Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2011 11:27 UTC
Legal I'm guessing Apple is getting desperate, since its software patent lawsuits aren't doing particularly well. Moving on from software and design patents, the company is now suing Samsung over... Patents for mobile phone and tablet cases (more at The Verge). I think Apple has more offensive lawsuits than products now, so technically, "patent maker" is more accurate than "gadget maker" or "device maker". Fun times.
Permalink for comment 500886
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

A picture frame is not a tablet computer,

Nobody is suggesting that a picture frame is a tablet computer.

The point in contention in this thread is tablet enclosure design. The Ipad enclosure is almost an exact copy of the Samsung digital picture frame, which was selling several years prior to the Ipad's introduction. Furthermore, there are several examples of earlier prior art.

So, Apple cannot claim that it originated the Ipad enclosure design. Due to earlier prior art, likewise, Samsung cannot claim that it invented its picture frame design.

However, herein lies one of the big differences between Apple and Samsung -- Samsung is not deluded enough to claim that it originated the design -- it acknowledges other prior art going back decades.

... nor were props used in classic movies/series, mock-ups or children's slates and even the JooJoo is doubtful as it could only do one thing.


A prop, mock-up or an under-powered production model of touch tablets are certainly the invention of the touch tablet, if such an item is the first to be documented or made.

A conceptual movie prop is a valid invention -- although it might be obvious and the underlying technology might not be ready, it is, nontheless, a documented concept.

A video mock-up is most defintely a valid demonstration of an invention/design -- its sole purpose is to demostrate an invention.

Without question, an under-powered production version of a product is a valid, solid, working invention.

Of course, the enclosure design of an invention is valid as prior art, even if the function of the prior art is not the same as the subsequent art.

Apple was the first to build a working compelling succesful tablet computer.

Nope. Sorry. There were a lot of "compelling" tablet computers in widespread use, long before the Ipad.

Of course, "compelling" is a highly subjective trait, and it's one of those vague "add-on" conditions that fanboys use to support a feeble assertion.

First of all, there were (and are) about a zillion field based tablets in use in many industries. In such conditions and circumstances, an Ipad is probably not very "compelling" by most standards: the Ipad is not rugged enough; it does not offer enough needed features; and a company cannot easily use its own field software on an Ipad.

Secondly, after years and years, I still see people posting glowing comments about their hybrid tablet/laptops. It sounds a lot more "compelling" and useful to me to have a built-in, hideaway hardware keyboard, than to have to rely on a slower on-screen keyboard. I'd much rather have one of those.

Thirdly, as the moderator of this site has recently reminded us (and as I and others on this forum have maintaned for years), the touch PDAs of the late 1990s were merely tablets in a smaller format. They had icon arrays, various applications and some even had rounded corners. You could even use your fingers. And they were "compelling" enough to sell millions of units.

We could certainly include the Apple Newton and its many predecessors in this argument, but, again, the Newton was defintely not the first of its kind, and we have to "draw the line" somewhere.

The way Samsung copied it is not vague at all, it is so pretty obvious that only Google fanboys would deny this.

LOL! Google fanboys!

It seems that Google fanboys can only be seen by those within the RDF, because, out here, nobody has ever detected a single Google fanboy.

However, those of us on the outside are painfully aware of one group of fanboys. This group of corporate followers constantly get in our faces about how "compelling" their company is... continually declaring how "genre-defining" their corporation's products are. Such are the members of the Apple monoculture... those self-deluded victims of Apple's "tyranny of taste."

Reply Parent Score: 4