decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Knight-Ridder's Roger Fidler and Stevens to Testify against Apple! | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Knight-Ridder's Roger Fidler and Stevens to Testify against Apple!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 02:55 AM EDT
Judge Lucy Koh didn't make a mistake the first time she said she
felt Samsung's claims of Roger Fidler's research all the way back to
1981 was "very compelling". So then Why did the Appeal's court send
it back on Apple's Injunction Request?

Perhaps we'll never know, but I think we're about to find out here
soon. This is to be a Jury Trial and Samsung is not only calling
Roger Fidler to the stand, but his former employee Stevens. That
after the Knight-Ridder former owner died, his son dropped support
for the Tablet research and when he did, Stevens went to.... you
guessed it.... WORK FOR APPLE prior to them applying for that Patent
in 2004. In fact he's the whole reason Apple dropped Tablet research
and went for iPhone then instead!

Reason? Because under Fidler's research, they had determined that
the tablet should be around 1/2" thick, Rectangular w/ rounded
corners, flat back and flat front w/ no physical buttons. Only Soft
buttons weighting between 1 and 2 pounds!

Apple realized that hardware could not realize these kinds of design
form factors. Even though they knew from Stevens that Roger did not
want his invention patented, Apple patented it anyway. Which
naturally makes that patent immediately in jeopardy of being
Invalidated. If.... Apple could fly the thief past the World!

So Stevens, who now works for Disney is to be called to the stand as
well. Considering that Apple had their Newton Skunkworks project
right next door to Fidler's Lab, it doesn't take a genius to figure
out that Apple ripped him off. In fact Fidler had designed content
in a collaborative effort for the Failed Newton, well after his
first drawings and prototypes were out 1981. On top of that as you
read, Fidler had gone to the Apple's top brass with offer that Apple
never responded to on making his Tablet a reality!

Until the iPad was introduced in 2010. Of course claiming they had
invented tablet PC's in the first place! haha... be sure and have
your popcorn ready for this Trial. Because it may just out do the
Oracle vs Google Trial for DRAMA. Especially since Google has joined
the fight on at least Universal Search Patent!

btw... a quick bit on that; because that is the 2nd Patent that is
bound to be Invalidated. Because Dominic Giampaolo had already
demonstrated Desktop Universal Search in his prior art. When he
wrote BeOS's BFS file system with Tracker FIND running natively on
it's virtual database file system embedded in the Tracker Deskbar
search box. When he went to work for Apple after BeOS folded, he
wrote Spotlight for them. But Spotlight isn't a true Universal
Search like Google and Microsoft's implementations.

It's limited because it's virtual database system runs as a Sub File
System on top of HFS+. Meaning of course that the only system that
Spotlight can search instantly is are those files within it. Like
iTunes does it's VFS database. It is therefore not a true Universal
Search tool like their own patents describe.

In all actuality BeOS stands as the Object Oriented Operating System
to ever realize that 2000 Apple stolen Patent ideas w/o the even the
algorithms to validate the patent in the first place. So it was also
improperly granted as was their Tablet Patent!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )