Apple Must Prove iPad Patent Is Valid In Samsung Suit | Hacker News Reader

Apple Must Prove iPad Patent Is Valid In Samsung Suit

techieinsider.com

41 pointstechiediy25 comments

This is just one more proof of how messed up the patent system is. The problem now becomes: why was that patent awarded in the first place ?

It would be helpful to cite the patent in question, I presume we are referring to D'889, more precisely known as D504,889.

When you are critiquing a patent on HN, you should bring some novel ideas to the table, rather than generally disparaging the patent.

D'889 is a Design Patent. See: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni... for what a Design patent is.

Your critique could likely take multiple approaches. You could critique the concept of a patent in general. You could critique design patents. Or, you could critique this particular design patent.

My question to you - have you read through D'889, (which you can look up here: http://www.google.com/patents)

By the way - I completely agree with you that D'889 is overly vague, covered a design that had prior art - most famously in kubrick's 2001. See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/sam...

What I'd be interested is why, in particular, a generic design patent covering nothing more than "Tablet" was used by Apple in anything more than a defensive posture. They didn't invent the concept or design - they just executed on it. Patents should be awarded for novel designs, processes - not on the filing of other people's published work.

The most interesting critique of the design patent I've seen is that it doesn't actually look like an iPad. It's thicker and has no button, and a different bezel.

Even if you allow that Apple could protect the iPad look, they've done it with a design patent that covers a different design. Then they've prevented the sale of yet a different variation. It appears like they cover a wide range of possible tablet designs with this patent rather than a single unique design.

Some images to illustrate:

http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+...

it's a design patent. I don't think the patent examiners are supposed to watch all of Youtube to maybe find a similar device dated 16 years back.

But since it's known now, Apple can just stop, pay everybody's legal bills and be done with it...

Or we could stop this patent nonsense in the first place. They are nothing more than catalysts for petty lawsuits that look little better than kids throwing sand at each other. Or a group of high-school kids bullying a kindergartener, if we'd be talking about one of the many lawsuits from the big players against small businesses.

Seems like Samsung would be better of paying a couple of geeks to go to work and watch Star Trek and similar SciFi movies instead of paying a bunch of money to patent lawyers ;)

Actually, that would be a cool crowd sourcing project, and not just encompassing Star Trek. If you spot a possible prior art for a patent in a work of fiction, you could put it on some sort of wiki. It would be a great source of information to fight patents (especially the ridiculous), and show the absurdness of the system.

I think this is a more readable version of the story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-apple-samsung-l...

The new story is saying the original reporting missed the parsing of what the judge said. I'm not sure that really follows but he's the expert.

Does this mean I can patent ideas I pick up from sci-fi, wait till someone implementes it, then pick up a fat cheque from them? Honestly asking, since it sounds like a half-decent retirement plan.

For example, jetpacks which work on, um, quantum levitation. Bionic ear implants that also act as phones which react to voice input. Occular implants that interface with a system of networked devices across an environments.

This is a design patent. So if you make a real spaceship that looks like the enterprise and try to get a design patent it may well be that the Trek prior art, even though it wasn't real, invalidates that design.

At least in theory, patents have to have a description sufficient to allow someone to create the thing in question. You can't patent any of the things you mentioned unless you specify more detail on how they work. (Insert the usual disclaimers about the lack of diligence in enforcement here.)

It seems very strange to me that a fictional device has any relevance. It's science-fiction. Something a person could invent someday but impossible at the time and lacking any practical details of how you might invent it. We could defeat all IP laws by sitting around and engaging in a thousand-monkey style DoS attack of futuristic speculation? I feel like lots of people owe lots of money to Michael Okuda.

IBM has a mechanism for doing exactly this. When someone submits an idea for a possible patent filing, if the idea doesn't have enough value to spend the time and money filing a patent application, the proposal will get published in a public database of ideas (with some kind of notarization), specifically to serve as prior art to make sure nobody else can patent it either.

Your DDoP attack would essentially work, at least under the current US system of things. Having an actual built and tested thing is not required.

A patent claim (a numbered thing at the back of a patent), is, at its core, a paragraph. The claim/paragraph is "the invention" and something that is captured by that claim is "an embodiment of the invention."

If you were trying to invalidate a patent claim and you had a choice between A) that exact same paragraph or B) a thing that literally did what the paragraph said, you would almost always go with "A".

The problem with B is that you have to map it to that paragraph to see if they are the same thing. That would entail substantial argument and would potentially require a jury to find the fact that B = A or B != A.

Well, the patent claims design of the device, not functionality. Although this device is "fictional" and does nothing, its design (look) matches pretty much what Apple is trying to patent, so it looks like Samsung has a valid case of prior art.

Doesn't prior art take commercial availability into consideration? (no clue if it applies to US law)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

11:03 in that video; it seems like Night Ridder might have invented Siri as well.

My first reaction to seeing the Samsung tablet was that they flagrantly copied Apple. The connecting cable is nearly identical (what's the probability of that) and the single button in the glass looks stolen from the id of the iPhone/IPad. I'm not a fan of patents, especially software, but there's no reason to violate a design patent because you could make it so many different ways. Samsung is lazily riding Apple's cost tails on this one.

The connector is PDMI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

PDMI (Portable Digital Media Interface) is an interconnection standard for portable media players. It has been developed by CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) as ANSI/CEA-2017-A standard Common Interconnection for Portable Media Players in February 2010. Chaired by David McLauchlan from Microsoft, the standard was developed with the input or support of over fifty consumer electronics companies worldwide. [1] It is designed as an alternative to the iPod interface which was used exclusively by Apple Inc.[2]

I think you're referring to the 'shopped photos that Apple released of the Samsung Tablet for their court case. There is no button.

And the rest of the tablet is just a screen. There aren't many other ways to design it.

Samsung does not have any button:

http://www.engadget.com/photos/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-unbox...

"connecting cable is nearly identical (what's the probability of that)"

Are you talking technically? As in the connectors and functionality are the same? If so doesn't that seem like a reasonable move considering third-party companies are building peripherals for that connector? If you mean it's the same shape, then yes, it's a small rectangle.

http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a

You are right. These are all obvious choices.

The only thing that supports your claim in my opinion is the case, and yet, there is a big "Samsung GALAXY Tab" on top of it. Nevertheless, I cannot but see the similarity. The other examples are weak

Reply on news.ycombinator.com