LG had an 'iPAD' back in 2001

You may already know that Apple licenses the name iOS from Cisco, but did you know that LG, one of Apple’s suppliers, had an iPad a full 9 years before Apple? According to an article published way back in 2001, LG showed off their Digital iPAD, ‘Linux-based Web pad,’ at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany.

The device, which apparently never went to market, seems pretty pitiful by modern standards; boasting a 206Mhz Intel SA-1110 and requiring a stylus for input, it really couldn’t hold a candle to a budget-priced Polaroid tablet, let alone one of those other iPads. It did, however, offer expandability, thanks to a slot for Flash memory cards and PCMCIA cards, whatever the hell that is.

From the small photo included in the article, LG’s device looks pretty clunky, too. And despite the claim that the device would be released in Korea ‘within the next 12 months,’ if it ever went to market, we can’t find any references to prove it. It would take a few more years for technology to catch up and make tablets into the kind of amazing experience that people like Bill Gates were dreaming of back then.

There is one lingering question: why hasn't LG sued Apple over the iPad name, like certain others have? There's a couple of possibilities. One is that LG doesn't own any rights to the name, since they never actually took their product to market. The other is that Apple quietly licensed it from them. Or maybe LG just forgot about it, like everyone else.

Source: Linux Devices | Image via Linux Devices

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia has some fun crashing Samsung's launch party

Next Story

You asked and Outlook.com responds; Microsoft answers your questions

43 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What makes me laugh on all these ipad stories is that I have a Toshiba portege with windows 8 and it works a dream...... could do with a new battery tbh, but everything else works. If you don't know what a PCMCIA slot\card is you have no place on a tech site.

Your writing style has a rather strong negative undercurrent. It's clouding the entire darn write-up you did and making it hard for me to take you seriously.

" The device, which apparently never went to market, seems pretty pitiful by modern standards"

-- Why the F would you include that line? Don't you think everybody already knows that? It's 2012 and a device shown off in 2001 was probably designed and engineered a couple years before that, and will have specs from that era - no surprise. You write it in a way, that it looks as if you're taking a stab at LG.

"it really couldn't hold a candle to a budget-priced Polaroid tablet, let alone one of those other iPads."

-- Only a severely retarded fanboy who eats+drinks+breathes Apple would compare this tablet to the iPad. I mean, really? You may or may not actually BE that fanboy, but this comparison puzzles me.


"PCMCIA cards, whatever the hell that is."

-- Again, are you serious? If you are, why the F are you writing tech related articles?

"From the small photo included in the article, LG's device looks pretty clunky, too."

-- No ****, sherlock. Apple's own early 'prototype' was considerably clunkier than what was released years later, and I attribute it to the natural progression of technology that they were able to make it slimmer.

Screw this

javagreen said,

...

Lighten up, man. I was most assuredly not serious about the PC cards. I've used the same line about floppies and vinyl records before, too. And I'm not comparing it to the iPad because of some secret agenda - I'm comparing it to the iPad because it is *called* the iPad. That, and because the iPad is the thing that most people think of when they hear the word tablet.

That's a pretty good looking POS, if Apple had launched the iPad in 2001, it would probably have taken design lessons from this baby... you know the end of that story.

I would like to suggest that people research UMPC. A small portable touch screen computer, supported a pen, and was focused on media consumption. It shipped, but the anti-MS crowd criticized it because nobody wanted a computer that small (much like Windows CE when it was first introduced), they wanted to use full sized keyboards, mice, and CRT monitors.

UMPC had problems, such as poor battery life and pressure sensitive displays, mostly because the tech at the time was too expensive or not yet advanced enough - battery tech in 8 years has advanced quite a bit. But a UMPC is the real precursor of the iPad.

omgben said,
I bet there weren't a lot of Tampon jokes flying around when this puppy came out.

That's because this didn't come out. And if it did, it wouldn't have been a mass consumer market.

"It did, however, offer expandability, thanks to a slot for Flash memory cards and PCMCIA cards, whatever the hell that is." THIS is the worst sentence I have ever read on Neowin.

68k said,
"It did, however, offer expandability, thanks to a slot for Flash memory cards and PCMCIA cards, whatever the hell that is." THIS is the worst sentence I have ever read on Neowin.

Don't forget for example that back in the day it allowed me to upgrade my laptop built in 36k modem to a 56k modem or also to add a network card.
Which back in the day that was big boost in internet speed.

So
Fing
What

Gates was touting a tablet with the new Windows XP Operating system, a number of OEM's had tablet devices, none actually made a dent in the market though

Its common knowledge that Apple did not invent the Tablet, imo they just made it Mass Consumer Friendly

Hell-In-A-Handbasket said,
OEM's had tablet devices, none actually made a dent in the market though

I guess it depends on what you call a dent in the market. There were several highly successful tablet based devices out there. They were customized for specific jobs fields and were never meant for consumer use as they were business products. Windows based convertible tablets did well, not exceptional but well enough. Again most of their marketing was geared towards business an area that Apple is still having a hard time breaking into. I'd say they made a huge dent in the market as they were the only product for that niche market!

Love or hate Apple you have to give them credit for one thing. They can market the hell out of anything. I think they could lay a turd, call it the iTurd, market the crap out of it (pun intended) tell Apple-lovers they have to have it. And most of them would walk in and buy it just because it says Apple on it.

**There really is a disconnect in the history of technology and the progression of technology that is missing from today's average consumer population.

Sure computing is amazingly fast now and cheap and can do things that were beyond StarTrek predictions in the 60s, but there was a lot of technology going back that is not recognized or even cared about anymore, and it is apart of our history, and should be required education as it is NOW as important as other topics in a general History class.

For example, people think 'fax machines' are something of the 1980s and 1990s, yet they have been around a long long time, with people like Napoleon using a Fax Machine in the 1860s, over 140 years ago.

Apple's success with the iPad is not in 'technology' but in consumer sales. (Or an accomplishment of Marketing and cost of technology meeting a price point for average consumers.)

The best inventions are products that failed because they were ahead of their time, and someone else going back to the idea and seeing that it would now work by advances in technology or reduction in prices.

The Fax Machine Napoleon used, was insanely expensive, requiring its own infrastructure of wiring and devices, something that didn't become cheap or easy until the 1980s by using standard Modem technology over POTS and simple Huffman Coding.


thenetavenger said,
**There really is a disconnect in the history of technology and the progression of technology that is missing from today's average consumer population.

Sure computing is amazingly fast now and cheap and can do things that were beyond StarTrek predictions in the 60s, but there was a lot of technology going back that is not recognized or even cared about anymore, and it is apart of our history, and should be required education as it is NOW as important as other topics in a general History class.

For example, people think 'fax machines' are something of the 1980s and 1990s, yet they have been around a long long time, with people like Napoleon using a Fax Machine in the 1860s, over 140 years ago.

Apple's success with the iPad is not in 'technology' but in consumer sales. (Or an accomplishment of Marketing and cost of technology meeting a price point for average consumers.)

The best inventions are products that failed because they were ahead of their time, and someone else going back to the idea and seeing that it would now work by advances in technology or reduction in prices.

The Fax Machine Napoleon used, was insanely expensive, requiring its own infrastructure of wiring and devices, something that didn't become cheap or easy until the 1980s by using standard Modem technology over POTS and simple Huffman Coding.

This. Apple is a reference in Marketing, creating a need for their products like a cult.
Recently i was talking to a client who was saying that VMware "invented" virtualization; virtualization exists for like 50 or more years, just wasn't that wide spread, accessible and OS directed (still exists in mainframes, like decades ago); VMware made it spread to a mass market and now there's so many players in this business that it got free, with lots of choices for all kinds of scenarios. So competition improves innovation; patents struggles it.

"seems pretty pitiful by modern standards;"
"PCMCIA cards, whatever the hell that is."
"LG's device looks pretty clunky, too"

Wow. That "article" was pathetic even by Neowin standards. Disgusting.

ahhell said,
"seems pretty pitiful by modern standards;"
"PCMCIA cards, whatever the hell that is."
"LG's device looks pretty clunky, too"

Wow. That "article" was pathetic even by Neowin standards. Disgusting.

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm? And beyond that, it *is* pitiful by modern standards. And that's a *good* thing.

THolman said,

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm? And beyond that, it *is* pitiful by modern standards. And that's a *good* thing.

sorry that's not sarcasm, that's bashing. and the article seems pitiful and clunky by modern standards, whatever the hell that is.

THolman said,

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm? And beyond that, it *is* pitiful by modern standards. And that's a *good* thing.

How exactly are we supposed to get sarcasm out of that mess? The tone is more fanboy rant than sarcasm.

THolman said,

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm? And beyond that, it *is* pitiful by modern standards. And that's a *good* thing.

I am, and I find it sarcastic that you'd imply that your writeup was sarcasm.

notuptome2004 said,

Then tell me why-- the lg patent filed before the Iphone was in May 2006 which means LG would have had to been in development before that time... Apple didn't even file for the patent until October 2006 .... Also LG had previously filed a patent for a touch screen only in clamshell format in 2005 with rounded corners as well-- the touch was in the bottom flip part.

Then also tell me why -- Apple in their patent references them

This also tells me that LG had been in development prior to that date as well.
The only reason we have not seen that is because Apple was not suing LG.


redvamp128 said,

Then tell me why-- the lg patent filed before the Iphone was in May 2006 which means LG would have had to been in development before that time... Apple didn't even file for the patent until October 2006 .... Also LG had previously filed a patent for a touch screen only in clamshell format in 2005 with rounded corners as well-- the touch was in the bottom flip part.

Then also tell me why -- Apple in their patent references them

This also tells me that LG had been in development prior to that date as well.
The only reason we have not seen that is because Apple was not suing LG.


We will probably never know the story behind that, but what we know is that Apple had been working on the iPhone since 1999.
This is the time when Apple registered iphone.org and started working on "Purple Project" (codename for the iPhone project).

a0me said,

We will probably never know the story behind that, but what we know is that Apple had been working on the iPhone since 1999.
This is the time when Apple registered iphone.org and started working on "Purple Project" (codename for the iPhone project).

Yes sitting and waiting on this patent back in 1993 to expire..
http://www.google.com/patents/USD337569

Electronic notebook for data entry

Touch screens-- round corners-- silver bezel-- black ---

1993 for 14 years = 2007

redvamp128 said,

Yes sitting and waiting on this patent back in 1993 to expire..
http://www.google.com/patents/USD337569

Electronic notebook for data entry

Touch screens-- round corners-- silver bezel-- black ---

1993 for 14 years = 2007

In the US, patent term is 20 years from filing date. 1993 + 20 = 2013.
What's your point?

a0me said,

In the US, patent term is 20 years from filing date. 1993 + 20 = 2013.
What's your point?

If you read the patent it states 14 years... which makes 2007 the date they released the Iphone -- which the patent holder would not be able to lay a claim on their release.

Click on the link and under the description ** term = 14 years....

In 2000 they changed the patent term to 20 years- this patent was before then.

This just seems like more than coincidence that Apple releases their Iphone on month after that one expired.

Edited by redvamp128, Sep 1 2012, 4:27am :

redvamp128 said,

http://www.google.com/patents?...2C40%2C899%2C496&edge=0

But then again it is kind of hard to think there was an object that looked like an Iphone prior to the Iphone that was touch screen with round corners. That was a "portable note book" that was also the same dimension, size,and style complete with bezel.


So maybe Apple had known about this patent and waited for it to expire and make sure they did not infringe on it. Isn't that one of the reason that patents exist? So that others don't infringe on them?
I don't think Apple (or any other company) would mind if other manufacturers used their patented inventions once they've expired, 20 years from now.

a0me said,

So maybe Apple had known about this patent and waited for it to expire and make sure they did not infringe on it. Isn't that one of the reason that patents exist? So that others don't infringe on them?
I don't think Apple (or any other company) would mind if other manufacturers used their patented inventions once they've expired, 20 years from now.

The point is that if Apple had their eye on that patent they should have worked with the patent holder in order to bring up the Notebooks sooner.

I leave you with a question.... What if Samsung saw same said patent and took that path in 2006>... which they did have a patent that predates the iphone that is that shape.

This patent due to the fact it was expired was not allowed into evidence as prior-art.

That is the same as the multi-touch Slate from 2003 running XP.
Which pre-dates the Ipad and is black with a bezel and round corners and also has if you look at explorer -- Icons in a grid.

redvamp128 said,

The point is that if Apple had their eye on that patent they should have worked with the patent holder in order to bring up the Notebooks sooner.

I leave you with a question.... What if Samsung saw same said patent and took that path in 2006>... which they did have a patent that predates the iphone that is that shape.

This patent due to the fact it was expired was not allowed into evidence as prior-art.

That is the same as the multi-touch Slate from 2003 running XP.
Which pre-dates the Ipad and is black with a bezel and round corners and also has if you look at explorer -- Icons in a grid.


I'm not saying that the current patent system is not broken.

However, there should be a system that prevents companies from ripping off others' design/trade dress, particularly when they're ripping off an existing, contemporary product.

a0me said,

I'm not saying that the current patent system is not broken.

However, there should be a system that prevents companies from ripping off others' design/trade dress, particularly when they're ripping off an existing, contemporary product.

So in other words -- you basically said-- without knowing it--
The Iphone must now have Square corners... since Samsung Patented a design with round corners prior to the showing of the Iphone.

This was the F700 or "Smart Phone" Patent that I linked to. It was May 2006 when Samsung filed that patent while the Ipad was in Oct 2006. . Their design key features is how Samsung Phones look now with round corners.

And the other thing you said is also that Samsung must change product packaging and also their icon's and the end bounce back.
(it is up to Corel if they want to file to get their phone icon back) -- The green phone icon was in a downloadable icon set prior to the Ipad/Iphone.

The drag and scroll system is debatable because finger slide is hard to prove -anyone remember the cross hair grab functions.

also the pinch to downsize as to the fact that it could fall under the Grab corner and fold patent.


Trade dress works both ways.

One is that LG doesn't own any rights to the name, since they never actually took their product to market.

Probably that one. It's all just pie in the sky.

PCMCIA cards, whatever the hell that is.

Really?

JessJess said,

Probably that one. It's all just pie in the sky.

No, not even that one.

The iPad was trademarked by Proview. Apple has had to just pay them $60m to settle on the name use for their products. Apple now owns the rights, as a trademark for iPad.

It doesn't matter that Proview never put to market their "'Internet Personal Access Device", but they had the sense to register iPad as a trademark.

Apple seem to for go legal checking a lot of the time when they really want something anyway and aren't quite sure if they'd get away with it. I'm left wondering how many other things they've pushed ahead with and just burried the legal owner of tech or names, patents etc in so much legal taglement and costs they've given up fighting for it or just can't afford to go head to head with apple.

Ok, not newsy, but why are all Tablets compared to the iPad when talking about lineage of the devices, as the iPad is the form 'leader' but was not even close to being the freaking first.

Maybe use this as a reference from 1893, and ironically it could do what the iPad can't, handle Handwriting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telautograph

There were Slate TabletPCs in 2001/2002 timeframe, that did not have keyboards. There were touch and multi-touch TabletPCs in the 2004 timeframe... Yet the iPad is the 'reference' ?

Why?

Because before the iPad, no tablets had any market penetration worth talking about.

Same reason for the Model T being such a big deal, there were cars before, But the Model T, that was the one where the masses could take note, and got one.

thenetavenger said,
Ok, not newsy, but why are all Tablets compared to the iPad when talking about lineage of the devices, as the iPad is the form 'leader' but was not even close to being the freaking first.

Maybe use this as a reference from 1893, and ironically it could do what the iPad can't, handle Handwriting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telautograph

There were Slate TabletPCs in 2001/2002 timeframe, that did not have keyboards. There were touch and multi-touch TabletPCs in the 2004 timeframe... Yet the iPad is the 'reference' ?

Why?

There was Touch based tablet PCs in 2004 and before that but no Multi-touch based devices until the iPhone ther was no MT tablets until the iPad before the iPhone and iPAd Tablet devices well most of which all was a PC convertible used Resistive touch displays that required a Stylus . Multi-touch Capasitive displays while i think was shown off in 2005 was not used in any device that i knwo of till the iPhone

notuptome2004 said,

There was Touch based tablet PCs in 2004 and before that but no Multi-touch based devices until the iPhone ther was no MT tablets until the iPad before the iPhone and iPAd Tablet devices well most of which all was a PC convertible used Resistive touch displays that required a Stylus . Multi-touch Capasitive displays while i think was shown off in 2005 was not used in any device that i knwo of till the iPhone

Tc1000 2003 demoed in 2002 had multi touch and would work without the pen. YOu should also look at this..

http://www.tabletkiosk.com/pro...hara/images/i500_family.jpg

You could hold one corner and another corner and change the size.... this was not considered pinch to re-size but does fall in the Multi-Point touch... also have you seen the "Diamond Touch" video which shows multi touch prior to the Ipad or Iphone .

redvamp128 said,

Tc1000 2003 demoed in 2002 had multi touch and would work without the pen. YOu should also look at this..
http://www.tabletkiosk.com/pro...hara/images/i500_family.jpg

You could hold one corner and another corner and change the size.... this was not considered pinch to re-size but does fall in the Multi-Point touch... also have you seen the "Diamond Touch" video which shows multi touch prior to the Ipad or Iphone .

Well the diamond touch thing is kinda dumb to even compare to today's multi-touch screens as the diamond touch used a Table with sensors on it and a Projector to project objects and or a OS with special software to convert your Multi-point touching to a raw imput on what was projected


as far as the Slate PC goes yea while it may have had Multi imput on it it was prolly sluggish using older Resistive touch based screen course being 2001 or so . if you watch chris pirillo live video he did on installing windows 8 he shows it running on an older wellt he first generation HP touch smart PCs that is all in one that had vista on it and it is just plain out loud bad at touch because of how bad the quality of the touch screen is being a resistive touch so it comes down to the quality of display in that

notuptome2004 said,

Well the diamond touch thing is kinda dumb to even compare to today's multi-touch screens as the diamond touch used a Table with sensors on it and a Projector to project objects and or a OS with special software to convert your Multi-point touching to a raw imput on what was projected


as far as the Slate PC goes yea while it may have had Multi imput on it it was prolly sluggish using older Resistive touch based screen course being 2001 or so . if you watch chris pirillo live video he did on installing windows 8 he shows it running on an older wellt he first generation HP touch smart PCs that is all in one that had vista on it and it is just plain out loud bad at touch because of how bad the quality of the touch screen is being a resistive touch so it comes down to the quality of display in that

But running XP it was not sluggish in the least... this was in 2003...

Also, if LG is still a supplier to Apple, then why bother.. they are making money off the company, a lawsuit only offers a chance at making some, and it's an expensive gamble, and would need to be taken up in almost every region in the world..

dvb2000 said,
Let apple sell a few million more, then the penalties for infringing LG's ideas will be even more
The longer they aren't getting legal over it, the harder it will be to make it fly in court.. If you don't actively protect your trademarks they become invalid.