Posts Tagged ‘Star Trek’

Share via email

Aaron Thalwitzer

We all know Apple moved to enjoin Samsung in its US patent suit over the iPad (among other many things). Samsung filed its opposition brief, in which it makes a claim that makes a great forest for the trees argument. In its brief Samsung cites classic but still mostly boring movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, in support of its argument that the design of the iPad is prior art. The more I think about it, the more of a point I think they’ve got. The tablet-style computer is so ubiquitous to sci-fi that it goes unnoticed – except that the iPad and its kin have mostly exceeded the fictional capabilities of these formerly futuristic devices. The following image shows the content of page 2 of an exhibit filed by Samsung with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (click to enlarge): Samsung argues that the pic from 2001 is valid prior art for an iPad-related design patent:

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a still image taken from Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. The clip can be downloaded online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo. As with the design claimed by the D’889 Patent, 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.

According to ABC News, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke called the device in 2001 a “Newspad,” and in the book version of 2001 described how a user “would conjure up the world’s major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad.” He went on: punch in the code for a story and “the postage-stamp-size rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it in comfort.” While Samsung’s argument is quite ingenious, let us not forget the true innovator here – and it’s not Kubrick, Clarke, Samsung, or Apple. As usual, Star Trek beat everyone to the punch. Star Fleet has been using these devices (known as a Personal Access Display Devices, i.e. PADDs) since the 1960s. According toMemory Alpha:

PADDs were used by such space-faring organizations as Starfleet, the Andorian Imperial Guard, Bajoran Militia, Cardassian Union, Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, and Vulcan High Command.

For reasons wholly personal, I would enjoy seeing Samsung hook the court on this argument. First, it feels right, and it’s a creative argument. Second, it’s fun and, better yet, sci-fi fun. I like Apple products, but right now, I prefer Samsung’s lawyers (especially in light of Apple’s lawyers recent ethically questionable practices).

 

Share via email

by Aaron Thalwitzer

A few years ago, an anti-matter containment unit was patented. It’s no big deal, just an “apparatus and method for long-term storage of antimatter.” The abstract states that it “may be energized by a low power magnetron and can function for hundreds of hours on the energy provided by batteries.” There was no dispute that a new container for an existing product could be patented. But what about antimatter itself. Can it be patented?

A hydrogen atom and an anti-hydrogen atom.

In short, no. You can’t patent something that already exists in nature.  But recently, antimatter was found to exist in nature, all over Earth, and especially in Florida, the lightning capital of the world. Antimatter would apparently be inappropriate subject matter for a patent. Previously, it was thought that since humanity and only humanity had created it, antimatter was our invention.

I still expect to see patents for antimatter itself. Should we be able to patent something so fundamental, so basic, and yet so incredibly difficult (for us) to create?

The properties of antimatter are not set by man, but by nature. Is antimatter a discovery or a creation, and does it matter? Certainly one cannot patent a new element, even one that does not commonly exist in nature — Plutonium, for example. That won’t stop people from trying.

The parallels to bio-engineering are clear. Tweaking an existing life form can be patentable; it’s an ‘invented’ lifeform. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 307 (1980). But a new element?

Antimatter created by a thunderstorm, seriously, ANTIMATTER!

It has been said that, “standing alone, the successful prediction of the properties of a future invention cannot possibly be a bar to patentability.” I am inclined to agree, although I am not sure I like the meaning of that statement. Since, as it turns out, antimatter is far more common in nature than we ever imagined, it should be thoroughly unpatentable.

We are likely to discover, invent, and create more new elements. I wonder whether these should be held by a relatively few number of people.

What think you? Should we be able to patent bottled lightning?

Aaron Thalwitzer
Share via email

By Aaron B. Thalwitzer

As any self-respecting nerd will tell you, “Star Trek” was the greatest, most influential, and most realistic franchise of the twentieth century. It has inspired social change, technological advancement, and generations of men to hold onto their virginity with their dying breath. But seriously, who is going claim that Star Trek is realistic?

First Lt. Joseph La Monica, that’s who. La Monica is a head of research at the Air Force Research Laboratory Materials and Manufacturing Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Transparent Aluminum (Aluminium to our British readers)

According to La Monica, “A new type of transparent armor made of aluminum could one day replace glass in military vehicles. . . . The substance itself is light-years ahead of glass.”

Where have I heard that before? Of course! According to Wikipedia, “The chemical formula for transparent aluminum plays a key role in the plot of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home [1986].” Who could forget when Scotty trades the formula for transparent aluminum for enough Plexiglas to create a tank inside a Klingon Bird of Prey in order to transport two humpback whales through time, thereby saving the world?

Well, transparent Aluminum is now going to be turned into commercial products.  But once, it was a well-guarded military secret. It was patented back in 1985; Star Trek IV was released in 1986.

The substance is actually a transparent ceramic composed of aluminum, oxygen and nitrogen (aluminum oxynitride). It is marketed under the name ALON™ and described in U.S. Patent 4,520,116. La Monica says it takes half as much ALON to stop a .30 caliber armor piercing round as it does glass. When formed and polished as a window, the material costs $10 to $15 per square inch, about 3 times that of glass.

But is it really transparent? According to the patent abstract, is “transparent to electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range from 0.3 to 5 micrometers.” Sure ‘nuff, visible light.

Trying to sell the formula for transparent aluminum

The inventors are listed as Richard Gentilman and two other dudes. Whatever. We know the truth.

Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 18, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 8458 access attempts in the last 7 days.