|
photohounds
24 August 2011
|
Not just 2001, AI, Minority Report, Matrix etc. etc. etc. etc.
There may be HUNDREDS of movie examples of such concepts being graphically explained and demonstrated in use.
I doubt these inventors will be compensated for their creative ideas, or the efforts of those behind the tech to make work.
Perhaps messrs. Spielberg and Lucas are watching the current BS with more than a little interest?
Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Samsung: Apple ripped off 2001: A Space Odyssey?
Samsung has fired back at Apple's lawsuit, claiming that the iPad concept already existed - in a sci-fi movie.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
cootified
24 August 2011
|
Now, I may not know which part of the world you are reading this from, or what language you speak, but you absolutely cannot patent a movie prop.
One reason?
It's not on sale to the mass public as a product.
|
|
Nato
24 August 2011
|
I agree with samsung on this one, i remember as a kid that movie and lots of others and thinking how cool it would be to have a tablet tv you could carry around with you. Sure they are not real but the whole idea of the tablet was right there on screen for all to see, someone just had to make and sell it when the technology allowed so. Apple was able to first and they profited a lot from doing so, but they should not be able to stop other manufacturers from making them as well. They dont look the same to me, just like big screen tvs dont all look the same and have menus that look different but the end result is the same. Apple can yell all they like that they copied them but hand in hand it does not look like a copy to me. Fight for choice i say!!! |
|
plodalong
24 August 2011
|
Are they going for this defence due to the rediculous nature of the claims? if using prior art wouldn't Samsung's own photo frame be more relevant http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/ |
|
photohounds
24 August 2011
|
The latest movie 'thing' is transparent tablets - I like these gadgets. You are right, they DO look like photo frames, and are software-driven.
Tablets are just more sophisticated by bundling more of other's technologies.
When this is made possible, by the actual makers of hardware, will there be claims of having 'invented' transparent units from someone who just markets them?
There was a time when calculators were "impossible" to make transparent, but I bought one as a novelty in the early '80s.
Fact is, the imagining of tablet devices dates back decades. It is the hardware makers who made it possible, not the marketing department.
Does anyone know what 'logic' there is behind being permitted to patent something you didn't invent? |
|
Reggie
25 August 2011
|
It would be more convincing if they interacted with the device. They appear to be watching a video feed, so it is more likely a tablet monitor. Nevertheless, Apples Patents cover the way a user interacts with the device rather than its shape.
Prior art does cover a movie prop in that it does not inform a person "skilled in the art" how to actually build such a device or how to interact with it. Thats why I can't patent my perpetual motion machine! I know what it should do but I don't know how to build one. Patents are more than ideas. |
|
photohounds
25 August 2011
|
Reggie wrote:It would be more convincing if they interacted with the device. They appear to be watching a video feed, so it is more likely a tablet monitor. Nevertheless, Apples Patents cover the way a user interacts with the device rather than its shape.
Prior art does cover a movie prop in that it does not inform a person "skilled in the art" how to actually build such a device or how to interact with it. Thats why I can't patent my perpetual motion machine! I know what it should do but I don't know how to build one. Patents are more than ideas.
Agreed! The actual H/W makers are quite skilled there.
People in many movies interact with just such devices - Star Trek might have been the first.
Goods do not need to be on sale to the public in order for it to be intellectual property.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219455/Dutch_court_bans_Samsung_Galaxy_S_SII_and_Ace_in_Europe_starting_Oct._15?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2011-08-24&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+computerworld%2Fnews%2Ffeed+%28Latest+from+Computerworld%29
"If Samsung fails to do this, (use Gingerbread Android) the consequences can be very big for the European smartphone market. The Dutch infringement could block the import of all Samsung phones to Europe, since Samsung's distribution centers are located in the Netherlands, Dutch ICT news site Webwereld revealed. That is the main reason why Apple is suing Samsung in The Hague.
The judge denied all the other grounds on which Apple tried to ban the import of Samsung products into Europe. Samsung does not infringe on two other patent claims about intellectual copyright and design, the judge ruled. Further, according to the court, Samsung does not "slavishly copy" Apple's iPad and iPhone."
Using the latest Android version in order to comply is not a big ask at all.
So we have one court outcome to deny apple's ridiculous 'copy' claim. It's obvious enough to impartial observers - as courts should be. Let's see what happens in other forums.
...
Edited by photohounds: 25/8/2011 02:02:13 PM |
|
htcs
25 August 2011
|
Earliest I remember came included in a breakfast cereal box on The Jetsons. |
|
amcmo
25 August 2011
|
Photo, you insist on plastering the same rubbish on as many thread as possible. You obviously feel you have won some point here.
The courts have made one ruling.
It is not obvious to anyone, or the German court would not have issues a temporary ruling. As for impartial, don't even pretend you are that.
As I said (actually being as close to impartial as anyone), Apple made a case based on their belief, wait for the court to decide. They have and in this court Apple lost on some counts, won on one.
I had no thought either way as to Apple's likelyhood of success, just Apple's right to proceed if they believed thay had a case, which they must have felt, otherwise why spend the money...
I assume all the phones in question are capable of being upgraded. Samsung clearly felt they infringed on that point due to their earlier statement, however kept shipping infringing product. Will be interesting to see if that costs them $$ down the track.
Photo, there's another 10 - 12 threads that could conceivably have something to do with Apple, I look forward to seeing the same post on all.... |
|
whitlocm
25 August 2011
|
I may be making this up, but didn't HTC get Apples lawsuit no 123415422455645 dismissed, claiming that HTC stole from them swiping your finger across the screen to unlock the device. From memory HTC showed a clip from Predator where they used the same motion to unlock their wrist watch video phone.
Are you allowed to patent a human movement? For example pinch-to-zoom. I agree that Apple has a right to patent the technology that interprets that movement and results in something happening on the screen, but not the human gesture. Will I get slapped with a law suit from Apple next time I pinch somebody backside (or just slapped).
Is not every Plasma/LCD/LED TV ridiculously the same, yet any manufacturer can produce one??? And haven't we seen advancements in that technology through competition.
Welcome to century of Patent wars. Where corporation buy and sell each other not based on intrinsic value, but on how many patents they hold in their coffers.
On a buy note, does not Googles almost new purchase, Motorola, own the patent for mobile telephones. Hang on to your hats, this could get interesting!!!!
|
|
photohounds
6 September 2011
|
A silly claim in Smmsung's case. but it hilighjts the stupidity elswhere ... but no sillier than "we invented the thin black-framed glass rectangle computing device and claim it as 'community intellectual property' ".
And yes, TV's all look similar and have the same functions. They're not idiotically suing each other for looking similar (that is practical) - or are they?
|
|
rubaiyat
6 September 2011
|
whitlocm wrote:On a buy note, does not Googles almost new purchase, Motorola, own the patent for mobile telephones. Hang on to your hats, this could get interesting!!!!
Must we "buy" this one?
I would have thought the estate of Hedy Lamar has the patent for mobile phones, at least the telemetry part. |
|
amcmo
6 September 2011
|
Most of Motorola's patents are worthless in the current phone fight.
As they are incorporated in industry standards, Moto gave up the right to use them in suits, apart from extracting 'fair and non-discriminatory' licence fees. |
|
photohounds
6 September 2011
|
amcmo wrote:Most of Motorola's patents are worthless in the current phone fight.
As they are incorporated in industry standards, Moto gave up the right to use them in suits, apart from extracting 'fair and non-discriminatory' licence fees.
Note exactly 'worthless' - apart from a bit of loot (not that Google's short of that, collecting those licence fees gives an insight into competitor activity.
Anyone know what the permitted time lag between sale and royalty payment is? |
|
amcmo
7 September 2011
|
No - Worthless is totally accurate IN TERMS OF THE CURRENT PHONE FIGHT.
As a revenue stream, not bad, however the overwhelming benefit to Google of the Motorola buy out is tax losses. |
|
photohounds
9 September 2011
|
Back on topic ... "Apple files inaccurate evidence in Dutch Samsung case".
Yes, just like they tried in the German case ... all this deceit to 'make' a case where substance is scant to say the least.
"A legal expert on intellectual property cases, who declined to be named, asserted that when pictures are filed both in the complaint and in separate productions, those in the complaint would be considered more important. Visual evidence presented there typically indicates that the plaintiff wants to emphasize its significance, he said."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219320/Apple_files_inaccurate_evidence_in_Dutch_Samsung_case?source=toc
|
|
amcmo
12 September 2011
|
Photo,
The issue of the resizing of the pics has already been discussed in other threads, and IP experts who were happy to be named (as opposed to the anonymous one), point out that it is perfectly legal to adjust the size in this instance to focus viewing on the issue at hand, namely the identical UI. It was pointed out that at some point in the documentation, this should be noted.
You mention the German case. It appears that their (impartial) court did not find the Apple claims to be 'ridiculous', or are you going to claim that the Dutch court knows what it's doing and the German one doesn't?
Will be interesting to see what the next court decides. Points to the stupidity of the current patent system. |
|
photohounds
13 September 2011
|
Yes a stupid innovation-squashing system, and a sad outcome in round two.
Icon order can be rearranged and probably was to 'prove' something. Icons all have to represent something real. Change the icons to be in exactly the same order and they will look even more similar.
As a hero in some movie said: - "you haven't heard the last of this". It IS ridiculous, as any unbiased person can see. I thought "dammit" - my Galaxy is on the way before the stupidity spreads to our shores. |
|
amcmo
14 September 2011
|
I see Samsung are trying to 'stifle innovation' by suing Apple in France.
Further note, seems Apple's suing Samsung has had no impact on Samsung's sales of tablets, with suggestions they have moved all of 20,000 of the 1 million manufactured and shipped to stores thus far in markets where not banned. $99 Samsung tablets any time soon?
The US$250 Kindle 7" tablet sounds as though it should be a real mover and the first serious iPad competitor.
Before you Android fans start partying, be aware it is a fork of Android exclusive to Amazon and there could be serious issues with many current Android Apps. You'll have to get your Kindle Apps from Amazon to guarantee compatibility - starting to sound like Apple App Store Mark 2.
For any serious tablet mfr, that sounds the only way to go - own both the hardware and the app store to support it. You'll make damn all profit on the hardware to compete with Apple and now Amazon, so the only income stream is the App Store.
Android unravelling already? HTC looking at buying WebOS, perhaps Samsung to re-consider same or put Bada on steroids.... |
|
photohounds
17 September 2011
|
No worries fan boy. Nothing wrong with mfrs having a bet each way, after all, it's "only business".
With the mfrs at each other's throats it WILL impact the Big A. Any unbiased person can see that, but you seem to have glossed over the fact. |
|
Slatts
17 September 2011
|
photohounds wrote:Any unbiased person can see that
Oh?
You've polled a few then?
I wouldn't have thought you and they would move in the same circles.
:p
|
|
amcmo
17 September 2011
|
Photo, you always fall back to the Fanboy insult...
I can at least say that I am platform agnostic and prepared to allow myself and my staff to use whatever platform suits their business needs. Can you?
The only thing I am consistently against are those such as you who in almost every post, regardless of the subject feel the need attack Apple (it could be any company, however Apple seems to be your 'thing') regardless of the (lack of) logic to your argument. You then throw in the fact that you do supposedly own some Apple hardware, though why, given your consistent attacks on the company beats me. If that makes me an Apple fanboy, so be it.
To get back to my original post, nowhere have I suggested that competition amongst manufacturers would fail to impact Apple. Damned if I know how you managed to generate that stunning conclusion.
Of course competition stands to impact Apple, even if not done particularly well. The thrust of my prior post was that at present it is not. Samsung, even where they are allowed to sell their tablet are reported to have achieved woefull sales.
My point was that there will soon be a likely very successful competitor in Amazon. With a forked version of Android, and it's own app store Amazon will own the customer experience end to end, as Apple do, something none of the other Android mfr's currently do.
You say there is nothing wrong with competitors having a foot in either camp. Fine if all you want to do is move lots of boxes, with no brand loyalty, however one of the very first rules of successful business is FOCUS. It was lack of focus that almost led to Apple's demise in the 90's. The list of major businesses that failed due to loosing their focus is miles long.
Edited by amcmo: 17/9/2011 12:14:34 PM |
|
skarpethinn
31 October 2011
|
i think Samsung have a pretty decent argument here, to some degree. Sure, it was a 'fake' prop in 2001 that wasn't interacted with, but as a previous poster said, by Star Trek, we do see actors interacting with the device. In fact, in the most fully-developed of this interaction - in Star Trek: The Next Generation - the device even had a similar name to Apple's - it was called a PADD (Personal Access Digital Device). Admittedly, in modern technological terms, it looks more like Amazon's Kindle as a device, but still....
And as for Apple's overbearing attitude to protecting it's own "intellectual property" (& a bloody joke that term is!), keep in mind here that this is the same company that wanted to patent the 'i' prefix at one point.
Back in the '90s, Imation released a series of 3.5" floppy discs (the multi-coloured ones) that looked EXACTLY like the "library discs" from the original Star Trek series. Motorola's old flip-top phone = Star Trek communicators, anyone? The list goes on, & NONE of theses companies can claim to have NOT been influenced by these fictional products - and none of them are. Apple seem to be the only ones really trying to use the "we did it first" argument.
But i've mentioned in another post how much the (black) iPhone 4 looks like my (black) Sony Ericsson w910i.
Edited by skarpethinn: 31/10/2011 09:53:30 PM
Edited by skarpethinn: 31/10/2011 09:57:33 PM |
