Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Dec 2011 19:34 UTC
Legal And yet another ruling. In April this year, Apple sued Samsung over several design patents and a single software patent regarding various Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Late last night, US District Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung. The actual ruling, though, is a mixed bag - Samsung is found infringing (but it's a "close question") on Apple's design and software patents (no real patents in play here, folks), but Apple has failed completely in providing any form of proof that Samsung is causing irreparable harm to Apple.
Order by: Score:
Ugh...
by looncraz on Sat 3rd Dec 2011 20:27 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

The patents in question essentially covers a screen with a bezel. I'd claim prior art for every LCD screen in existence.

Also laptops.

Also the BeIA WebPad.

The list goes on.

Reply Score: 8

Thom
by gloucestershrubhill on Sun 4th Dec 2011 01:22 UTC
gloucestershrubhill
Member since:
2010-08-10

By the time this legal debacle is over, you may be a layer yet! Keep up the excellent summaries for the sake of all our brains.

Reply Score: 2

How about this...
by OSGuy on Sun 4th Dec 2011 06:59 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple Instructs Samsung On The Finer Points Of Tablet And Smartphone Design from: http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/12/03/apple-instructs-samsung-on-...

The Verge has provided a cogent summary of some alternative design options described by Apple:

Front surface that isn't black.
Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners.
Display screens that aren't centered on the front face and have substantial lateral borders.
Non-horizontal speaker slots.
Front surfaces with substantial adornment.
No front bezel at all.


As for tablets, Apple identified a similar list of alternative designs available to Samsung:

Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners.
Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
Front surface that isn't entirely flat.
Profiles that aren't thin.
Cluttered appearance.


This is so sad and pathetic. Has anyone shown LG's Prada to the judges?

There is also: "Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned in Australia again" - http://www.neowin.net/news/galaxy-tab-101-banned-in-australia-again Earlier this week, Samsung got the three judge panel of the Federal Court of Australia to unanimously overturn a previous court ruling that banned the sale of tablet back in August. The original ban was set up because Apple claimed that the "look and feel" of the touch pad for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet was infringing on Apple's patents.

Today the High Court decided to extend the ban once again so that it can have time to hear Apple's appeal of the case. A hearing which will determine whether or not the High Court will actually take the case will be held on December 9.


Edited 2011-12-04 07:07 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: How about this...
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Dec 2011 13:52 UTC in reply to "How about this..."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Apple licensed the iOS scrolling patent to Nokia and IBM, and offered a license to Samsung. Samsung turned it down.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/3/2608407/apple-license-ios-scrolli...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How about this...
by bnolsen on Sun 4th Dec 2011 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE: How about this..."
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Someone needs to fight this extortion racket. The net effect is absolutely anti small business.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: How about this...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Dec 2011 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE: How about this..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The only problem with Niley's story is that he shows no evidence of Apple offering it to Samsung. I've actually read the document... And there's nothing in it. Nothing about IBM or Nokia, either. All it says is that Apple licensed the patent before, and it seems logical to assume that would cover Nokia/Microsoft (we know about those deals), but IBM? No mention. Offering it to Samsung? No mention.

I'm emailing Niley tonight, since he knows his shit so I'm sure I'm missing something - but the ruling as it is does not mention *anything*.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: How about this...
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Dec 2011 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How about this..."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

An acorn is not an oak tree and an idea is not not a product. Is picking up an acorn the same as stealing a whole oak tree? If you take an acorn and then grow an oak tree with it who does the oak tree belong to? Copying an idea ('let's make a computer that doesn't use a mouse or keyboard but which is controlled by using the touch of your fingers') is different to copying a product ('hey this iPad thing is selling like hotcakes, let's make something that looks exactly like it right down to the packaging and sell it'). One is, I think, acceptable and one is not. One is good for the development of technology products and one is not.

Ideas, particularly original ones, are useful but millions of people have good ideas every day and they lead to nothing, to nowhere. To make a great and innovative product you need to take some great ideas, maybe ideas that have been floating around for a while such as using your fingers on a touch screen to do stuff, and then polish those ideas through a tremendously focussed design process to get an actual product, a great product.

Or one can just wait for someone else to do all the hard work, of assembling the good, and sometimes great, ideas, the designing of the product, the intense polishing of that design, and then just copy it. That's certainly a viable business model and one that many companies in the tech arena pursue. Watch what is a success and slavishly, but often poorly, copy it.

Which is better morally - I think the former but it depends on how you look at things. Which is better for innovation and the development of technology products? I would say very clearly the former. In fact I wish more companies did what Apple did, assemble original designs, polished and perfect them, try to be innovative and bold in their designs. If more companies did that that instead of the crass copying then we would have lot more better products and fewer crappy ones.

The polishing of good ideas into great designs is very important and it's one that many companies skimp on so many products are less than polished when they are released. Apple tend to be very innovative with the way they take ideas and polish them into products and very thorough with their polishing. It's what Apple is famous for. No wonder they get pissed off when people copy them, no wonder they sue them. Who wouldn't in their position?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: How about this...
by Stephen! on Sun 4th Dec 2011 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How about this..."
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

The polishing of good ideas into great designs is very important and it's one that many companies skimp on so many products are less than polished when they are released.


Even Apple themselves, with the initial release of Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: How about this...
by tupp on Sun 4th Dec 2011 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How about this..."
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Copying an idea ('let's make a computer that doesn't use a mouse or keyboard but which is controlled by using the touch of your fingers') is different to copying a product ('hey this iPad thing is selling like hotcakes, let's make something that looks exactly like it right down to the packaging and sell it').

Except it has already been demonstrated countless times that the "looks" of the Ipad and Iphones were already inherent in products by other companies and in publicly released mock-ups, years before the first Iphone/Ipad appeared.

Even Samsung had a digital picture frame prior to the Iphone which the Ipad (and other tablets) resembles almost exactly.

The thing of it is, this "look" is actually quite obvious and straightforward. It's not as if Knight-Ridder or Stanley Kubrick/Arthur C. Clarke put a lot of effort and time into the look of their tablets, nor did they need much inspiration. There was no "growing acorns into oak trees" nor anything overblown like that. It is a very simple, banal design (as are the designs of most Apple products).

Folks who consider Apple's designs to be earth-shatteringly great are usually utter newbies to the world of product/industrial design, and such folks are usually blind to the truly inspired designs of Apple's competitors. And there IS a huge world of innovative product design happening out there, quite independently of Apple. This rich, inventive design realm has been churning out truly unique and inspired items long before Apple existed and it will still be doing the same long after Apple is gone. For the most part, Apple's designs are basic retro, inspired primarily by Braun products of the 1960s. By the way, Braun also had a lot of great, unique ID in the 1970s and 1980s.

There is a long list of electronics and computer companies other than Braun that have had truly interesting designs, but one needn't go any further than Sony. Sony has four design centers across the globe, and they have produced some very unique and inventive products. They were winning design awards long before Apple existed, and many of their products were later picked-up by Apple. Sony's vast product line eclipses Apple's miniscule, limited selection. Sony's ID accomplishments can be explored here: http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/ Keep in mind that this is just one company of zillions.


Ideas, particularly original ones, are useful but millions of people have good ideas every day and they lead to nothing, to nowhere.

Just because many many good ideas don't get produced that doesn't make it right for Apple to claim someone else's idea as its own.



To make a great and innovative product you need to take some great ideas, maybe ideas that have been floating around for a while such as using your fingers on a touch screen to do stuff, and then polish those ideas through a tremendously focussed design process to get an actual product, a great product.

No. Not really. There are countless examples of individuals who had product ideas and produced them roughly (with no notion of "design") and had great, successful products.

However, Apple's products really aren't innovative -- the most that the company does is combine the ideas of others, and market the hell out of them. It also doesn't hurt to have a legion of clueless followers. Apple just hasn't invented much nor come up with much that is truly inspired.


Or one can just wait for someone else to do all the hard work, of assembling the good, and sometimes great, ideas, the designing of the product, the intense polishing of that design, and then just copy it.

There are many examples of companies that have released a product prior to Apple that includes the same combination of ideas, yet the companies can't compete with Apple's marketing/legions.

"Intense polishing of the design?" The designs of the Iphone and Ipad were almost entirely inherent in products from other companies, research groups and filmmakers long before Apple claimed them as their own.


Which is better morally - I think the former but it depends on how you look at things.

Sorry, but I don't cotton to Apple taking the ideas of others and claiming them as its own.


Which is better for innovation and the development of technology products? I would say very clearly the former.

No. Apple stifles innovation in many ways, and not rewarding nor crediting those who actually came up with an idea is just one of the ways.

Having a legion of followers who actually believe that such a practice is okay and that their corporation can do no wrong additionally leads to a technological mono-culture, which further stifles innovation.

Don't get me started on Apple's underhanded litigiousness and on its app store developer incidents.


In fact I wish more companies did what Apple did, assemble original designs, polished and perfect them, try to be innovative and bold in their designs. If more companies did that that instead of the crass copying then we would have lot more better products and fewer crappy ones.

A lot of companies (and independent designers) do more with ID than what Apple does. Unlike Apple, these companies actually create inspired, original designs. One merely needs to review the entrants of a few design competitions to realize the vast design world that is out there, of which Apple is only a tiny part.

Also, just to qualify, many of the best product designs are not winning awards. Usually, the best designs just serve their function well -- they are not necessarily pretty or "polished."



The polishing of good ideas into great designs is very important and it's one that many companies skimp on so many products are less than polished when they are released. Apple tend to be very innovative with the way they take ideas and polish them into products and very thorough with their polishing. It's what Apple is famous for. No wonder they get pissed off when people copy them, no wonder they sue them. Who wouldn't in their position?

Well, I don't agree on the "polishing."

In addition, by producing products similar to those that came before Apple, I don't see how a company could be copying Apple.

Reply Score: 12

v RE[5]: How about this...
by Tony Swash on Tue 6th Dec 2011 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: How about this..."
Scrolly thingie
by djrikki on Sun 4th Dec 2011 15:34 UTC
djrikki
Member since:
2011-09-02

In regard to the scrolly thingie:

Read Thom's other thread:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25373/EU_Copyright_Doesn_t_Cover_Functi... ).

As long as Samsung coded this scrolly thingie from scratch using their own source code the patent is practically worthless. This needs to stop.

Edited 2011-12-04 15:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Scrolly thingie
by Tony Swash on Sun 4th Dec 2011 16:01 UTC in reply to "Scrolly thingie"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

In regard to the scrolly thingie:
As long as Samsung coded this scrolly thingie from scratch using their own source code the patent is practically worthless.


That will depend on what the courts decide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Scrolly thingie
by tupp on Sun 4th Dec 2011 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Scrolly thingie"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

That will depend on what the courts decide.

Nevertheless, Apple did not invent the scrolling "bounce-back" effect. That feature was being used in products by at least two other companies, prior to Apple.

Apple should not have received a patent for bounce-back scrolling, as they were not the inventors of the feature.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Scrolly thingie
by Pro-Competition on Sun 4th Dec 2011 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Scrolly thingie"
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

Apple should not have received a patent for bounce-back scrolling, as they were not the inventors of the feature.


I agree. It also imitates real-world physics.

Watch the "Wheel Of Fortune" game show (in the US), and you have exactly the same concept. Any wheel that provides springy resistance between steps will act the same way.

These patents are ridiculous.

Reply Score: 6

how close IS copying
by TechGeek on Sun 4th Dec 2011 23:10 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

I am not sure I even buy the whole copying argument. If I take a fake rolex and a real rolex, I can tell that the fake is a copy. It tries to look as close as possible to the original as it can. When I see a Samsung pad and an iPad, I don't see the same level of similarity. Its like rolex being pissed at Timex because the watches are functionally the same. But no one is going to say Timex copied Rolex.

Reply Score: 3

RE: how close IS copying
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Dec 2011 23:23 UTC in reply to "how close IS copying"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I tend to think of the game industry. Imagine if the game industry used patents for things like game mechanics and set pieces... The entire game industry would come to a grinding halt.

The game industry is a perfect example of people copying and stealing from each other left and right, and everyone seems to be perfectly okay with it - it brings the industry forward, both big name and indie. Imagine if id got a patent on the first person shooter... Or BioWare took up a patent on the a "party-based RPG on a digital device" or what the fcuk... *shivers*

Yet, Apple fanatics are perfectly okay with this if it's about the technology industry. Fucking idiotic. The level of effort involved in creating a video game is at least on par with that of writing software, and I'd say it requires far more effort. So, by logical extension, people who support software and design patents (almost exclusively Apple fanatics these days) also support patents in the video game industry.

Reply Score: 5

RE: how close IS copying
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Dec 2011 06:22 UTC in reply to "how close IS copying"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

There were tablet computers before the iPad. If you compare how non-Apple tablets looked before and after the iPad you will notice a significant design shift. From the outer casing, to the look 'n' feel of the operating system. If you look at Samsung even the box it comes in.

Some call it progress when companies copy stuff. Tablets have been around for a while. Apple put in the effort and came up with something different, it sold them all, it kickstarted an entire sector. Other companies saw there was money to be made there, but most just copied the iPad and putting inferior efforts in the hands of customers. At least ASUS did something different with their Transformer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: how close IS copying
by unclefester on Mon 5th Dec 2011 06:55 UTC in reply to "RE: how close IS copying"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Just do an image search for "ipad prior art" and you will see that many virtually identical designs date back to the 1960s.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: how close IS copying
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Dec 2011 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: how close IS copying"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Were those touch screen tablet computers and did those influence current tablet design?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: how close IS copying
by unclefester on Mon 5th Dec 2011 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: how close IS copying"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The Star Trek (1980s) PADD was a touch screen tablet. So was the Knight-Ridder concept (1987). Both have virtually identical form factors to the iPad.

The fanbois just can't accept that Apple are copiers not innovators.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: how close IS copying
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Dec 2011 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: how close IS copying"
RE[6]: how close IS copying
by unclefester on Mon 5th Dec 2011 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: how close IS copying"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Don't be such a fucking idiot. No one is going to try and build a Warp 9 spaceship.

Many technologies have been inspired by fiction eg mobile phones, wristwatch TVs, Bluetooth earpieces.

Children have been learning to write on slates that look identical to the iPad for well over 100 years. The idea was totally obvious. It simply needed the technology to develop so the devices could be sold at a realistic price.

Apple has even tried to sue Samsung based on a mere sketch of a tablet. The PADD had a interactive GUI.

The reason that tablet design changed radically around 2007 is because suitable capacitative touchscreens became available.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: how close IS copying
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Dec 2011 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: how close IS copying"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

And Apple was just the first to dive on to this technology, that also caused tablets and packaging to appear in a certain form? Do you really believe Samsung didn't model it's products to Apple's? That they took a Star Trek prop as inspiration? Why didn't they do this before the iPad?

You may call me an idiot, but I wonder what people would call you if you showed up with a PADD and explained that it was the first tablet computer.

If you tried to sell it as a tablet computer you'd get arrested for scamming.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: how close IS copying
by WorknMan on Mon 5th Dec 2011 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: how close IS copying"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The Star Trek (1980s) PADD was a touch screen tablet. So was the Knight-Ridder concept (1987). Both have virtually identical form factors to the iPad.

The fanbois just can't accept that Apple are copiers not innovators.


Exactly right. So when somebody invents a transporter and/or a machine that can replicate physical objects, they should get absolutely none of the credit, since, hey... we saw it in Star Trek first, and they would just be copiers, and not innovators. In fact, anything ever seen in a movie or TV show should be considered prior art.

For those that say that the iPhone/iPad wasn't anything new, I want to know how many multi-touch based phones/tablets were on the market before Apple released theirs, and why many of the phones/tablets released since then seem to look a hell of a lot like iPhones/iPads and less like Blackberries.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: how close IS copying
by unclefester on Mon 5th Dec 2011 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: how close IS copying"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple is trying to sue anyone who manufactures a device that has a rectangular screen and rounded corners. This identical form factor has been used in children's slates for over 100 years.

It is perfectly legal to closely imitate designs but not trademarks. The first 1991 Lexus LS400 was a blatant copy of the Mercedes S Class. Many companies make also almost exact replicas of the Rolex Submariner without being sued.

Apple knows they have no hope of winning these lawsuits. It is merely a desperate attempt to stall competition.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: how close IS copying
by bert64 on Mon 5th Dec 2011 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: how close IS copying"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Apple are attempting to sue samsung based on the physical appearance of the device, the physical appearance is most definitely based on science fiction devices.

The appearance of anything seen in a movie *is* prior art because the appearance has already been invented by the creators of that movie.

The functionality as well has been imagined by the creators of the movie, although the technology to make it (or make it at an affordable price) may not have existed at the time the movie was created.

The only innovative thing therefore, is the actual implementation of the functionality.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: how close IS copying
by tupp on Mon 5th Dec 2011 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: how close IS copying"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Were those touch screen tablet computers

ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg

The photo in the link above shows the JooJoo tablet which was released March 25, 2010. The first Ipad was released later, on April 3, 2010.

So, a touchscreen tablet with with the design elements that fanboys seem to think are special and innovative (rounded corners and a flush, black bezel) had been sold prior to the release of the Ipad.

However, it doesn't really matter that the JooJoo was first tablet to market with those design elements, because the look is so utterly obvious and, also, there had been prior art to the JooJoo and Ipad for years.

By the way, there was even a mockup of the JooJoo design shown long before it was released (in June, 2009, when it was called the Crunchpad): http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

Not only does the article quite clearly show a tablet with the simple look that most subsequent tablets will adopt, but notice the second sentence in the second paragraph of the article in which it is stated that the bezel is flush.

So, over seven months before the Ipad was even introduced, someone expressed publicly -- in writing -- the concept of a flush bezel.


... and did those influence current tablet design?

Are we going to endlessly add conditions to our arguments in an attempt to make the derived/banal design of the Ipad seem unique and important?

The simple design adopted for the Ipad was shown four decades ago in a major film, and it was clearly shown in a mock-up by Knight-Ridder 16 years prior to the Ipad's release.

If Apple influenced other manufacturers, it wasn't with an original design.

Furthermore, should we really consider influence to be an admirable accomplishment?

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: how close IS copying
by MOS6510 on Mon 5th Dec 2011 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: how close IS copying"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


Furthermore, should we really consider influence to be an admirable accomplishment?


I never did, why do you bring it up?

The Joojoo will go down as one if the biggest POS products and it looks like an iPod touch/iPhone. But that's just the outside, the Joojoo people didn't mimic anything else from Apple (certainly not sales figures) as Samsung did. They didn't get sued, nor did a number of companies that make tablets, phones and media players.

Hell, even that tablet prop from Star Trek is probably more worth than a JooJoo, despite the Joojoo being more rare.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: how close IS copying
by tupp on Mon 5th Dec 2011 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: how close IS copying"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Furthermore, should we really consider influence to be an admirable accomplishment?
I never did, why do you bring it up?

Hmmm... I wonder who posted this line?:

"Were those touch screen tablet computers and did those influence current tablet design?"


The Joojoo will go down as one if the biggest POS products

Really? So, it will be included with such design/engineering marvels as:
the eminently ergonomic Apple round mouse;
the fabulously flaming Apple magsafe connector;
the Apple Mighty Mouse with the incredible clogging/freezing ball;
the amazing cracking Apple glass laptop touchpad;
the unbelievable shattering Apple Iphone 4 backside;
the "super hot" Apple G5 tower;
the mysterious "mooing'' Apple Macbook fan;
the fabulous cracking Apple iPhone 3G/3GS enclosure;
the spectacular bending Apple Macbook air enclosure;
the dazzling yellow Apple 27" Imac screen;
and lastly (but not least) the fantastic Apple Iphone 4 "you're holding it wrong" antenna short-circuiting.

Is that the group of fantastic products in which the JooJoo belongs? I'm not sure if it makes it into that category, because the JooJoo actually functioned properly -- it was merely underpowered and under marketed.


... and it looks like an iPod touch/iPhone.

Oh. Like this Iphone?: http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocol...

Oops! Wait... that's not an Ipone -- its the Prada, which was winning design awards long before the Ipone and Ipod Touch were even introduced.


But that's just the outside, the Joojoo people didn't mimic anything else from Apple (certainly not sales figures) as Samsung did.

That's right! Samsung copied Apple with the bounce-back scrolling and the colored icon array. Those features were unheard of prior to the Ipad/Iphone.

What really upsets me is that Samsung had the nerve to package their products in a white box -- only Apple should be allowed to do that!
/sarcasm

Edited 2011-12-05 23:00 UTC

Reply Score: 5

v RE[7]: how close IS copying
by MOS6510 on Tue 6th Dec 2011 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: how close IS copying"
Apple
by Lorin on Mon 5th Dec 2011 00:40 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Looks like they took a big bite they can't swallow, they had best just drop the case before those patents are invalidated.

Reply Score: 1

no surprise
by kristoph on Mon 5th Dec 2011 06:25 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

It's very very hard to prove 'irreparable harm' in the US. You basically have to show that the amount of money you have to lose will exceed the amount of money the other party has.

I still think this whole thing is a waste of money and human resources.

Edited 2011-12-05 06:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

blatantly obvious design
by unclefester on Mon 5th Dec 2011 08:54 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

To anyone born before 1960 (eg Steve Jobs) the iPad is a blatantly obvious design. It looks identical to the slate they learned to write on.

Slate circa 1880:

10" "screen"
stylus input (chalk)
0.5" thickness
narrow frame with rounded edges

You can buy one of these amazing low tech tablets for $6 on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Slate-Chalk-Board-Double-Natural/dp/B00456GFW...

Reply Score: 4

Who Stole from Who?
by Lorin on Tue 6th Dec 2011 08:19 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Android started with Android, Inc. in 2003 or earlier

Reply Score: 1