Samsung - Kubrick's "2001 A Space Odyssey" prior art to iPad

[gary]

I was commenting last month in this forum about Stanley Kubrick's
classic "2001: A Space Odyssey" with respect to how the interiors of the Shuttle
cockpit, circa 2011, compares with the interior of the fictional Orion Pan-Am Clipper
shuttle, which was created for the movie during its production circa 1966-1968.

See http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=743054&postcount=9

As I commented at the time, keep in mind that when the film was made,
computer graphics, let alone on colored monitors, is nearly non-existent and Kubrick
employed animators to create by hand what is designed to appear to be computer
graphics on various displays.

In an article today by Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/tablets/samsung-to-apple-kubrick-made-first-ipad-20110824-1j931.html), Samsung have cited
a scene out of 2001: A Space Odyssey as being used as a prior art defense
against an alleged violation of a design patent by Apple for the design form of the iPad.

Apple had won temporary injunctions preventing Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab
10.1 in Europe and Australia and a similar case is running in the U.S.

In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the astronauts aboard the Jupiter-bound
Discovery spacecraft are seen using thin computer tablet devices whilst eating
their meal. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo

Sydney Morning Herald article here -
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/tablets/samsung-to-apple-kubrick-made-first-ipad-20110824-1j931.html

The article by Moses does have a factual error, where it is suggested that Arthur C.
Clarke's book of "2001: A Space Odyssey" inspired the Kubrick film. In actual fact,
a short story by Clarke entitled "The Sentinel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentinel_(short_story))" was expanded to form the basis
for both the movie and book which were created at the same time.

However, in the article by Moses, the following interesting lines are quoted from the book -



It may be many more years until we see a patent dispute over technology anywhere
near as advanced as 2001's HAL. :lol:

[Rodstar]

Gary, there is a lot of this sort of litigation going on at the moment.

I am acting in another matter involving one of those parties at the moment, where similar issues are at play. The allegation is that my client is selling a tablet product which could be confused by the similar appearance to the other client's product. The marketing saturation which the other party's product has is such that it is hard to imagine how anyone could seriously be confused. I may be more at liberty to disclose the full story one day, but not at present!

[Matty]

Thanks Gary thats gold had a good old chuckle. Yet another example of science following art.:rofl:

[gary]

Hi Rod,

Good to hear from you again and to learn that business is booming!

If registrable designs such as in Australia or patentable designs such as in the US
are deemed by a company to be a highly valued part of their IP portfolio, it seems one
can either spend the money up front on an innovative industrial designer with some
flair to create a design that is both new and distinctive or alternatively create
something generic and employ talented lawyers later. :lol:

If all else fails, I recommend the Chewbacca Defense - :lol:
See http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/the-chewbacca-defense

See also -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Interested to hear the case study when the matter is closed. Good luck! :thumbsup:
See you 2nd Sept at Somersby.

[wavelandscott]

I have really enjoyed reading this post...Thanks Guys!

As a 'Corporate' person I enjoy the extra commentary...by the way, it is hard to beat deep pockets and good lawyers (thank goodness I say with a smile)!

[Rodstar]

Gary, I regularly hear arguments in court which sound a lot like the Chewbacca defence.......frightening really, especially when the lawyer involved actually believes what they are saying.