Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey In Apple Patent Case

suraj.sun and several other readers sent word that Samsung is using a clip from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey as an example of prior art in its defense against Apple's patent infringement claims. "In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. ... 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." Samsung also supplied a clip from 1970s British TV series The Tomorrow People.

This is why!

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents should only cover technical innovations.

Trademarks should cover design, and with much more specificity. BRANDING people.

Re:This is why!

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it was the whole Z-axis thing. People can barely handle X Y.

Re:This is why!

[optimism]

Trademarking the shape of a 12oz can of soda would be a helluva lot more generic. Of course they couldn't do that for practical reasons.

Trademarking a specific color on soft-drink cans, I can totally understand. And it's only soft-drinks. Which explains why Coke never goes after Tecate for selling a red can of beer. :)

In any case I imagine it is almost impossible to trademark the color black.

That's good

[Daetrin]

But i still wish they'd introduce this as prior art. [howstuffworks.com]

It's not the same color and it's mechanical rather than electronic, but i really don't think that's a significant difference in terms of the important bits. Flat rectangular thing with bezeled edges and rounded corners that your draw on. This form factor was worked out ages ago, the theory of improving the interface and what you can do with it are certainly important technological improvements but have little to do with the form factor that Apple is claiming is important.

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Baloroth]

Yeah. They barely even bothered to change the name.

Re:And what about teleportation device?

[Lehk228]

they certainly should not be able to patent the ide of a transporter or the overall design used in the show.

the actual transporter technology would be patentable

Re:Clueless haters...

[Jmc23]

Can you provide links so the rest of us csn see what you are talking about?

Re:The patent in question; D504,889

[slack_justyb]

No this legal wrangling has only one point. To place an injunction on the Samsung device wherever a court will let it stick. Patents are used to scare, court battles are just there to draw it all out. Apple will loose, they know that, they're just buying time until the iPad^3GPSTOPBBQ.

Re:Clueless haters...

[medv4380]

What you describe shouldn't be a patent but rather a Trade Mark

Re:What about Star Trek?

[Tamran]

That's because Steve Jobs was partially inspired by them.

I think Steve Jobs was actually inspired by the Ferengi ... while Bill Gates was inspired by the Borg.

Or, both could be vice-verse.

Re:Clueless haters...

[aztracker1]

This isn't about 'invention', it's about graphic design - and an entirely different part of the law.

Exactly, that would be copyright law, not patent law.

Re:Clueless haters...

[SoftwareArtist]

No. What you say is completely false. Read the patent [google.com] and see for yourself. (It will only take you a minute - it consists almost entirely of pictures.) You will not find any sunflower in it, any cartoon bubble, any envelope against a cloudy sky, or anything like that. What you'll find are very generic outlines of a tablet, where the front face is mostly taken up by a touch screen. And absolutely nothing else. That's the entire content of the patent. That's what this is about.