Judge To Samsung: You Can't Use Sci-Fi Films As Evidence In Court

Samsung has a tough time on its hands battling Apple over tablet patents. But in the process of fighting hard, it seems to have made some questionable calls when it comes to choosing evidence — including the use of sci-fi footage to prove its case.

Samsung had hoped that it could use footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the UK television show The Tomorrow People as evidence. Verge reports that both the film and TV show feature characters using tablet devices, which the company hoped would constitute "prior art": pre-existing creations that question the originality of Apple's patents.

The problem is that, while Samsung introduced the footage into the case in 2011, it had never disclosed the fact it intended to use them to argue Apple's patents were invalid. As a result, Judge Lucy Koh has ruled that the video can't be used as evidence. Elsewhere, a 1994 tablet designed by Roger Fidler and the Compaq TC1000 are off the table as evidence, as well as that rather wacky Sony-style iPhone. Better hope what's left of your evidence is good, Samsung. [Apple vs Samsung Order via Verge]


Comments

    Its not that the evidence was bad it looks like more of a procedural mistake. Apple didn't invent tablets or smartphones they just got both of them right and have been rewarded spectacularly for that. I think they are greedy to expect the market all to themselves and being granted patents on rectangles with rounded corners should never have happened.

      Samsung really needs to get rid of their attorneys, the entire case is a freakshow of mistakes and Lionel Hutz-esque gaffes. That said, they should have applied to use these earlier as I think the entire case is a farce.

      Apple didn't 'invent' the tablet. From 2001 alone, it was never an original idea to begin with and and there were already signs in 2005-ish from the likes of Microsoft and Archos that they were moving in that direction. Apple just made the first consumer-friendly, polished device. They were never first on the tablet market and it's incredibly childish to punish those who came third.

        Totally agree. Apple didnt invent the tablet, Moses did.

    In that case I'm going to patent spacecraft in circular and triangular shapes and no-one can ever use a real one, despite it existing in fictional and artificial guise already.

      Nope. I already patented the triangle!

    It's like patenting the box shape of a desktop computer. This should be under some kind of global patent agreement where nobody can own it because it's simply too basic a concept. I think I'll patent the "object". Anything with size and weight is under my patent, and thus everyone on earth producing anything defined as an "object" owes me money. Tools.

      Oh no,
      I use objects everyday, this is going to cost me a fortune. Do I have to send money every time i use an object or can we negotiate some sort of lifetime fair use agreement??

    God no, you idiots. The point isn't that 2001 should have the patent on tablet shapes. The point is Apple shouldn't be allowed to have the patent because quite obviously they weren't the first to think of it. No one is saying 2001 should now be able to sue the pants off anyone.

      But if I owned the rights to a book or movie that featured it, I would be going to Samsung and saying...hey, pay my legal bills, and I'll take Apple to court, and you have the right to use my idea.

    Books and Movies come under that IP scheme of Copywrite (you know the thing that downloaders are being persecuted for....) not Patent law... You can manufacture any items (except for trademarks) in objects invented for movies, (if there is no patent protecting it) it is not a breach of copywrite, as that does not cover manufactured items.

    If The creators of Space Odessy (sic) 2001 had filed a patent for the ideas they invented then they would have a patent... (would also have expired by now)

    If they had created a product for market use (sale etc), then it would be prior art.... (and if not patented, then it would be up for grabs for whoever wanted to market it...

    Trade secrets are not patented, and the methods are not disclosed. The only thing a trade secret protects against is reverse engineering within the Jurisdiction that the Trade secret is filed in... If some one comes up with the same product through in-house research, a trade secret does not protect the orginator.. On the other hand to file a patent the entirety of the methods entailed must be disclosed, if some of the methods are not disclosed, there is no protection for the undisclosed method.

      I think you mean Copyright.

      http://grammarist.com/usage/copyright-copywrite/

    This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

      Troll much...?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now