Except there was not prior art, the iPad patent was found valid through reexamination and at court

The court found it met the requirements of the law.

The law/case law is far too loose with the requirements for novelty.

Being upheld by a court does not mean something is a good patent.

Mathematics are not supposed to be patentable at all but people manage to sneak in pure algorithms by gluing them to an arbitrary machine. The system is quite clearly broken.

>Being upheld by a court does not mean something is a good patent.

The only good patent is the one that stands up in court.

You're just being snarky and not actually playing a game of semantics, right? Patent that progresses the arts vs. patent that makes money, regulation tries to make these ideas correlate as much as possible but there are flaws.

If nothing else, 2001 - A space odyssey very clearly has information devices with almost exactly the same shape of the iPad.

The Star Trek PADD is not too far off either.

The patent is bogus to any sane and honest individual.

In what way do any of these look like an iPad? (apart from being vaguely rectangular)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=star+trek+padd&num=30&clie...

First on the left has similarities. It is indeed not that close. It's the space odyssey one that is much closer.

> If nothing else, 2001 - A space odyssey very clearly has information devices with almost exactly the same shape of the iPad.

Apparently it wasn't.

>The Star Trek PADD is not too far off either.

Neither was this