> On this site I've seen many claims that Apple's patents are covered by "prior art" but the "art" cited is generally nonsensical (eg: 2001: a space odessy havi

> On this site I've seen many claims that Apple's patents are covered by "prior art" but the "art" cited is generally nonsensical (eg: 2001: a space odessy having square tablets) I'm curious, why is the Space Odyssey tablet "obviously nonsensical"? See for instance the Waterbed patent denied because of Henlein's writings: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-strange-waterbedfellows/6098825 http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-strange-wate...