“While there are no court proceedings on Thursday, Judge Lucy Koh issued a variety of rulings further limiting the types of evidence Samsung can use to argue that Apple’s patents are either invalid or not infringed,” Ina Fried reports for AllThingsD.
“In an order on Thursday, Koh upheld a magistrate judge’s contention that, for example, Samsung cannot use devices shown in the 1968 movie “2001: A Space Odyssey” as part of its case that Apple’s patents are invalid,” Fried reports.
Fried reports, “The trial resumes on Friday with Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller due to return to the witness stand. Schiller testified only briefly on Tuesday before court ended for the day.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: You know Samsung’s in trouble when their best “evidence” proves absolutely nothing and is routinely excluded by the judge as if Samsung were joking.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
German court rejects Samsung’s ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ defense of Galaxy Tab – September 17, 2011
Samsung’s 2001 Stanley Kubrick defense debunked – August 24, 2011
Samsung cites Stanley Kubrick’s ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ movie as prior art against iPad design patent – August 23, 2011
Apple asks Judge Koh to rule in its favor after Samsung’s excluded evidence leak – August 2, 2012
Apple says it will seek sanctions over Samsung’s press release of excluded evidence – August 2, 2012
The 125-year-old U.S. patent law that could cost Samsung $2 billion for slavishly copying Apple’s designs – August 1, 2012
Samsung defends decision to share excluded evidence with media – August 1, 2012
Apple says jury should learn that Samsung destroyed evidence – August 1, 2012
Samsung, after ‘begging’ to get Sony into Apple patent trial, flouts judge and releases ‘excluded evidence’ anyway – July 31, 2012
Apple v. Samsung Live Blog: Trial opens with one juror gone, Samsung begging – July 31, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple aims for total war, salted earth in Samsung patent infringement fight – July 31, 2012
Apple-Samsung jury picked to decide U.S. patent trial; Google engineer fails to make final cut – July 30, 2012
Samsung will now play 2001: A Space Odyssey on their website page on a loop.
Only the part at the end where Bowman is dying and the towering monolith appears. Superimposed on it, the words “We DID invent the rectangle, Earthlings. Deal with it.”
That’s a good one… 🙂
Yet if we, for a minute, would talk seriously about this laughable matter, then it has to be said that this film’s example does not showcase a computing tablet, it is rather shows videophone — which is totally different category. Besides, the design is different.
Except that Sony owns 2001.
That’s no problem. Samsung has 2OOI. Clearly original.
Now_that’s_ funny. Thanks for the giggle.
LOL! 100
The ‘evidence’ won’t be admitted because there are no ‘devices’ in 2001 – A Space Odyssey. This has been clearly pointed out that what the crew were looking at were computer
monitors streaming a TV feed from Earth, not a removable tablet device.
It would be more appropriate to look at Star Trek TNG PADD device than 2001’s video monitor. Scumsucks can’t even do THAT right.
Peter don’t please give them any ideas.
I didn’t even realize they were stupid enough to seriously try this ‘evidence of prior art’. I thought this was just nonsense the fandroids were screaming about at engadget- amazing that Samsungs reps are dumb enough to try this bit of flim-flam.
2001 is a fucking Sci-Fi movie. Much like star wars and star trek it’s conceptualized thing’s that didn’t exist in 1968 by a long shot.
Because I can DREAM or something, doesn’t make it prior art. If I were to develope a ‘star-gate’, ‘warp-drive’, or ‘transporter’ you’d better fucking believe I’d get a patent on it and that patent would hold up till the day it expired. It’s simply laughable to suggest that because a similar device was dreamt up by a science fiction writer 50 years ago that the IP isn’t patentable.
Samsung is tripping all over themselves to lose this thing ASAP
… film-flam.
frim fram sauce…with the oss and fay.
+1000
Maybe Samsung would like to give a shot of submitting the tablets used in history, like starting the Ten Commandments.
Whatever the outcome, it will be contested and there will be a retrial. Another judge may or may not allow the evidence Samsung requests, but that alone is pretty good grounds for a retrial. And my guess is Samsung is setting up the groundwork for a retrial as it knows it will up on the loosing end this time out.
Who knows, maybe Samsung will make a settlement offer before it gets to the jury, but it looks doubtful Sammy will exit with their shirt.
Retrial… Very unlikely in this case. Settling very possible.
Almost zero chance of a settlement at this point given all the BS Samsung has pulled and the way this trial is going.
Pretty much. Samsung’s attempts are pathetic and reek of desperation. All the more reason for Apple to twist the knife.
Samsung is grasping at straws…f*cking idiots!
maybe in Korea they think 2001 is a documentary?
2012: A Scam Odyssey
A monolithic defense by the Korean side?
Wow.
You know your case is bad when you’re trying to use a fictional movie to prove your point.
Stay tuned for “2012: A Legal Oddity” followed by
“Spar Trek: The Next Litigation”.
Bing Crosby recorded “Sam’s Song” in the 1950s. Proof that Samsung stole it’s name!
Does Samsung think they can get away with this insane crap because the judge is Korean?
How many times does Lucy Koh have to slap them down before they realize she pretty obviously isn’t playing that game?
Sumsung should familiarize themselves with the ‘concept’ of fiction or science fiction and it’s relationship with reality.
Next they’ll be asking the judge to admit clips of the Jetsons as ‘proof’…
Samsunk is Joking. Constantly.
You people are hilarious. You argue that Apple should hold the design patent for a tablet style device. So this is strictly design. Yet you discount the very designs that existed before Apple. It’s absurd. Apple shouldn’t be awarded a design patent for this stuff: they aren’t first. This is not an original idea born from them. And if you don’t like the idea of a design from a movie, then head over to the 1968 paper by Alan Kay about the Dynabook: a tablet computer. Or Palm’s shipped and sold Grid Pad from the late 1980s. Or the bevy of slate devices in the 90s. Or the array of slate smartphones prior to the iPhone. Or the Palm OS that iOS is a blatant rip off of.
I mean get real people.
And so your point is what, that intellectual property does not really exist: that it’s nothing but a thin, invalid legal fiction?
Were you right, Jules Verne and his descendants would own the Earth.
The problem with your little rant is that you’re talking about ideas not specific implementations of an idea.
Ideas are not patentable. They aren’t copyrightable. They can’t be trademarked.
Apple applied for and received protection under the law for specific implementations. Apple’s claim is that Samsung’s implementation is too similar to the protected implementation.
It has nothing to do with the idea of a tablet. Tablets have existed for thousands of years. Apple’s specific implementation has not.
And the problem with your little reply is that you’re just some dude on the Internet making broad sweeping statements who: hasn’t done the research to make the statements you’re making.
If we just took your position, we’d say that there are ZERO other patents that were prior to Apple on the design on these things. Or that there are ZERO companies who can demonstrate prior art. If you search the patent and trademark database, you’ll notice a ton of patents. Or if you look at Sony, Nokia… or any other of these giants, you’ll see design patents that conflict with the idea that Apple patented this stuff first.
And if you start looking outside your little USA, you’ll see close to 200 other countries many of which have their own patent database. People have patented so many things it’s insane. How about the super oxygenated suit that burns calories! It’s a plastic rain coat. Patents don’t really mean as much as you seem to think they mean. They’re just a public record of some “invention” but in no way does that mean that someone can’t come forward and demonstrate that they were first or before that patent… then the patent gets invalidated. Patents get invalidated all of the time. The only reason to file a patent is to make it easier to defend it in terms of dates. But it’s expensive and doesn’t imply you were first. You don’t need to patent or trademark anything, as long as you can demonstrate a date in which the invention or thing to be protected came into existence.
It’s your incredulity that clouds your judgement on this issue. I have no doubt in my mind that Samsung appropriated some of the look and feel of Apple’s original iPhone.
But the design and launch of the tablet that MDN keeps showing was in the form of a picture frame in 2006 well before the iPad launched. Even though it wasn’t serving as a tablet computer it’s absurd and unjust to say that that design somehow came “after” Apple’s iPad. It didn’t. This is design, not function. Apple is going after design. Not multi-touch patents. Not iOS stuff. Not internals. This is design. And in that respect, Samsung was well before the iPad with their picture frame tablet. It doesn’t matter the purpose of the device: this is heavily focused on “trade dress”: the look of the object in the form of a rectangle with rounded edges. That’s really what Apple is going after and it’s absurd.
http://www.androidauthority.com/behold-samsungs-ipad-made-in-2006-21278/
And if you want to see iOS, take a look here: a grid of icons on a handheld, mobile device! HP should sue!
Give it up.
So you’re saying a picture frame is an example prior art of an iPad? Perhaps you need to give up snorting crack.
4 of the patents are ios software patents. It’s not all about ‘design’ and ‘trade dress’ as you’re trying to paint it to be.
Write less, say more!
You had some good points, but then you made this absolutely false statement:
“You don’t need to patent or trademark anything, as long as you can demonstrate a date in which the invention or thing to be protected came into existence.”
False. U.S. patent law has very specific limits on how long you can wait before filing for a patent. If you wait too long, you lose the chance to get a patent permanently. And, it’s about to become even MORE strict. Many countries have what is called First-To-File. The U.S. historically has been a First-To-Invent nation, where the first to file could lose to someone who proves they developed the invention earlier. That is changing in March 2013 to First-To-File. It may be possible to invalidate a patent filed by someone else if you prove that you invented it earlier, but not to get a patent yourself.
That’s some general information. There are a lot of misconceptions about patent law. People confuse it with trademark and copyright law, which are both VERY different than patents. People assume all kinds of things that are untrue.
Moral of the story: Don’t get advice about patents from people online, or just based on what you think should be true. If you invent something, talk to a patent attorney to get good advice.
Policy-wise, our patent law is clearly a messy terrible system. I doubt this Congress (or either major party, generally) has any interest in improving it in a way that would be best for everyone. Instead, they will help their donors game the legal system to benefit the already-rich. First-To-File is very big-corporation-friendly. It can mean that individuals who invent things and don’t have a patent legal team already miss their chance to get a patent.
Hello:
WRONG. You DO NOT NEED TO FILE A PATENT EVER. You can invent something and either sit on it and not patent it, to later dispute a patent that is filed that conflicts with your invention, or you can go to market with your invention and not file a patent. You can defend your invention from people trying to patent it if you can demonstrate you were prior. This happens. In fact, there’s a famous case of the first true digital computer… the Atanasoff. It was never patented. Then, some years later, some guys from Pennsylvania patented their computer, the ENIAC, and tried to claim ownership of the world’s first digital computer and the technollogy. The courts later determined that they were not first, and the Atanasoff was… and they invalidated said patents associated with the ENIAC.
“The case was legally resolved on October 19, 1973 when U.S. District Judge Earl R. Larson held the ENIAC patent invalid, ruling that the ENIAC derived many basic ideas from the Atanasoff–Berry Computer. Judge Larson explicitly stated, “Eckert and Mauchly did not themselves first invent the automatic electronic digital computer, but instead derived that subject matter from one Dr. John Vincent Atanasoff”.”
Get a clue.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILE A PATENT TO PROTECT YOUR INVENTION. YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILE A PATENT TO PROTECT YOUR INVENTION. YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILE A PATENT TO PROTECT YOUR INVENTION.
As for Lordthree. This whole trial so far is about design. Design. Design. Design. That’s the context in which we’re talking about this. It’s trade dress and other design things.
it’s sad. you americans own only one giant eletronic company which doesn’t even own its manufacture parts. all parts are coming from other companies. mostly from Samsung, LG. if they stop supplying all parts, what will be happened to apple? you know. my point is that this is just stupid what apple tries to ruin itself. do you think that apple invented everything fucking thing? they just refined something which already existed before. they did nothing.
edward seems like he is jelly of americans. we taste your tears of envy and they are sweet.
“jerry”
Goodbye Dave!
hey Samsung you dorks:
look carefully the 2001 pad has BUTTONS on the bottom edge.
it is navigated by the Buttons. absolutely no indication in the movie of TOUCH INTERFACE.
Maybe MDN should offer a Logic course on here. Many of these arguments from you guys make no logical sense whatsoever. How can otherwise seemingly intelligent people reach such faulty conclusions? This isn’t about what you feel or wish, it’s about the facts. Facts are facts. Must be some of OJ’s jurors on here tonight. Wake up America!
What’s your point?
See my post above. This has nothing to do with the idea of a tablet or someone having thought up a different implementation before. Hell, there were tablets (clay) that people wrote on with their fingers (touch interface) over 3,000 years ago. Do you believe no one can protect their specific implementation of a tablet because of that “prior art”?
You are the one that needs to wake up and realize what the lawsuit is really about: nothing about ideas at all.
Huh? Which arguments and what guys? Who are you actually addressing?
Context, bro. Your comment needs some.
Hey Judge, just watch this:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-tab-stretches-the-truth-promos-use-actors-not-real-consumers/
This tells you pretty much who is samsung and what they do… lie.
Samseng, in South East Asian lingo, is termed as a gangster.
Really? Did not know that. I’m sure MDN will add this to the list.
Moses patented the first tablet design with the help of Universal chief engineer “God” and apple the second tablet with the help of its chief engineer “John Ive”but samsung prefer to skip moses patented design and go straight for apple design without compromise… Samshit has got it all wrong in the first place by showcasing Fictional tablet in a film that existed before the independece of South-Korean from the Emperor of Japan
some crazy nuts are complaining that apple did not invent anything, did samstuck invent smartphone? did samshoot invent battery it uses in its phonedroids? did samcrap invent the OS it uses? Did samfuck invent camera? did smashgun invent television? did samshit invent all the chips it uses on its phone? Not at all, samsuing did invent 20% of its products parts and source the rest just like apple did. likewise, apple invent 20% of its products parts and source the rest from all other suppliers. phone manufacturers came out with idea of fancy phones we used between 1997 and 2006 until apple re-invent the phone in a more usable way “Smartphoes” so what has samcrying actually do to invent tablet if not copying Ipad.
my Samdrenalin shot up when i read people attributing invention to Samdick
Have Samsung’s people ever done law before. They seem to have just watched some movies
Too bad…
It would seem appropriate somehow for Samsung to get up in front of the jury and try to make the case against Apple with a scifi movie!
Jurors:
Really? Is that the best you got Samsung?
Ok… I’m ready now to make my verdict.
Talk about poetic justice!
judge koh – i wish someone could review the evidence i have. this work of stealingcapples work was done illegally on private computers the these thies hacked into & created a kernal to work out of. it was a global operation. char huxtable (415) 827-5062
I have invaluable evidence for apple. (415) 827-5062. Please call