6 ms·

Apple is grasping for straws here. The argument that out of the space of all possible designs for a tablet, they own the subset defined by the conjunction of "r

Apple is grasping for straws here. The argument that out of the space of all possible designs for a tablet, they own the subset defined by the conjunction of "rounded corners AND flat front surface AND uncluttered design AND thin profile etc." is absurdly overbroad. It's like a car manufacturer arguing they own all car designs that have "good gas mileage AND automatic windows AND bluetooth radio AND leather interior" etc. In the weakest argument the features Apple claims as their own are simply universally desirable features that would be obvious to any designer of such a device. In a stronger argument many of features claimed are necessary for the function of any tablet. Not really comfortable with these IP shenanigans harming the market.

wavephorm 15y ago
The iPad is clearly derivative of just about every touchscreen UI shown in Star Trek Next Generation. The enterprise is plastered with them. Samsung should just show any episode of the show and count the number of devices that that are shown that look like an iPad.
- jbrennan 15y ago
  You know those weren't real devices right?
  - jrockway 15y ago
    You can copy the design of a fake device just as easily as you can copy the design of a real device.
  - grannyg00se 15y ago
    In a discussion about design it doesn't matter, does it? We aren't talking about utility patents where the actual functionality and method to achieve it has to be described.
  - vegardx 15y ago
    Why is this relevant? They portray a probable usecase, which 20 years or so later seem to become reality. They also show us that the idea of a user inferface like that is not necessarily something "new", but that, maybe, the technology wasn't there at that time. Now it is.
  - juiceandjuice 15y ago
    Apple's patent in 2005 was for a device that didn't exist.
- Duff 15y ago
  Issac Asimov described, in detail, humanoid and mechanical robots in books published 60 years ago. So when somebody invents a similar robot, should they be unable to patent that invention?
  - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
    The physical design of a humanoid robot? No; Asimov's designs would constitute prior art (not to mention the existing real-world humanoid robots, or even humans themselves if you want to get existental). Any novel mechanical workings that make a humanoid robot possible would certainly be patentable, however.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    Yes, they certainly shouldn't! They can patent the inner working of the robot that they came up with, but they can't patent all possible humanoid robots, regardless of how they're implemented on the inside.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    should they be unable to patent that invention Of course not, they didn't invent anything.
- robterrell 15y ago
  Yeah, not so much. In fact, the opposite is true. Check the PADD links in one of the other comments on this thread (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD) -- the PADD is chunky and exciting-looking for TV: non-symmetrical, off-center, with visually interesting buttons and do-dads. Looks more like an early Sony Reader or the 2005 Nokia tablet. Not at all minimalist, because that would look lame.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    I was referring to more than their tablets. The helm consoles are large flat touchscreens with black bezels and natural user interaction: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8jnaB-iM1I/AAAAAAAAJxI/aRsNEtoCsaA/s400/P270_1_Seas1_farpoint1_026.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8jnaB-iM1I/AAAAAAAAJx... The iPad is absolutely a small version of that device.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      iPad have a single physical home button which those don't have and that's something that several manufactures coped. They could use 2 buttons on the same side or mirror the bottom button on the top or offset it from the center or add some lights or even simply change the edge color or add decorative divots in the outside corners etc. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_2150s.jpg http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_2150s.jpg But instead of picking one of the trillions of other designs they used the iPad design because it sold well.e
      - thetrendycyborg 15y ago
        Which manufacturer copied the home button?
        onemoreact 15y ago
        Samsung. They changed white square into a white rectangle and that's about it. Design patents are a low hurtle but they they could have at least used a circle/house/drooped the icon or something other than a box for home. I mean outside of the iOS reference what does a box / rectangle even mean? http://www.phonearena.com/news/U.S.-version-of-Samsung-Galaxy-S-II-replaces-iPhone-like-home-button-with-Android-one_id21480 http://www.phonearena.com/news/U.S.-version-of-Samsung-Galax... And again, if they had two buttons and use a square for one of them then that's also fine. Or if it's an arrow that stands for play that's cool. But a white rectangle?
- philwelch 15y ago
  No, it really isn't. The UI itself is totally different, with the TNG consoles using a fairly static button-based UI. Most of the PADD's had extraneous hardware buttons, and most of the touchscreens on the ship were not mounted on brushed aluminum roundrects, but rather spread across walls or mounted on consoles that certainly did not resemble the iPad. There weren't any obvious bezels, and the UI was completely different. Mr. Worf's tactical consoles were mounted on a curved, wooden surface: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aEN8erVEI/AAAAAAAAJoA/itj_TFf5aLk/s1600/P269_1.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aEN8erVEI/AAAAAAAAJo... The conn and ops consoles were a solid piece of glass, and while the glass surface was a roundrect and there was a margin around the displayed interface, there wasn't any physical bezel, and the housing was triangular rather than iPad shaped: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD98o3EII/AAAAAAAAJnw/lbrzlHuFeOc/s1600/P269_3.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD98o3EII/AAAAAAAAJn... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD9MMAf3I/AAAAAAAAJng/fpaCB4ry36s/s1600/P269_5.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD9MMAf3I/AAAAAAAAJn... And the consoles in the back of the bridge were also dissimilar: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aDvkLoPSI/AAAAAAAAJm4/_58jHNQHZgk/s1600/P269_10.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aDvkLoPSI/AAAAAAAAJm... The transporter consoles had triangular housings similar to the conn and ops consoles: http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/850/850252/chief-bg-robinson-star-trek-tng-20080206050131343-000.jpg http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/850/850252/chi... The only real similarity is that the TNG consoles were touchscreens. Everything else, software and hardware, is different.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Well, the PADD designers there had little concern for function and a lot more interest in making the tech distinctive. I mean, you want Cardassian tech to look Cardassian. So minimalism wasn't what they were aiming for most of the time. Even so, a few of the PADDs shown were more practical. In particular, take a look at these two PADDs: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Sisko_reconstruction.jpg http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Sisko_reconstruct... http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_stylus_interface.jpg http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_stylus_interface.j... Between the two of them, they give you almost every design element except being black, depending on whether you think those things are buttons or that LCARS is clluttered or whatever.
tvon 15y ago
They're not grasping at straws, they're taking the opportunity the courts have (foolishly) provided them with and doing everything they can with it. It's absurd, but that's the (broken) system we have in place.
nl 15y ago
I never defend Apple, but they aren't grasping at straws. They own design patents on those things, and that gives them protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them. Arguments about obviousness are irrelevant under design patent law. See http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them // I'm going to guess you're misdescribing the law here as elsewise they could simply point out that the origin of the goods and hence their distinctiveness is clearly born out by the articles bearing the trademarks of the respective companies. I know practically nothing of US (presumably this is the jurisdiction in question) Design Patents ... do you have a pointer to a primer (or just the USC), thanks.
- pyre 15y ago
  > protection against things that could be reasonably > mistaken for them That sounds more like trademark law. That said, Apple has to incur a bit of penalty here for being first-to-market. Since the iPad was the first-to-market and the most widely recognized brand, it would not be uncommon for someone to see any tablet (regardless of design similarities) and say, "Is that an iPad?" It's like Henry Ford claiming that no one else can make cars at the genesis of the Model-T because cars in general are associated with the Ford Motor Company. It would be ridiculous to say that anything with 4 wheels and a combustion engine might be mistaken for a Ford, therefore Ford is the only one that can make cars.
  - meow 15y ago
    Ironically, Ford fought tooth and nail against an overly generic patent for automobile (similar to a design patent because the guy who owns it is a lawyer and never built an actual model before getting the patent) and won. http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html
    - 15y ago

wavephorm 15y ago

The iPad is clearly derivative of just about every touchscreen UI shown in Star Trek Next Generation. The enterprise is plastered with them. Samsung should just show any episode of the show and count the number of devices that that are shown that look like an iPad.

jbrennan 15y ago
You know those weren't real devices right?
- jrockway 15y ago
  You can copy the design of a fake device just as easily as you can copy the design of a real device.
- grannyg00se 15y ago
  In a discussion about design it doesn't matter, does it? We aren't talking about utility patents where the actual functionality and method to achieve it has to be described.
- vegardx 15y ago
  Why is this relevant? They portray a probable usecase, which 20 years or so later seem to become reality. They also show us that the idea of a user inferface like that is not necessarily something "new", but that, maybe, the technology wasn't there at that time. Now it is.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Apple's patent in 2005 was for a device that didn't exist.
Duff 15y ago
Issac Asimov described, in detail, humanoid and mechanical robots in books published 60 years ago. So when somebody invents a similar robot, should they be unable to patent that invention?
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  The physical design of a humanoid robot? No; Asimov's designs would constitute prior art (not to mention the existing real-world humanoid robots, or even humans themselves if you want to get existental). Any novel mechanical workings that make a humanoid robot possible would certainly be patentable, however.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Yes, they certainly shouldn't! They can patent the inner working of the robot that they came up with, but they can't patent all possible humanoid robots, regardless of how they're implemented on the inside.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  should they be unable to patent that invention Of course not, they didn't invent anything.
robterrell 15y ago
Yeah, not so much. In fact, the opposite is true. Check the PADD links in one of the other comments on this thread (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD) -- the PADD is chunky and exciting-looking for TV: non-symmetrical, off-center, with visually interesting buttons and do-dads. Looks more like an early Sony Reader or the 2005 Nokia tablet. Not at all minimalist, because that would look lame.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  I was referring to more than their tablets. The helm consoles are large flat touchscreens with black bezels and natural user interaction: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8jnaB-iM1I/AAAAAAAAJxI/aRsNEtoCsaA/s400/P270_1_Seas1_farpoint1_026.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8jnaB-iM1I/AAAAAAAAJx... The iPad is absolutely a small version of that device.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    iPad have a single physical home button which those don't have and that's something that several manufactures coped. They could use 2 buttons on the same side or mirror the bottom button on the top or offset it from the center or add some lights or even simply change the edge color or add decorative divots in the outside corners etc. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_2150s.jpg http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_2150s.jpg But instead of picking one of the trillions of other designs they used the iPad design because it sold well.e
    - thetrendycyborg 15y ago
      Which manufacturer copied the home button?
      - onemoreact 15y ago
        Samsung. They changed white square into a white rectangle and that's about it. Design patents are a low hurtle but they they could have at least used a circle/house/drooped the icon or something other than a box for home. I mean outside of the iOS reference what does a box / rectangle even mean? http://www.phonearena.com/news/U.S.-version-of-Samsung-Galaxy-S-II-replaces-iPhone-like-home-button-with-Android-one_id21480 http://www.phonearena.com/news/U.S.-version-of-Samsung-Galax... And again, if they had two buttons and use a square for one of them then that's also fine. Or if it's an arrow that stands for play that's cool. But a white rectangle?
philwelch 15y ago
No, it really isn't. The UI itself is totally different, with the TNG consoles using a fairly static button-based UI. Most of the PADD's had extraneous hardware buttons, and most of the touchscreens on the ship were not mounted on brushed aluminum roundrects, but rather spread across walls or mounted on consoles that certainly did not resemble the iPad. There weren't any obvious bezels, and the UI was completely different. Mr. Worf's tactical consoles were mounted on a curved, wooden surface: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aEN8erVEI/AAAAAAAAJoA/itj_TFf5aLk/s1600/P269_1.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aEN8erVEI/AAAAAAAAJo... The conn and ops consoles were a solid piece of glass, and while the glass surface was a roundrect and there was a margin around the displayed interface, there wasn't any physical bezel, and the housing was triangular rather than iPad shaped: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD98o3EII/AAAAAAAAJnw/lbrzlHuFeOc/s1600/P269_3.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD98o3EII/AAAAAAAAJn... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD9MMAf3I/AAAAAAAAJng/fpaCB4ry36s/s1600/P269_5.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aD9MMAf3I/AAAAAAAAJn... And the consoles in the back of the bridge were also dissimilar: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aDvkLoPSI/AAAAAAAAJm4/_58jHNQHZgk/s1600/P269_10.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XNPD380IpBQ/S8aDvkLoPSI/AAAAAAAAJm... The transporter consoles had triangular housings similar to the conn and ops consoles: http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/850/850252/chief-bg-robinson-star-trek-tng-20080206050131343-000.jpg http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/850/850252/chi... The only real similarity is that the TNG consoles were touchscreens. Everything else, software and hardware, is different.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 15y ago
  Well, the PADD designers there had little concern for function and a lot more interest in making the tech distinctive. I mean, you want Cardassian tech to look Cardassian. So minimalism wasn't what they were aiming for most of the time. Even so, a few of the PADDs shown were more practical. In particular, take a look at these two PADDs: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Sisko_reconstruction.jpg http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Sisko_reconstruct... http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_stylus_interface.jpg http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:PADD_stylus_interface.j... Between the two of them, they give you almost every design element except being black, depending on whether you think those things are buttons or that LCARS is clluttered or whatever.

tvon 15y ago

They're not grasping at straws, they're taking the opportunity the courts have (foolishly) provided them with and doing everything they can with it. It's absurd, but that's the (broken) system we have in place.

nl 15y ago

I never defend Apple, but they aren't grasping at straws. They own design patents on those things, and that gives them protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them. Arguments about obviousness are irrelevant under design patent law. See http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analys...

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>protection against things that could be reasonably mistaken for them // I'm going to guess you're misdescribing the law here as elsewise they could simply point out that the origin of the goods and hence their distinctiveness is clearly born out by the articles bearing the trademarks of the respective companies. I know practically nothing of US (presumably this is the jurisdiction in question) Design Patents ... do you have a pointer to a primer (or just the USC), thanks.
pyre 15y ago
> protection against things that could be reasonably > mistaken for them That sounds more like trademark law. That said, Apple has to incur a bit of penalty here for being first-to-market. Since the iPad was the first-to-market and the most widely recognized brand, it would not be uncommon for someone to see any tablet (regardless of design similarities) and say, "Is that an iPad?" It's like Henry Ford claiming that no one else can make cars at the genesis of the Model-T because cars in general are associated with the Ford Motor Company. It would be ridiculous to say that anything with 4 wheels and a combustion engine might be mistaken for a Ford, therefore Ford is the only one that can make cars.
- meow 15y ago
  Ironically, Ford fought tooth and nail against an overly generic patent for automobile (similar to a design patent because the guy who owns it is a lawyer and never built an actual model before getting the patent) and won. http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html
  - 15y ago