[AlbertCory]

You don't patent a "concept." You patent an invention.

I'm not familiar with that particular case, but I really doubt that a clip from 2001 was dispositive of anything. Unless the patent really was as broad as "a flat computing device."

[H8crilA]

https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-says-2001-a-space-odyssey-...

[AlbertCory]

This was a design patent, not a utility patent. That means they patented the look of the tablet, meaning the non-functional parts. They did not have a patent on the "concept of a tablet."

I guess I can go look up that design patent now. It's entirely possible that 2001 did anticipate the look of the iPad, but we can also look at the record of the trial to find out how this played out.

[H8crilA]

If you know how to find the outcome of this particular legal argument I'd be very happy to read it :). I was studying at the time and a lawyer that was teaching us the basics of copyright and patent law told us about the then ongoing case.

Also, yes, you're right, forgot some key details after the 10 years. Can't believe it was that long ago.

[AlbertCory]

here's some of it:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178089/apple-inc-v-sam...

I know this case continued up to at least 2015, since that was when I went to watch for a day. When I went, there were some utility patents at issue.