Sidebar Sidebar
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

A

aohus

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2010
1,902
536
sky
you guys don't get it.

Samsung is making a mockery out of Apple's lawsuits.

Samsung is trolling Apple.

How do you all not realize this?
 
K

kolax

macrumors G3
Mar 20, 2007
9,181
115
As if Samsung used that movie to design their tablet.

Apple designed their tablet, and prior to that no tablet existed with that design. Samsung released their tablet after the iPad, and it quite clearly has a very similar if not nearly identical design.

Prior art in a movie is a lame attempt..
 
Macdude2010

Macdude2010

macrumors 65816
Mar 17, 2010
1,325
507
The Apple Store
This is ridiculous
 

Attachments

  • applefacepalm.png
    applefacepalm.png
    74.8 KB · Views: 118
C

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,576
1,691
Redondo Beach, California
Matariel said:
They're tablets, you can clearly see them in the close-up shots, even on the wide angle you can see the corners hanging off the side of the table.
They're never moved on-screen because of the technology they used to make them work, 2001 was made prior to blue/green screen technology.
As far as I remember, they actually used film projectors, and projected the image directly on the screens.
Click to expand...

They did not use blue screen but they did you "mats". These were hand painted but worked EXACTLY like a blue screen. It was common to shoot way a old western movie on a set in Los Angeles and then later drop in a better distant horizon and sky. If the camera was not moving tis not not horribly expensive. A mat artist would paint an outline of the set in black on clear and this mask (or mat as they called it) whould be used in an optical printer to First they expose the film with an image of the sky and ground from (say) Utah or Texas not the mat keeps the ligh off the film in some places. then they rewind the film, but in a negative of the mat and expose the image from the set. Star Trek used this same method for their video displays. It's cheapIF (only if) you can use one mat for the entire shot. If the camera moves then you need a custom mat painted by hand for each frame at 24 frames per second.

you can NOT film a projected image. The problem is that a projector only illuminates the screen in short flashes and would have to be in exact sync with camera's shutter.

I've watched mat artists work. They project a still from the film into an easel that is about 3 feet wide and very carefully ink in the mask. It takes hours to make one and it would be nuts to make a moving mat shoot although they did do this but it's like making a hand drawn animation by hand inking every frame, You'd need to employ an "army" of artists.

Green screens are simply a faster why to make a mat, nothing new, just lower cost. but hey have been doing this for decades, going way back to the beginning of the film industry

This describes it in more details. It is EXACTLY how it was done in the movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_(filmmaking)
 
Last edited:
M

Matariel

macrumors member
Jan 21, 2009
78
1
Bigcase said:
But the question is, did 2001 space odd... have the patent? Did Star Track have the patent? If not, this will be of no use to Samsung. I can create something, show it to a buddy, he puts a patent on it, makes millions, my lost. They are fishing in an empty river here.
Click to expand...

You cannot patent something that has already been thought up.
If you can prove that you came up with the idea before your buddy did, then his patent can be invalidated by a court.

It's amazing how little people know about this stuff, especially when 90% of tech stories seem to be patent related these days.
 
Gasu E.

Gasu E.

macrumors 603
Mar 20, 2004
5,033
3,150
Not far from Boston, MA.
Matariel said:
They're tablets, you can clearly see them in the close-up shots, even on the wide angle you can see the corners hanging off the side of the table.
They're never moved on-screen because of the technology they used to make them work, 2001 was made prior to blue/green screen technology.
As far as I remember, they actually used film projectors, and projected the image directly on the screens.
Click to expand...

I don't see the astronauts manipulating them. They are dumb, mobile flat panel displays. There is no implication they contain touchscreens or other input devices, nor any computing capability. Just displays.
 
N

Nevadadrifter

macrumors newbie
Apr 28, 2010
28
0
Well, crap. I guess I'll just toss my functional Hoverboard prototype in the trash. I'll never win a patent for it now.
 
Z

zergy

macrumors newbie
Jun 1, 2011
16
0
Princeton, NJ
paulyras said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yes, the issue of course being that the remnants of these are still under lock and key, pending examination by top men.

Also, not unlike the iPhone4, I heard there were durability and shattering issues with the V1 product....
 
A

aohus

macrumors 68000
Apr 4, 2010
1,902
536
sky
Everyone do this

a) Buy 2001: Space Odyssey on Blu-Ray

b) Play on your home theater setup

c) Enjoy Kubrick's masterpiece

tumblr_ldjcvy6hNX1qe0eclo1_r3_500.gif


tumblr_lf80nsGxUk1qe0eclo1_r3_500.gif
 
inkswamp

inkswamp

macrumors 68030
Jan 26, 2003
2,953
1,278
wbarker said:
Discussion of prior use and the patent system aside, as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vEDmNh-_4Q shows, they are clearly tablets.

At around 13 seconds when we are looking "down" on Poole, Bowman's is not on the table. At 19 seconds he puts it down. At 37 seconds you can see that Poole's overlaps the side of the table.
Click to expand...

I think you're misinterpreting it. Watch that clip again. The "tablet" Bowman puts down on the table is noticeably larger than the screen Poole is watching and is white edge-to-edge (suggesting a paper surface.) Bowman is putting down some kind of clipboard or file, not a tablet. When we rejoin Poole at the table after getting his meal, it's implied that he has put away the file/clipboard and has activated his screen.

I'm saying this based on what I know of the book. In the book, the astronauts keep in touch with Earth news via computer screens built in to the desks. (On a side note, it's sort of amusing when you read it, because Arthur C. Clarke accurately predicted that people would be able to read the world's newspapers on such a system, but he describes it in a pre-point-and-click world where the astronauts are typing a number to go to a given newspaper.)
 
T

tomtwigg

macrumors newbie
Jun 2, 2010
4
0
Tablet or TV?

There is no evidence from the clip that this is more than a passive flat TV panel. Good movie though.
 
V

Vegasman

macrumors 6502
Dec 16, 2010
344
3
inkswamp said:
I think you're misinterpreting it. Watch that clip again. The "tablet" Bowman puts down on the table is noticeably larger than the screen Poole is watching and is white edge-to-edge (suggesting a paper surface.) Bowman is putting down some kind of clipboard or file, not a tablet. When we rejoin Poole at the table after getting his meal, it's implied that he has put away the file/clipboard and has activated his screen.

I'm saying this based on what I know of the book. In the book, the astronauts keep in touch with Earth news via computer screens built in to the desks. (On a side note, it's sort of amusing when you read it, because Arthur C. Clarke accurately predicted that people would be able to read the world's newspapers on such a system, but he describes it in a pre-point-and-click world where the astronauts are typing a number to go to a given newspaper.)
Click to expand...

If the screen is built into the desk, where the heck is it? It's there when they are both sitting at the table - but not there when he puts down the "clipboard".
 
bushido

bushido

Suspended
Mar 26, 2008
8,070
2,755
Germany
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

how something like that cant be patented in the first place makes no sense at all. its like having a patent on the shaoe of a plate and suing everyone else for using it
 
M

Matariel

macrumors member
Jan 21, 2009
78
1
ChrisA said:
They did not use blue screen but they did you "mats". These were hand painted but worked EXACTLY like a blue screen. It was common to shoot way a old western movie on a set in Los Angeles and then later drop in a better distant horizon and sky. If the camera was not moving tis not not horribly expensive. A mat artist would paint an outline of the set in black on clear and this mask (or mat as they called it) whould be used in an optical printer to First they expose the film with an image of the sky and ground from (say) Utah or Texas not the mat keeps the ligh off the film in some places. then they rewind the film, but in a negative of the mat and expose the image from the set. Star Trek used this same method for their video displays. It's cheapIF (only if) you can use one mat for the entire shot. If the camera moves then you need a custom mat painted by hand for each frame at 24 frames per second.

you can NOT film a projected image. The problem is that a projector only illuminates the screen in short flashes and would have to be in exact sync with camera's shutter.

I've watched mat artists work. They project a still from the film into an easel that is about 3 feet wide and very carefully ink in the mask. It takes hours to make one and it would be nuts to make a moving mat shoot although they did do this but it's like making a hand drawn animation by hand inking every frame, You'd need to employ an "army" of artists.

Green screens are simply a faster why to make a mat, nothing new, just lower cost. but hey have been doing this for decades, going way back to the beginning of the film industry
Click to expand...

The process you're talking about is called an "in-camera matte", and is generally used for foreground and background compositing, where the background is matted out and replaced by something else.

You basically place a piece of opaque glass (the matte) in front of the lens, completely blocking the thing you want to matte out (in this case, it would be the tablet screen), shoot the scene normally, then you INVERT the matte and reshoot using the same film, but this time you shoot whatever you wanted to put within the original matte.

I know for a fact they used film projection for 2001, the entire Ape sequence at the start of the film used front projection screen material for the backdrop, on which they projected the desert background image. It's why the leopard's eyes shine so brightly, they're shining a projector at it.

All the video displays in 2001 are also film projection (as were all the displays in Star Trek, until they started using LCDs in Enterprise), it's really really simple and cheap to do, all you need to do is sync up the the camera shutter with the projector shutters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom