Motorola mobile and their patents of the first cell phones it could be a case of when Apple try to release the iPhone 5...
"I'm sorry Steve you can't do that....."
"because your iPhone 5 is at its core a cell phone and we own all those patents ......Neee Neeers"
In an early episode of the original series Spok uses swipe gestures when changing the image on the view screen .
The tricorder could be argued that its an advanced ipod with sensing apps....i think there is even an episode where a tricorder is used ti make music of sorts.
In Star Trek the next gen characters are always using iPad like devices.
And don't forget the star trek communicator a cell phone...
What is interesting is now that Google own Motorola mobile and their patents of the first cell phones it could be a case of when Apple try to release the iPhone 5...
"I'm sorry Steve you can't do that....."
"because your iPhone 5 is at its core a cell phone and we own all those patents ......Neee Neeers"
First, EU court ruling just came in. Judge agreed with us (non apple-devotees) that Apple didnt have much of a case. Second, none of the things that Apple claimed had to do with things that "human create in painful long sessions".
----------
It was 1966, please.
Nope. Because Apple hasn't used any illegal means to gain market share in the established market, whether you consider that to be tablets or mobile devices. Nor are they using said naturally developed (via sales) monopoly to unfairly promote sales in another unrelated market.
In an early episode of the original series Spok uses swipe gestures when changing the image on the view screen .
The tricorder could be argued that its an advanced ipod with sensing apps....i think there is even an episode where a tricorder is used ti make music of sorts.
In Star Trek the next gen characters are always using iPad like devices.
And don't forget the star trek communicator a cell phone...
What is interesting is now that Google own Motorola mobile and their patents of the first cell phones it could be a case of when Apple try to release the iPhone 5...
"I'm sorry Steve you can't do that....."
"because your iPhone 5 is at its core a cell phone and we own all those patents ......Neee Neeers"
would constitute anti-competitive behavior. moto is not allowed to block everyone else from an entire industry. (of course, neither are apple - which is why they are likely to attract unwanted attention if they continue on this path).
If you watch again you will see that there is nothing on the table when he sets down what he is holding and the angle of his screen is an almost exact match for what he set down
Which has no relevance to what is done in the movie.
Perhaps because Apple licensed it from Google. Or perhaps Google doesn't own it and they both licensed it from some other party. Or, shocking to imagine, perhaps Apple came up with the idea first but hadn't released it yet because they felt it wasn't ready and Google licensed it from them. Such a move has happened before. Heck half of Apple's patents are for ideas they came up with and then rejected but licensed to the other boys
More to the point, they didn't have to use a phone headset at the same angle on pretty much the same shade of green.
These things combined with the 'dock', the grid pattern and the shape uses in aggregate are what Apple is crying foul about. And while the flat and rectangle might get negated by this movie trick the rest will not. Samsung hasn't won yet.
No one has proven that Apple has either. A website with a vested interest in garnering page hits via posting a claim against a company isn't firm proof but in fact a rumor.
And yet you post no examples of this 'since forever' that predate the iphone
And yet they choose to.
No, but why not use any one of the hundreds of other images. Including hundreds of other choices of flower. Or simple the stack icon depicting the notion of an old school stack of photos.
Why use notes at all. Why not a treble or a bass chef.
Instead of a yellow legal page they could have used a book like icon with a pen on top of it.
and so on.
and again, if they were so common before Apple how come you didn't back up your statements with some very easy to find (cause they are so commonly used) examples from prior to the iphone. How come Samsung didn't whip out all those examples the moment that Apple filed suit, instead of this lame same shape game
Last edited:
No thanks! I'm fine by commenting the article on the first page.
Apple's claims are only on the design of the iPad. This is aimed at the design patent, which doesn't cover the device's function. So showing a similar designed device for prior art is fine, it doesn't need to replicate the function.
Why, the look and feel as well as user interface details are very well documented, not just some dreamt up concept movie props.
I'm not suggesting that no one but apple should be able to make a tablet, but this particular Samsung device is very similar, no?
what prior art is not
Incorrectomundo. First I'm not concerned about cases where a judge gets it wrong because they're just as stupid as the party bringing the suit. Second, the point of my comment is the definition of prior art...
If I write a story about an alien world that includes tall blue creatures with funny tails, then my story is 'art.' If someone later comes along and creates another story and copies my concepts, then I could bring suit and show my prior art.
If however, a geneticist comes along and creates a life form that is tall and blue and has a funny tail, I cannot bring a lawsuit against them claiming prior art. My story's character is fictional and intangible. It's just a story, it's not a creature.
Do you see the distinction? I can protect my story, but I can't protect against someone actually making the said creature - the two things are not related.
Likewise, if Samsung and Apple were in a squabble about making movies, then Samsung could show Space Odyssey as prior art because it would be relevant. The movie however, is not relevant to tablets. What would be relevant is for Samsung to show that some other company had developed and actual tablet prior to Apple developing one. Now that would be prior art.
If people can't see the distinction here, they need some serious help, and that includes lawyers and judges. If stupidity like this wins, it will ultimately undermine the entire patent system (some people think that might be a good thing), because like I stated before, there is nothing in existence that hasn't been imagined before by someone else.
And for an example of that, let me whip open the Bible and I'll find a reference to say, making a table out of wood. So, now it's the year 2011, and idiocy has taken hold, so I'm going to sue furniture makers to invalidate patents on their particular designs for tables by opening up a Bible to show "prior art." Preposterous!
Incorrectomundo. First I'm not concerned about cases where a judge gets it wrong because they're just as stupid as the party bringing the suit. Second, the point of my comment is the definition of prior art...
If I write a story about an alien world that includes tall blue creatures with funny tails, then my story is 'art.' If someone later comes along and creates another story and copies my concepts, then I could bring suit and show my prior art.
If however, a geneticist comes along and creates a life form that is tall and blue and has a funny tail, I cannot bring a lawsuit against them claiming prior art. My story's character is fictional and intangible. It's just a story, it's not a creature.
Do you see the distinction? I can protect my story, but I can't protect against someone actually making the said creature - the two things are not related.
Likewise, if Samsung and Apple were in a squabble about making movies, then Samsung could show Space Odyssey as prior art because it would be relevant. The movie however, is not relevant to tablets. What would be relevant is for Samsung to show that some other company had developed and actual tablet prior to Apple developing one. Now that would be prior art.
If people can't see the distinction here, they need some serious help, and that includes lawyers and judges. If stupidity like this wins, it will ultimately undermine the entire patent system (some people think that might be a good thing), because like I stated before, there is nothing in existence that hasn't been imagined before by someone else.
And for an example of that, let me whip open the Bible and I'll find a reference to say, making a table out of wood. So, now it's the year 2011, and idiocy has taken hold, so I'm going to sue furniture makers to invalidate patents on their particular designs for tables by opening up a Bible to show "prior art." Preposterous!
That makes Apples case weaker, but outside the court it's obvious that Samsung actually copied the design. (Edit: here with a cute case)
Attachments
Last edited:
I was pretty sure it was common knowledge, it's a well established convention.
Look a few pages back, I remember someone posting a pic of an old Windows Phone skin with a phone button that looks almost identical to the iPhones, but pre-dates it.
But if they had used the alternative, a wrench, someone else may have sued them instead.
Apple's trademark for the settings icon specifically describes three grey gears, Samsungs doesn't fit this at all.
The point is, why should they go to such lengths to do something different than the established conventions when Apple's icons aren't unique to begin with?
Maybe I'l find you some examples later, if I have the time
Kubrick is a GOD that Steve can never be. It was the novelist Arthur C. Clarke that came up with the original story called "The Sentinel" in 1948 WAAYYYY before Steve was born and that story became inspiration behind Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey".
Steve was about 13 when that film came out; an impressionable and brainwashed teenager.
The same angle and color as the one in Windows mobile you mean? The one that predates iOS? Funny, why dont you - ever - hear anyone speaking of how Apple copied those icons? Take a wild guess...
Things that just got thrown out of court, for obvious reasons.
Doctored or not, they filed pictures that were not consistent with the device their claim was about.
Examples have been posted already. What next, you want us to post examples of blue skies? Let me guess, you never owned a cell phone before you bought that iphone of yours? That, or a really bad memory, are the only explanation i can think of.
Perhaps they did tests and found notes to be supieror in terms of association, or perhaps they just felt like sticking with the norm would be the best thing?
To me it looks like a post-it note.
Guess they felt they didnt need to (which they didnt apparently).
It could be enough to make the US legislators see how stupid it is.
You say it would he anti competitive? And what Apple is doing to samsung is what exactly?
When did anyone ever imply that Apple were not allowed to make an ipad because of 2001? Youre not getting it. Theyre establishing that the design itself is non-original and thus not worthy of protection (by anyone). Or in the words of the judge in question it comes down to "form-follows-function".
Further, Samsung did provide the court with real artefacts aswell, this was just (as i see it) about taking away from Apples constant we-are-revolutionary rambles.
(and yes, if you pointed to a 2000 year old description of a table that were basically the same as a table someone tried to claim as original that would help your case. Especially so if you can then point to the fact that the very design argued for in the bible has been the design ideal for decades to come, and also makes perfect sense given the function of the artefact in question)
----------
To me, Apple is definitely on the edge when taking in totality of things. If they remain dominant and keep acting this way im sure well see a law suit sooner or later, and then what? Iexplorer on iToys? Amazon app store? After all, MSFT got slammed for bundling their browser, it could easily happen to Apple too.
