“Late last night, Samsung filed its opposition brief to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the United States,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents.
“Ever since Apple started to assert the design of the iPad against other manufacturers, many people have been wondering whether there’s actually prior art for the general design of the iPad in some futuristic devices shown in sci-fi movies and TV series,” Mueller reports. “And indeed, Samsung’s lawyers make this claim now in their defense against Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”
This is how the related declaration explains why this movie picture is valid prior art for a certain iPad-related design patent:
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a still image taken from Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. The clip can be downloaded online at [YouTube]. As with the design claimed by the D’889 Patent, the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table’s surface), and a thin form factor.
Read more in the full article here.
So all Samsung’s smartphone patents belong to Star Trek and Gene R?
Kubrick was a genius. He didn’t have a single computer in the film. Everything was simulated. Hard to believe he made this in 1968 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Technology
Only problem is…they are not computers…they are video screens! A nice job grasping at straws though.
On a side note – Love that camera angle in that shot..
APPLE NEWTON was on the MARKET in 1987
and ended February 27, 1998.
IT was REAL not a conceptual movie PROP !
And ET took my idea for that flying bike…..
If they want to dispute the validity of Apple’s IP they have to go through the complete description sentence-by-sentence. This tablet design from the movie doesn’t even match half of Apple’s description. The bezel seems to be very narrow on 3 sides while Apple has a wide bezel on all 4 sides. In the movie the tablet has a handle at the bottom. iPad doesn’t have a handle. And lastly it’s not even clear if these are touch pads or just mobile screens.
Ah. The FAIL is strong with this one.
Did anyone pick a ‘tablet ‘ up off the table or does the remind you more of Microsoft’s “Surface”?
If movies are prior art, then doesn’t Google ‘s baby Droid violate prior art from ‘Star Wars”?
Samsung since you are an Android vendor who uses the baby Android image, George Lucas is eagerly awaiting your reply and a large check for his attorneys.
I’m just glad Al Gore invented the Internet.
I’m glad you showed us your IQ level.
“Samsung’s lawyers make this claim now in their defense against Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(catching my breath…)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This has got to be a CLASSIC of STOOOPID lawyer tricks.
OMFG.
Samsung: You are SOOOO incredibly screwed. And this proves that YOU KNOW IT. It’s called DESPERATION. 😆
get the blue ray disc and look at this in HD… the “tablets” are televisions on a stand, tuned to the same channel, with physical keys numbered 0-9. they are not lying flat on the table… that is just the camera angle/VFX in this shot. In another shot you see them leaning back at an angle on the stand.
In star trek they had touch screens, but they were not multitouch – you see them pressing “buttons” one finger at a time on the screens, not making multi-touch gestures with multiple fingers. The Samsung i700 phone released a few years before the iPhone had a single touch capacitive touchscreen and relied on physical buttons for navigation.
When discussing multi-touch, many bloggers and posters are unaware that Apple acquired fingerworks and its patents for multi-touch and touchstream keyboards dating back from 1999-2005, so they mistakenly cite 2007 as the date for apple’s first multi-touch patent.
Sheep are still in denial?
Every single time it’s thrown out there, you people just come up with one excuse after another. The iPad basicallu copied every single digital phot frame that’s been out for 6 years+ already!
As to the GUI, what, you mean the Icon dock? Been covered – NExt/Apple stole that from Acorn/Arthur OS
God forbid Android or anything else clone iOS – it’s for simpletons who can’t handle a real device.
Do you folks thumbing the Android devices even have a CLUE about them? Have you even attempted to see how configurable the launchers (desktops) are?
It’s realy sad tha you all just line up saying the same thing, but have ZERO experience with them.
If any of you had ever even TOUCHED an Android tablet, you’d know it’s leaps and bounds WAY past the iOS interface, and that’s without even getting into the 3rd party launchers out there, like LauncherPro+ and ADW.Launcher.
HAHAHAHA!
This must be a WEEK of desperation! This is one of the weakest troll diatribes I have ever read:
“If any of you had ever even TOUCHED an Android tablet, you’d know it’s leaps and bounds WAY past the iOS interface”
No one has stated, as far as I know, that Android does not have its own unique or even innovative features. However, the multitude of lawsuits against Android ARE pointing out that Android ripped off quite a few patented technologies, including Apple’s iOS. Who is REALLY in denial here? Who is more a ‘simpleton’ than a deceitful troll? Who is more ‘CLUE’-less than a troll denying published and verified facts about the ongoing Android lawsuits.
Please try harder. 😛
“denying published and verified facts about the ongoing Android lawsuits.” Exactly, Einstein – key word is ONGOING.
Apple already got stopped for trying to pull a fast one, and the injunction got lifted faster than a mosquito in a tornado.
It’s always the same thing – when you can’t argue against Apple stealing 10,20, even 40 year-old technology, you resort to calling people names. Are you 7 years old or something?
Same thing, every time – simpletons get evidence shown to them, and they resort to calling people names. As for you calling me a troll, well, thanks? Coming from your kind, it’s a compliment!
Let’s see if you folks sing the same tune as these illegal patents get invalidated one.by.one.
I, myself, do not need to resort to name-calling, so have a wonderful evening.
That thing in the clip looks more like Microbrain’s big-ass table.
Microdork, though, won’t have to worry about anyone stealing the design.
OMG STEPHEN SPIELBERG INVENTED ALIENS!
Did anyone check if Samsung obtained the rights to use the clip in the first place?
I find it very interesting that Samsung could not cite one example of REAL prior art, they had to resort to fiction.
This shows that the physical iPad design, shape and operation were new and unique.
This plays right into Apple’s hands. If that is the best defense that Samsung has then they will lose.