The Computer History Museum is full of tablet-like handheld devices, some dating back decades. So why is it that the internet is abuzz at a video of a Knight-Ridder iPad “lookalike” that predates the iPad by over a decade? Perhaps it’s because people have become weary of Apple acting like it invented nearly everything wonderful and attempting to corner markets with thickets of patents. Or maybe it is because the device in Fidler’s video really does look and work almost exactly like an iPad. For me, Roger Zelazny’s introduction of book-shaped “AIs” in his novella, Roadmarks, in 1979 pointed the way to an eventual tablet computer. From then on it was just a question of time.

Touch input isn’t new, and neither are handheld devices with screens. We covered some of them, like the Eo and the PalmPilot, in our article on the history of input devices — and Jeff Hawkin’s 1989 Gridpad was even earlier. None of those devices had a color screen like the iPad, but it wouldn’t have taken a lot of imagination to add that capability once it became practical. This is important because, unlike many of its phone patents, Apple’s tablet-specific patents are design patents — relying on visual similarity to prove infringement. In Fidler’s case, he rejected Knight-Ridder’s attorney’s suggestion that he patent his tablet, feeling that open competition among tablet creators was in the best interests of the newspaper industry.

This video of Fidler’s 1994 concept tablet shows many of the features found in the iPad and other tablets, in addition to a strikingly similar physical design.

So how is it that Apple has been able to start a patent war in an area that has been the subject of so much innovation by so many different companies? Tablet guru Bert Keely — himself the holder of over 100 tablet-related patents — likens the patent playing field to a battlefield. He explains that, “patents serve as flags placed by companies to stake out territory. When those flags start getting placed too close together, the patent office and the courts get clogged.”

One result is the issuance of patents without sufficient investigation into prior art — the diligence I experienced from patent examiners in the 1990s represented a level of involvement that is often lacking in today’s frenzied patent environment. In Keely’s view, ideally the inter-company “cold war” that results from large numbers of closely-related patents is eventually settled by cross-licensing, clearly a step Apple and Samsung are not willing to take yet. Until then, stay tuned for plenty of court fights over beveled edges and finger swipes. Samsung has just increased its annual litigation budget from $200 million to $260 million.

Read ExtremeTech’s coverage of the ongoing Patent War