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
FYI re: IBM Tele Pads
The "IBM Tele Pads" shown in "2001: A Space Odyssey" were actually miniature rear-projection screens built into the set. Movie projectors were placed behind them and projected movies onto the screens for filming. All computer monitors and displays were done that way to simplify frame rate synchronization.
You'll notice that neither Poole nor Bowman ever move their Tele Pads. Now you know why.
The "IBM Tele Pads" shown in "2001: A Space Odyssey" were actually miniature rear-projection screens built into the set. Movie projectors were placed behind them and projected movies onto the screens for filming. All computer monitors and displays were done that way to simplify frame rate synchronization.
You'll notice that neither Poole nor Bowman ever move their Tele Pads. Now you know why.
Its true! The movies units are just like iPads. Apple copied 2001, and Samsung did too, unaware of the iPad. Just coincidence, with no intent to confuse tablet shoppers or play off of Apples mindshare in a market Apple created, rather than developing something unique.
(If Samsung actually developed unique designs, like some other companies have, just think of all the competition and choice wed have! No thanks. Id rather see a market with one iPad and a bunch of knock-offs, rather than real innovation.)
Also, Apple-style dock connectors and folding case/stand were seen on the tablet computers in Its a Wonderful Life.
(If Samsung actually developed unique designs, like some other companies have, just think of all the competition and choice wed have! No thanks. Id rather see a market with one iPad and a bunch of knock-offs, rather than real innovation.)
Also, Apple-style dock connectors and folding case/stand were seen on the tablet computers in Its a Wonderful Life.
so this is the predicament we are in: Samsung attorneys are citing fictional props from a film as prior art. Too bad they are only props and not legitimately developed and marketed devices.
This is either really brilliant or ridiculous. If i were a judge sitting on this case i would be offended that an attorney would consider this to be "evidence".
But I guess thats their ultimate goal anyway, to get the case thrown out.
This is either really brilliant or ridiculous. If i were a judge sitting on this case i would be offended that an attorney would consider this to be "evidence".
But I guess thats their ultimate goal anyway, to get the case thrown out.
BB clearly infringes, given Apples definition of the word. Toshiba too (edge-to-edge glass*, metal rim*, generic shape). The other two are different type of devices all together (i.e. poor examples).
* could be wrong, looks matte but flash reflections hint something else. Perhaps the rim isnt metal either, really dont care.
The problem is, all of those things you list have very specific and complex functional designs.
Apple patented a rectangle with a glass face. The patent is ridiculously broad, and if the court upholds it, it effectively blocks every single slate tablet on the market today, and Apple WILL sue every other manufacturer if they win this case.
Their problem is the patent is so broad, that it is indefensible. Samsung are using things like the 2001 tablet as examples of how broad the Apple patent is, and how it is impossible to design a device that doesn't infringe on this patent, and how the exact form factor the patent describes already existed long before Apple filed for the patent.
My guess: Theyre showing how most of Apples case (i.e. community design registrations) are non-original, and pretty much the obvious-route for slate-design. Not like its their only evidence either.
correction: Apple patented a rectangular tablet device with specific dimensions that Samsung copied.
That should be a strong argument in court.
I have to agree with others who question the validity of made up items accounting for prior art. I am pretty sure that doesn't fly. These are not even real devices that do anything, they are fake.
If Samsung has to rely on made up objects in a movie about the future that we all know was wholly inaccurate as it took place 10 years ago, then I can not say they have a lot going for their legal defense.
Correction: Samsung tablet doesn't have the same dimension or the same aspect ratio than iPad.
Too bad you didn't see the earlier clip of them moving the tablets.
Too bad you cant see.
Maybe, maybe not
Patent attorneys earn big bucks because the law isn't simple or clear. Yes, this movie scene appears to show a tablet _display_ device, but is that what is covered in the claims of Apple's design patent? The iPad is an interactive computer packaged as a tablet. A good lawyer can come up with fifty reasons why this prior art doesn't apply.
Fritz Lang's 1927 film Metropolis shows a video phone device. Did that stop AT&T from patenting it some 30 years later?
Patent attorneys earn big bucks because the law isn't simple or clear. Yes, this movie scene appears to show a tablet _display_ device, but is that what is covered in the claims of Apple's design patent? The iPad is an interactive computer packaged as a tablet. A good lawyer can come up with fifty reasons why this prior art doesn't apply.
Fritz Lang's 1927 film Metropolis shows a video phone device. Did that stop AT&T from patenting it some 30 years later?
1) no it won't. That's the way it USED to work, but no longer.
2) no it won't. This is a DESIGN patent. A design patent only protects the APPEARANCE of an object - it has nothing to do with the functionality. So if I made a movie in 1975 and included a computer that looked exactly like an iPad, Apple would not be entitled to a design patent on the appearance of the iPad years later.
3) no it won't. To be prior art, it doesn't have to work, nor has that ever been the case.
You are confusing utility patents and design patents.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
And the mobile phone was also copied from the film industry ... Did anything happen? Nop. Steve and his suites will pull that one out of the hat thus invalidating the idea of looking into the film industry by Shamsung.
And the mobile phone was also copied from the film industry ... Did anything happen? Nop. Steve and his suites will pull that one out of the hat thus invalidating the idea of looking into the film industry by Shamsung.
Except none of the dimensions of Samsung's device match those of the iPad.
Even the proportions are off, the LCD aspect ratio is different too.
wait, what am i missing? that was suppose to demonstrate the iPad concept was thought up years ago? that didn't look like any Apple iPad to me. just some screen playing a movie. where was the interface, they didn't even interact with it. the judge should throw this out and make the lawyers by everyone pizza.