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
Yes Apple's patent is mostly limited to the bezel for they could not patent a computer or a touch screen or a tablet computer (because they did not invent any of it).
Not according to the article:
I guess it's pointless of me to reply; if you didn't read the article, you probably won't read my reply. Oh well.
Did they really expect to come out with those devices if apple didn't do it before them?
If anything this is more evidence for Apple's case.
If anything this is more evidence for Apple's case.
I didn't need any further proof. Apple (and Steve jobs in particular) have become a laughable reflection of themselves lately. Patenting gestures 
rolleyes was just the beginning. Jeeze, quit reading your own press, Steve, those people are idiots. You can't patent toilet paper Steve, the idea's been around since banana leaves.......
rolleyes was just the beginning. Jeeze, quit reading your own press, Steve, those people are idiots. You can't patent toilet paper Steve, the idea's been around since banana leaves.......
I don't know, but the thing Bowman sets down is clearly not the same size or color as the thing Poole is looking at. It appears to be paper which suggests a clipboard or file of some sort.
And as far as not seeing the screen on the table from a distance, I'm pretty sure 2001 is a movie, not a documentary which means there could be filming and continuity errors.
Coupling that with what the book describes, I'd say it's a big stretch to argue that these are tablet devices.
I'ts Apple who believes they can re-use those old design ideas and claim them as their own. They took the designs from people who never bothered to protect them (since they reasonably thought they were to generic and obvious any way) and then sue others that do the same thing.
This isn't about how the devices function, it's about how they were designed and the concept behind them. So it doesn't matter that Apple brought science fiction to reality. In the context of this debate, all they have done is re-use older design ideas.
Bad reasoning, neither did Apple use their own original design ideas as is obvious when looking at all the design concepts of tablet computers that pre-existed iPad as futuristic visions.
So what? They're just props, but it's obvious what they're supposed to represent. This isn't about the functionality about the devices, only the design and concept.
A different aspect ratio, no distinctive home button, a big SAMSUNG logo on the front, more than just colored square icons when turned on... Could only look near identical to a blind.
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
Correct, mere ideas are not patentable. But none of these sci-fi appearances of teleporters have presented an actually working technology that allows teleportation. The person who invents this technology will certainly be able to patent it and make money from it. Everyone is able to use prior art and make money of it, but they're not allowed to claim it as their own and prevent others from doing the same thing.
Shows what you know, the Galaxy Tab doesn't even have of home button on the front. And copying the icon grid!? That's not even Samsungs, it's Android, and Apple didn't invent the icon grid. Where have you been for the last 40 years?
I'd be surprised if they don't do this also
Saddest thing ever
That is without a doubt the worst evidence, in the intellectual property war.
Samsung is a bitter bitter company.
Just move on and be a little more original next time Samsung.
That is without a doubt the worst evidence, in the intellectual property war.
Samsung is a bitter bitter company.
Just move on and be a little more original next time Samsung.
Blatant Copying
There are numerous claims made by Apple in its suit against Samsung.
But I thought you might like to compare the original Apple iOS icons for various smartphone functions with the ones Samsung chose to "create" for its Touchwiz interface:
I don't see how any reasonable person could look at those icons and NOT see that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's copyrights. Did they HAVE to make the "Phone" icon green? Did they HAVE to use a gear icon to represent "Settings" Did they HAVE to use a yellow legal pad to represent a notepad? Did they HAVE to use a yellow sunflower to represent the "pictures" function? Did they have to use the exact same pair of musical notes superimposed on a CD to represent music?
Would it really be "preventing innovation" if Samsung had, for example, used a pair of crossed wrenches to represent settings? Would people not be able to understand a Phone icon with a blue background?
No - Samsung went out of their way to rip-off just about every element they could find to copy the iPhone and iPad.
There are numerous claims made by Apple in its suit against Samsung.
But I thought you might like to compare the original Apple iOS icons for various smartphone functions with the ones Samsung chose to "create" for its Touchwiz interface:
I don't see how any reasonable person could look at those icons and NOT see that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's copyrights. Did they HAVE to make the "Phone" icon green? Did they HAVE to use a gear icon to represent "Settings" Did they HAVE to use a yellow legal pad to represent a notepad? Did they HAVE to use a yellow sunflower to represent the "pictures" function? Did they have to use the exact same pair of musical notes superimposed on a CD to represent music?
Would it really be "preventing innovation" if Samsung had, for example, used a pair of crossed wrenches to represent settings? Would people not be able to understand a Phone icon with a blue background?
No - Samsung went out of their way to rip-off just about every element they could find to copy the iPhone and iPad.
Care to elaborate how they're a sad sad company?
They aren't the ones who doctored images to try to convince a judge to issue an injunction (can you say slimeball move?)
Besides, many PC manufactures had similar shaped and sized laptops out before the airs.
Granted none were/are as good as the Air many aspects, but to act like apple innovated something great with the form factor or style is just joking yourself.
Ignorance is bliss?
He doesn't need a patent to sell it at all which is the beauty of it. The non-beauty of it is when I reverse engineer his hoverboard and create my own (then patent it), then use my vast supply chain and marketing resources to flood the market with my product and drown out his.
Then, just because I'm a bastard, I sue his already bankrupt a** for his house, his car etc.
He doesn't need a patent to sell it at all which is the beauty of it. The non-beauty of it is when I reverse engineer his hoverboard and create my own (then patent it), then use my vast supply chain and marketing resources to flood the market with my product and drown out his.
Then, just because I'm a bastard, I sue his already bankrupt a** for his house, his car etc.
I don't know, but the thing Bowman sets down is clearly not the same size or color as the thing Poole is looking at. It appears to be paper which suggests a clipboard or file of some sort.
And as far as not seeing the screen on the table from a distance, I'm pretty sure 2001 is a movie, not a documentary which means there could be filming and continuity errors.
Coupling that with what the book describes, I'd say it's a big stretch to argue that these are tablet devices.
Ah, but to one well versed in the art, it's obvious to draw the conclusion that if the thing he put down was a clipboard, it really should have been a tablet
It's obvious Apple took design ideas from the PADD in TNG, they both have grey casings for example, but the PADD still retains some "old world" design motifs, like the display that is not flush with the casing, and separate input areas on the device itself. Coincidentally Apple launched the Newton soon after TNG first aired.
The '2001' device is visually identical to an iPad, right down to the portrait orientation.
The computers used in TNG used MacOS. (They had a world tour with Star Trek. One of the computer had crashed and we could see that Enterprise used MacOS)
I sure am glad the money I give to Apple is being used to sue everybody else in the technology business.
Nope. If he really invented this thing he can still patent the implementation (but not the looks) so the reverse engineering would not work (unless his implementation had a prior art as well).
It may not really be "prior art" per se since these are not functioning devices in that form factor. I don't know what sort of bearing science fiction has on "design patents" -- certainly not on patents for methods and systems.
However, the movie clip helps Samsung in that it lends itself to an "obviousness" argument which (at least in the US) could be used to invalidate a design patent. The fact that the devices on the table are not actually picked up and handled may play into this as well.
I still think that Samsung's best prior art may be the JooJoo or the HP Slate since both were shown before the iPad released, however, Apple filed for the iPad design patent before its announcement (at least in the USA) on January 6, 2010. Coincidentally, CES 2010 had its opening on the evening of January 6, 2010 -- the HP Slate was shown at CES 2010 in Las Vegas (not sure if it was shown anywhere before CES 2010). Regardless, images of the JooJoo tablet were floating around in late 2009.
The claim of Apple's US Design Patent is "the ornamental design for a portable display device, as shown and described". Followed by a series of images. So that would leave it to a judge to decide how similar a device would have to be before it infringed. For example, the curved back, home button, speaker openings, side buttons, and dock port are pictured in the Apple patent. Given the JooJoo prior art, I would interpret that design patent fairly specifically (i.e.: somebody would have to do more than have a rounded-rectangle design with minimal buttons in the USA).
I have not looked at Apple's community design registration for the EU, nor do I know how their IP system works with community designs and what constitutes invalidation versus a more specific interpretation of the design.
EDIT: Interestingly, the images in the iPad Design Patent show what appears to be a full-size SIM card slot and a landscape dock connector as well (perhaps for setting the iPad in landscape orientation while in the dock stand).
Last edited:
Maybe for tour displays, but when they shot the show, they were all rear projection from film loops.
Been looking over a bunch of different PADD designs from over the course of the show, and some are UNCANNILY familiar.
You're obviously not an inventor or designer are you
People stealing hard working peoples idea's is exactly what has to stop.
What innovation has Samsung contributed to phone's and tablets ... hell three years later they still can't get phones right even with the iphone to copy from.
Your post is ignorant.