3 ms·
It is innovative by definition, because nobody did it before. If it's so simple, why didn't Samsung do it? Paperclips seem like a obvious design that involves
by Duff 15y ago
It is innovative by definition, because nobody did it before.
If it's so simple, why didn't Samsung do it?
Paperclips seem like a obvious design that involves no innovation. Yet paperclips similar to what we use now weren't around until 1867, and the "modern" paperclip was patented in 1899 -- 30 years later.
- jrockway 15y agoIf it's so simple, why didn't Samsung do it? Because nobody wanted a tablet until Apple told them they did. When there's no market for a device, you don't make and sell one simply because you can. Unless you're Steve Jobs, that is.
- jeswin 15y agoThere were tablet PCs earlier. Were they usable? No. The point is, minor usability improvements aren't worthy of a patent. Just look at how bad the patent situation is, and how much of that is due to ridiculously silly patents.
- dpark 15y agoIt doesn't matter if Samsung did it. It just matters if someone did it. The article clearly shows prior art for Apple's design patent.
- bphogan 15y agoI would argue the prior art for that is the iPod Touch which was out a year earlier, and probably conceived earlier than that. When I heard "iPad" rumors in 2009 the first thing I thought was "a big ipod touch." So what's to say these guys didn't see the pod touch and say "Yeah. That. But big"
- dpark 15y agoThat's fine any dandy, but I believe Apple is claiming a design patent specifically on the iPad. If we take the iPod touch as prior art, it still invalidates the iPad patent.