Apple vs Samsung probably screwed by video of tablet PC's in 1994

[AspectUK]

The video shows how newspaper company Knight Ridder saw the news of the future and, darn it, I must say that those guys were spot on with their assumptions. However, what they probably didn’t think their little video would do is seriously hurt Apple’s chances of winning the design patent war against Samsung and other Android tablet manufacturers, a war that is heading towards a conclusion these days.

Full story here:
http://www.androidauthority.com/appl...ent-war-69575/

[ss30]

Knight Ridder

Shite name

[EvilBoB]

How can a video about future tech be used to beat a patent application? Unless the video was created by Google it's still in the public domain until the application is granted - else patent wars would be owned by futurologists who dream these things up. If this video gets used by the courts in the Apple v Samsung case and it is found admissable it would be a dark day indeed as other companies would come out of the woodwork to screw people over. It would also slow down our technological advancements as companies R&D teams would have videos and articles published in scientific journals to contend with when applying for their patents.

[AspectUK]

Apple Inc. sued Samsung Electronics Co. in April 2011, saying the Korean electronics maker “made a deliberate decision to copy Apple’s iPhone and iPad…The intellectual property that Apple has asserted against Samsung goes to the heart of the extraordinary success of the iPhone and the iPad.”

Source http://www.forbes.com/sites/conniegu...king-points/3/

That video surely proves that the design of a tablet/touch PC was dreamt up some 18 years ago???

[Over Carl]

How can a video about future tech be used to beat a patent application?

I'm guessing it depends on what is novel about the patent application. If the video about the future merely contains an idea (e.g. mobile phone) but the patents on the mobile phones are actually on the methods of mobile speech transmission for example then they would obviously have no bearing on each other.

However if the video about the future showed the idea of a mobile phone then someone later tried to patent just the concept of a mobile phone, then I think it's obvious the patent should be refused or declared invalid as it is neither novel or non-obvious which are both essential for any patent otherwise the system would be pointless.

[macmilm]

Plus didn't Microsoft do a tablet PC about 15 years ish ago anyway but no one was interested in the idea back then???
I remember something unveiled by gates that went down like a lead balloon

[DJ OD]

This shit makes me laugh.

Case should be dropped. It's not like if Samsung did deliberately copy an iphone that Apple would lose out in any way...

Sales should decide this little issue. Regardless, it does seem to me like sour grapes on Apples part and that they want to screw their competitors.


DJ OD

[Over Carl]

Plus didn't Microsoft do a tablet PC about 15 years ish ago anyway but no one was interested in the idea back then???
I remember something unveiled by gates that went down like a lead balloon

I think you are thinking about the Apple Newton

[MsDG]

Plus didn't Microsoft do a tablet PC about 15 years ish ago anyway but no one was interested in the idea back then???
I remember something unveiled by gates that went down like a lead balloon

[ss30]

Love the comments under the pics

[Geko]

How can a video about future tech be used to beat a patent application? Unless the video was created by Google it's still in the public domain until the application is granted - else patent wars would be owned by futurologists who dream these things up. If this video gets used by the courts in the Apple v Samsung case and it is found admissable it would be a dark day indeed as other companies would come out of the woodwork to screw people over. It would also slow down our technological advancements as companies R&D teams would have videos and articles published in scientific journals to contend with when applying for their patents.

It shows that a patent should never have been granted for such a general design feature. A bit like if someone patented rectangular and square TVs.

[Lighty]

ive recently finished a part of my degree that im doing via OU at home in Engineering (Beng.Hons) and have just gotten through the patent section of the course.....its a fuckin minefield of bullshit. But pretty much as Geko says the patent seems very weakly based in the first place. I dont know the in's and out's of the lawsuit but im guessing there is something Extremely Unique that apple is complaining has been copied and therefore I dont think that video should have anything to do with it. Howver the truth is that apple want to stop complaining and sort out their battery life on iphone! arent they already the richest corporation in the world now? Also didnt samsung used to make the chips for them or screens or something? Now theyve pissed on google maps in the latest IOS6 so it just all sounds like handbags to me.

[Geko]

Samsung make all their chips. Apple rebadge it and put it in their phones. Also... I think Apple have patented the rectangular phone with rounded edges.

[AspectUK]

Apple are Samsungs biggest customer.
Samsung are Apples biggest supplier.

Apple are trying to prove that Samsung basically copied their design and therefore misled the general public into thinking that what they were buying was an iPad and not a Samsung Android Pad.

This I believe is one of 32 other accusations that are flying around between them both: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...?newsfeed=true

[Geko]

Apple tried to stop Samsung from going into the mobile phone business, and especially with android.