Samsung tried to use that image as examples of "prior art" and it was roundly rejected by the courts. The whole purpose of bringing it up was propaganda for public consumption and you and a lot of others bought it. Prior art has to be in the area of the invention, not fiction, just showing that someone thought an idea might be a cool thing in the future. "Prior Art" is a term in law which has a specific meaning, not the public mistaken concept that you just put up here. Apple even brought in the FX people in "2001: a Space Odyssey" who testified that below that table was three feet of television equipment to achieve that effect, . . and that those "tablets" were built into the table, and were not in any way portable, and all illusion. Apple won almost $1Billion from Samsung in that lawsuit. Sorry, no banana.
Facts are difficult things.
As has been normal marriage. Appealing to "Authority" is not much of an argument.
The whole purpose of bringing it up was propaganda for public consumption and you and a lot of others bought it.
And why not? It makes the very obvious point that Apple didn't think of the idea. Apple didn't even exist in 1968.
Prior art has to be in the area of the invention, not fiction, just showing that someone thought an idea might be a cool thing in the future. "Prior Art" is a term in law which has a specific meaning, not the public mistaken concept that you just put up here. Apple even brought in the FX people in "2001: a Space Odyssey" who testified that below that table was three feet of television equipment to achieve that effect, . . and that those "tablets" were built into the table, and were not in any way portable, and all illusion.
I don't think anyone believed that those tablet computers were real, or that people were actually in space, or that the giant super computer psychotic killing machine was real either. What you have put forth here is an example of the fallacy where someone says something that is factually true, but does not actually support the point in contention.
The Technology to create those tablets did not exist in 1968, but this does not at all address the point that conceptually the idea existed long before Apple.
Apple won almost $1Billion from Samsung in that lawsuit.
As a conservative, you are no doubt familiar with the general attitude of conservatives regarding courts and their all too common miscarriages of justice. I do not know enough details about this particular court case to say this verdict is just flat out wrong, but from the details I do know, it certainly seems to be wrong.
If Samsung ripped off something Apple developed which was unique and proprietary, then that is one thing, but it certainly looks like Apple sued someone for copying the wheel.
Especially when you have none on your side.
I didn't claim that the fictional devices in 2001 constituted prior art.
Learn to read.