Samsung's Apple iPad Kubrick defense looks bad

By Jonny Evans

With its claim that the iPad looks like the tablets used in "2001: A Space Odyssey", Samsung has conceded that Apple [AAPL] is transforming science fiction into science fact, and while the storytellers may have visualized what's to come, it's still up to the courts to decide whether it was Samsung or Apple who first realized the fantasy. Somewhat ironically, that's more or less the topic Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, will be discussing in a couple of months.

[ABOVE: Apple's 1984 ad. Will the future really be better tomorrow?]

Today's science fiction, tomorrow's science fact

The Woz will talk about innovation in technology at IP EXPO 2011 in a keynote speech entitled, "Today's science fiction, tomorrow's science fact" on October 20.

According to the press release, Woz will present: "Lessons in leadership, staying focused on goals, and how to champion innovation. If you're ready to be a business hero, this talk will help you spread the inspiration that leads to progress and new possibilities in our information economy."

It's a fact that Apple leads the pack when it comes to realizing the dreams of the sci-fi community. Take a look at the 1984 ad (above) in which Apple defined itself as a champion of the oppressed masses within a gray and dystopian society.

While the alleged enemy in that ad was IBM, it still stands as an attempt against Google, with its strange attitude to innovation and user privacy.

How other than dystopian can you define a firm once led by a man who once proposed all adults will have to change their names at some point in order to protect themselves from their online identities?

[ABOVE: Facetime, "like the Jetsons", said Apple CEO Steve Jobs, enthusiastically.]

Where in the world

Apple has a great track record of bringing the imagined into reality. You could take a look at Apple's Facetime launch in 2010, when Apple CEO Steve Jobs described the technology as similar to that used in the Jetsons, though many saw it as a move toward a Star Trek Communicator.

Of course, the iPod and iPhone can speak for themselves. As does the invention of the GUI-controlled personal computer -- the world had expected a computer age, but until Apple walked into Xerox Parc and pooled all these ideas together, it didn't exist. Indeed, Apple did so well with this invention that Microsoft jumped in and years of litigation followed.

You could keep looking, there's a plethora of moments at which Apple has managed to take a concept -- perhaps a sci-fi concept -- and make it real. What you have to decide is whether pointing that out is a defense, or an admission of defeat. After all, Apple is the company with the track record.

[ABOVE: Kubrick's iPad moment. The clip.]

Samsung's sci-fi defense

"In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers," reads Samsung's explanation to the exhibit above.

"The tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table’s surface), and a thin form factor," Samsung added.

Samsung thinks it is being really, really clever when it makes the claim that Apple's iPad is in some way a reflection of the concept shown in the movie. It isn't, not really: ultimately Apple will have a chance to demonstrate its clear historical record of creating new solutions from people's dreamed reality: a move which will force Samsung to attempt to make some claims for being in possession of the same innovative streak.

One rule for all

That's not all: should Samsung attempt to force this issue forward on these terms, then every patent held on the planet could be threatened -- think about it, there will be armies of patent lawyers (and patent trolls) diving through every book or movie or anything else ever created looking for ideas through which they might be able to undermine this patent or another. Translation software? Tower of Babel or the Babel fish. Automatic door entry systems? Hitchhiker's Guide. Faster-than-light travel? A time machine? It's all there in literature, somewhere....

I understand there's a huge school of thought which says this is a good thing, but do warn that unfettered access to invention will ultimately only favor the biggest firms (because they have the money to play these games), and thus help foster an even more dystopian culture. Equally, of course, as all the Android-related patents shuffle for position in the ever-intensifying smartphone race, we see that the existing patent system also ultimately also favors that kind of dystopia.

The argument that all information should be free has huge currency, but for me the challenge remains that once you enact such a philosophical position, how do you ensure the creative people who invent the inventions, create the medicines, make the music or write the books actually get paid? That's a micro-payment solution worth developing.

This is something which is not adequately explained by Samsung in its complaint, nor is it adequately explained by the Android army, who still resist the notion that certain licensing fees should be paid under the law as it exists right now.

That last remark is important, think about it: at present a hungry person isn't allowed to take food from shops if they want to eat. That's the law.

Morally some might feel that feeding the poor is a collective responsibility, but at present they must pay for their food. If the poor and starving must pay for what they eat under the current legislative system, then surely corporations such as Google -- or Samsung, come to that -- should also pay for the technologies and ideas they use in the products they offer, no matter what they charge for those things?

Because it is the law.

This drama will become messier. The one thing to bear in mind as you reflect on Samsung's 'Kubrick defense' is how 2001 the movie ends. Like most of the great movie classics, it doesn't end at all well. Nor will this lawsuit, at least not in my opinion.

But what's your opinion? I'm proud to say my readers are an intelligent bunch, and while we don't always agree I'm always curious to see what you think, so please let me know in comments below.Please follow me on Twitter so I can let you know when I post new reports here at Computerworld.