iPad patent infringement is something which Apple has been working to protect this year against Samsung, who is also a business partner for chips for their devices. In the case being heard in Federal Court in Northern California by Judge Lucy Koh, they are attempting to get a preliminary injunction against Samsung to prevent them from selling their Galaxy Tab tablets. In a revelation last week, Judge Koh is asking for Apple to prove that their design patent for the iPad is valid.
With various actions by both parties last week, Samsung seemed to be winning the week by having some claims by Apple dismissed from the case. But the one item that looks to have been missed last week is a comment by the Judge which is not a ruling but something that Apple must now move to quickly prove for their rights to the iPad. Specifically, the “court believes that the iPad patent is invalid”. That minor statement has shifted the burden of this case away from Samsung and back to Apple. If they are not able to prove to the satisfaction of the court that they do indeed have a valid patent for the iPad, it could undermine their entire case against Samsung.
Samsung has been presenting evidence, which Apple is trying to get the court to ignore, showing that another company had designed a tablet computer before Apple. This company was Knight-Ridder and it was more than 17 years ago that they designed a tablet computer, which they called “The Tablet”. This presents a huge problem for Apple and the Judge has made comments, which are not rulings, where she believes that Apple does not have the design patent for the iPad. If Apple is not able to prove other wise, much of their case will be in trouble and Samsung will not be restricted from selling their Galaxy Tab tablets in the US.
Here is the video from back in the 90′s and beware as it is over 13 minutes long, but does prove that Apple iPad was not the first.
Zune and iPod: Most people compare the Zune to the Touch, but after seeing how slim and surprisingly small and light it is, I consider it to be a rather unique hybrid that combines qualities of both the Touch and the Nano. It’s very colorful and lovely OLED screen is slightly smaller than the touch screen, but the player itself feels quite a bit smaller and lighter. It weighs about 2/3 as much, and is noticeably smaller in width and height, while being just a hair thicker.
The new Zune browser is surprisingly good, but not as good as the iPod’s. It works well, but isn’t as fast as Safari, and has a clunkier interface. If you occasionally plan on using the web browser that’s not an issue, but if you’re planning to browse the web alot from your PMP then the iPod’s larger screen and better browser may be important.
@Glen the article mentions Apple’s “design patent” being at risk here and is not the same thing as a utility patent:
“In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works ( 35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks ( 35 U.S.C. 171). The ornamental appearance for an article includes its shape/configuration or surface ornamentation *>applied to< the article, or both. Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance."
The iPad *looks* almost exactly like the Knight-Ridder tablet. Neither the iPad nor the Knight-Ridder tablet look like the Newton.
Patents are an attempt to restrict an idea. There doesn’t have to be a working prototype to prove prior art, in this case a tablet created 17 years ago. The fact that someone else had that idea and was attempting to implement it is enough to make a patent claim invalid.
At 1:24 you see a woman using a Newton, the first tablet computer that Apple brought to market. Which also existed in a bigger form-factor that was called “Bic”. How does an idea piece that’s basically science fiction (in terms of the display quality and network quality portrayed) popularizing some ideas that are implied in a product that *Apple was already shipping* demonstrate that some other company “designed a tablet” first? And if it did, wouldn’t Apple’s “knowledge navigator” video beat it to the punch?
Duh, tablet computers have been around for over a decade