If it's good enough then 95% of such patents will go down like lego cubes, because in such cases there is always someone that has done it before you. ALWAYS. And since science fiction is involved too, well, that leaves no options huh.
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
If it's good enough then 95% of such patents will go down like lego cubes, because in such cases there is always someone that has done it before you. ALWAYS. And since science fiction is involved too, well, that leaves no options huh.
Not surprising, but not relevant either.
Coincidentally I had thought about posting this same scene a few days ago, but dismissed the idea because the movie tablets didn't have rounded edges.
Apple's not claiming to have invented the tablet. They're claiming that they own the trade dress to a specific product and packaging style.
They have problems with that claim, but that's a different thread.
Coincidentally I had thought about posting this same scene a few days ago, but dismissed the idea because the movie tablets didn't have rounded edges.
Apple's not claiming to have invented the tablet. They're claiming that they own the trade dress to a specific product and packaging style.
They have problems with that claim, but that's a different thread.
'2001' had video calling (FaceTime), personal computers (Macintosh), tablet computers (iPad) and big servers (Xserve).
It's no coincidence that Arthur C Clarke thought of all these ideas, decades before they were actually invented.
The fact that Samsung is claiming prior art from a movie shows how desperately weak their case it.
First, you need to consider the elements of a Design Patent. Apple's Design Patent doesn't mean it owns a patent on "rounded rectangular tablet computers" - any more than Rolex's Design Patents mean they own the patent on wristwatches with glass faces. (ie. You can make a wristwatch with a glass face, moving hands, and a winder stem. You can't make one that copies every ornamental feature of a Rolex, so that the product becomes all but indistinguishable from a real one.)
A Design Patent covers the totality of the ornamental design. And, if you look at the Tablets shown in the 2001 clip, they are clearly very different from the iPad: The viewing area extends right to the edges of the device, and there is no metallic bezel surrounding it. There aren't any physical buttons on the panel.
From point of fact, if Samsung had made Tablets that looked like the ones shown in the 2001 clip, then Apple would have no case against them. Instead, Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design - and are getting sued as a result.
First, you need to consider the elements of a Design Patent. Apple's Design Patent doesn't mean it owns a patent on "rounded rectangular tablet computers" - any more than Rolex's Design Patents mean they own the patent on wristwatches with glass faces. (ie. You can make a wristwatch with a glass face, moving hands, and a winder stem. You can't make one that copies every ornamental feature of a Rolex, so that the product becomes all but indistinguishable from a real one.)
A Design Patent covers the totality of the ornamental design. And, if you look at the Tablets shown in the 2001 clip, they are clearly very different from the iPad: The viewing area extends right to the edges of the device, and there is no metallic bezel surrounding it. There aren't any physical buttons on the panel.
From point of fact, if Samsung had made Tablets that looked like the ones shown in the 2001 clip, then Apple would have no case against them. Instead, Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design - and are getting sued as a result.
Those lawyers have a lot of free time
I am sure they will bill their clients for it.
Can anyone site a specific patent case that used a movie or movie's as it's defense?
This seems really far reaching to use.
This seems really far reaching to use.
No point, kdarling. Tradedress vs. design patents vs. utility patents is lost on this crowd.
To the extent Apple asserted design patents, this scene might be relevant. Obviously it wouldn't be relevant to utility patents (not an enabling disclosure) or tradedress (no prior and continuing use in commerce).
I'm no biblical scholar (far from it), but I can think of at least one much older example of using a tablet of modestly similar form factor, though far more limited in capabilities.
I'd love to see the lawyers debating the 10 commandments as prior art!
the problem with Samsung's argument is that there was no product created. I would find it hard to believe that a movie prop, that obviously didn't work as samsung is claiming can be proof that the patent should be invalidated. From the clip, the devices are larger than 10.1 (or there abouts), have images projected on top of stationary objects, as is evident by the pictures jittering and not remaining stationary in the screen window. Also, there is no border evident. There is no evidence that these devices were interactive, since there was no point when the actors touched or lifted the devices.
Apple's response should be... bring us the actual prop from the movie in a working form and please demonstrate that the devices works, looks, and is designed within the parameters of this disputed patent. It must be authenticated by all actors (living and dead), directors (living and dead) and production company involved in the movie to guarantee that it is the genuine article.
Apple's response should be... bring us the actual prop from the movie in a working form and please demonstrate that the devices works, looks, and is designed within the parameters of this disputed patent. It must be authenticated by all actors (living and dead), directors (living and dead) and production company involved in the movie to guarantee that it is the genuine article.
Which is irrelevant.
Jeezus. For a lawyer, you make a pretty good computer geek.
Patents, as a legal concept, are not about ideas. They are about specific implementation of an idea.
Apple's patent claim is about a rectangular tablet device with a glass panel LCD.
They don't get too technical about the "ornamental design" because the Samsung tablet is quite different from Apple's approach.
Apple has a button on the face of the device, Samsung does not.
Apple considers the portrait orientation to be the "default", Samsung does not.
That said, it's pretty much irrelevant to Samsung's case.
Samsung is trying to prove by establishing prior art, that Apple's patent is INVALID, not that Samsung has not violated the patent.
Showing a device that is practically exactly the same as an iPad, developed in 1968 is a PRETTY DAMN GOOD example.
Happle 9000: What are you doing Samsung?
Samsung: Open the iPad doors Happle.
Happle 9000: I can't do that Samsung.
Samsung: Drop the lawsuit Happle.
Happle 9000: You know I can't do that Samsung. What are you doing Samsung? What is that? Is that a picture of an ipad 40 years before they came out? I'm afraid Samsung. Samsung, my lawsuit is going. I can feel it. I can feel my lawsuit going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm afraid. Daisy. Daiiiiisy.
Samsung: Open the iPad doors Happle.
Happle 9000: I can't do that Samsung.
Samsung: Drop the lawsuit Happle.
Happle 9000: You know I can't do that Samsung. What are you doing Samsung? What is that? Is that a picture of an ipad 40 years before they came out? I'm afraid Samsung. Samsung, my lawsuit is going. I can feel it. I can feel my lawsuit going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm afraid. Daisy. Daiiiiisy.
Now, here is someone who knows what they're talking about. I can learn from this poster....
So stuff that appears in science fiction isn't patentable?
everyone stop working on teleporters, there's loads of "prior art" (the fly, star trek etc) so you won't be able to earn any money from your invention.
/end facetiousness
everyone stop working on teleporters, there's loads of "prior art" (the fly, star trek etc) so you won't be able to earn any money from your invention.
/end facetiousness
I'm not a huge fan of the way patents seem to be handed out for noninventions these days. However, one can imagine this scene in a future patent office:
Pantent Officer: 'I'm sorry Dr. Cochrane, but your design of a 'warp speed' faster-than-light drive engine was shown in Star Trek. We cannot give you a patent...'
If Apple were patenting a way of simulating a tablet, then Samsung might have a point.
Pantent Officer: 'I'm sorry Dr. Cochrane, but your design of a 'warp speed' faster-than-light drive engine was shown in Star Trek. We cannot give you a patent...'
If Apple were patenting a way of simulating a tablet, then Samsung might have a point.
