3 ms·

A rectangle may be a rectangle, but the fact is that no one actually made a working and workable device in this form factor before Apple. If 2001 and Star Trek

A rectangle may be a rectangle, but the fact is that no one actually made a working and workable device in this form factor before Apple. If 2001 and Star Trek are prior art, then where were the hordes of copycats before 2010?

sliverstorm 15y ago
What does first to market have to do with a design patent?
- kemiller 15y ago
  As far as I understand it, it's not a design patent, it's a trade dress complaint.
vacri 15y ago
Tablets of that form factor predate the iPad, but used a stylus rather than a touchscreen. The iPad was an evolution, not a revolution (technologically, certainly has been a business revolution) EDIT: from 2008 - the Electrovaya Scribbler 4000 looks very similar to the ipad... two years before the iPad's release: http://sondreb.com/blog/post/showdown-of-slate-tablet-pcs.aspx http://sondreb.com/blog/post/showdown-of-slate-tablet-pcs.as...
- kemiller 15y ago
  None of them were successful, and I don't mean business-wise. They existed as niche applications at best. I'm not claiming Apple invented tablets. What you've linked looks really nothing like the iPad, except insofar as it's a screen without a keyboard. And that's what all those previous tablets were: PC's with a novel input device. Virtually every tablet device before the iPad had: Resistive touchscreen Stylus Windows OS Plenty of buttons and connectors 12"+ screens PC-grade processors and hardware $2000+ price tag They are honestly not even in the same product category as: capacitive touchscreen finger-based UI written from the ground up one button 10" screen low-power ARM and big battery $500 price tag Samsung didn't go back to 2001 or the Electrovaya Scribbler for their ideas, nor did they come up with the basic design on their own. They had many years in which to do that if they wanted to. They saw that Apple had hit on the right basic form factor, and copied it. Fair enough, to a point. Great artists steal, etc. But trade dress can be serious business if it causes confusion between competitors in a fierce market, and Apple is certainly entitled to their day in court. (Shape/look considerations fall under trademark, not patents.) What Apple does best is not invent new fundamental technologies, it's pick which precise combination of them is going to work best. That is hard work. These kinds of conversations seem to systematically devalue it.

sliverstorm 15y ago

What does first to market have to do with a design patent?

kemiller 15y ago
As far as I understand it, it's not a design patent, it's a trade dress complaint.

vacri 15y ago

Tablets of that form factor predate the iPad, but used a stylus rather than a touchscreen. The iPad was an evolution, not a revolution (technologically, certainly has been a business revolution) EDIT: from 2008 - the Electrovaya Scribbler 4000 looks very similar to the ipad... two years before the iPad's release: http://sondreb.com/blog/post/showdown-of-slate-tablet-pcs.aspx http://sondreb.com/blog/post/showdown-of-slate-tablet-pcs.as...

kemiller 15y ago
None of them were successful, and I don't mean business-wise. They existed as niche applications at best. I'm not claiming Apple invented tablets. What you've linked looks really nothing like the iPad, except insofar as it's a screen without a keyboard. And that's what all those previous tablets were: PC's with a novel input device. Virtually every tablet device before the iPad had: Resistive touchscreen Stylus Windows OS Plenty of buttons and connectors 12"+ screens PC-grade processors and hardware $2000+ price tag They are honestly not even in the same product category as: capacitive touchscreen finger-based UI written from the ground up one button 10" screen low-power ARM and big battery $500 price tag Samsung didn't go back to 2001 or the Electrovaya Scribbler for their ideas, nor did they come up with the basic design on their own. They had many years in which to do that if they wanted to. They saw that Apple had hit on the right basic form factor, and copied it. Fair enough, to a point. Great artists steal, etc. But trade dress can be serious business if it causes confusion between competitors in a fierce market, and Apple is certainly entitled to their day in court. (Shape/look considerations fall under trademark, not patents.) What Apple does best is not invent new fundamental technologies, it's pick which precise combination of them is going to work best. That is hard work. These kinds of conversations seem to systematically devalue it.