As the UK court has ruled that the Tab DOES NOT look or infringe upon apple’s ipad design patent. . . and most of the ipad’s design patent claims are *obvious*, *previously patented* by others, etc. . .

You see, Samsung has just as much right to copy other *previous designs* like the ‘Knight Rider’ tablet & their own picture frame as apple does. That’s the point. You sound like an apple fanboy claiming that apple’s design is “truly original” when in fact it isn’t at all and therefore everyone else has the same right to copy the designs apple copied, that doesn’t mean they copied apple, and even if they do it’s is VALID because apple’s designs are copied from previous works, including Samsung’s. And it is clear Samsung has gone out of their way to ensure that their tab doesn’t look like the ipad in many ways — especially the back. And the new designed Tab apple still isn’t happy with and is trying to ban it as well. Clearly apple just want’s to ban their main competitor, Samsung, unless Samsung makes a fugly brick for a tab that won’t sell no matter what.

.
Source:http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/46416/samsung-statement-apple-court-ruling-britain
.
enjoy the UK decision

I know damn well that Jobs coming back in 1997 saved Apple. I’m not talking about the company’s entire 35-year history. I’m talking about the executives brought in after Jobs came back. Tim Cook: took the company’s supply chain from the traditional tech world’s “shipping in six months!” to “shipping today” and got exclusive parts like the 2048 x 1536 iPad screen. Jonathan Ive: he doesn’t just make the stuff pretty, he’s credited with bringing in some important functional improvements that made products like the current iMac possible. Scott Forstall: helped drive a lot of what made iOS so much easier to use in 2007 than its peers, even if you think the OS is lagging behind now.

HTC, Samsung and other companies have plenty of their own talented VPs and engineers as well — the difference is that they’ve all been run very traditionally, with the CEO rarely having direct influence on the product. Apple will miss a little something without Jobs demanding that design element X be tweaked or having a left-field idea for Y. But an iPhone is still largely the result of Ive’s design ideas, Forstall’s software development and Cook’s ability to get the needed technology in place.

What’s made the competition a lot tougher now is that those other companies are starting to let their own individual designers shine through rather than design primarily by committee: HTC’s unibody One phones are very well-crafted and undoubtedly the result of a singular vision. Samsung’s Smart Stay should have been on phones years ago. Jobs being gone doesn’t mean those sorts of creators have disappeared from Apple.

Also, anyone who sincerely believes that all of Apple’s success rides solely on Jobs’ back has never actually paid attention to the other executives (there’s that willful isolation coming up to bite you again). Even someone with as much of an ego as Jobs understood that he couldn’t get anywhere without competent executives and a flexible corporate hierarchy. The danger is mainly that Apple won’t be going into new categories or rethinking existing ones as much as it had in the past.

You didn’t explicitly say that you think Apple can’t win fairly in court, but it’s contained within everything you write. To you, there is zero chance that anyone would confuse an iPad with a Galaxy Tab, or that a Best Buy staffer would say “here, have a Galaxy Tab, it’s just like an iPad” to a newcomer. Zero. Therefore, the judge couldn’t possibly have decided on neutral terms that the Galaxy Tab was too similar. By definition from that view, the judge was bribed or forced into making the wrong conclusion, because the only way a fair, competent judge could rule was “these things look and behave differently, case dismissed.” Right?

For goodness’ sake, I was at both Mobile World Congress 2011, when the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 design came out, and at CTIA spring 2011, when the major redesign appeared. There were just five weeks between those two events (mid-February and late March). The iPad 2 was unveiled between those events, and I saw for myself how dramatically Samsung’s design changed. Samsung even said it “will not be outdone” in tablet design just a day or two after the iPad 2 was unveiled. While I agree that a Galaxy Tab is visibly different to trained observers (certainly from the back), it was entirely possible for the design to have looked more distinctive than it does, and to have had different software behaviour. Just look at a Galaxy Tab 2 — the “lips” have eliminated Apple’s design-related legal arguments in at least Germany.

The system is what it is, true. However, Koh’s initial decision was NOT to ban the Galaxy Tab. That decision was sent back to her from a higher court. She then ruled to ban the Galaxy Tab — what changed? These events, especially taken in light of other rulings, have to raise questions in the public’s mind as to what in the hell is going on in the courts. Is political pressure being put on the court via apple due to their influence in California? We don’t know, we can only go by what actions have taken place.

No ban
Now a ban — and on the GNexus for ONE patent that can have a work-around done within one week, that’s absurd.

As for the attacks on Koh. Well, she did make the statements that the tables are “indistinguishable.” That statement opens herself up to attack. If they are indeed “indistinguishable” then a simple study would suffice — 1,000 individuals exposed to images of the front and back of each tablet and asked if they are “the same” or “different.” Notice apple hasn’t bothered with such a study.

I guarantee you get 1,000 responses of “different.” Which would conclude Judge Koh made a grievous error in judgement when she concluded that the tables are “indistinguishable” and therefore opens her up to legitimate scrutiny — she interjected a ruling of sorts with no proof whatsoever other than opinion.

The patent system is fubared however, the court ought to understand the current situation and act accordingly. Judge Posner did just that in Motorola Vs Apple. He acted logically given the current environment, situation, and laws — lawsuits on both sides were tossed because they were both nothing more than anti-competitive maneuvers and neither could prove their claims.

This case is doing a strange round-about to get to apple’s favor for some strange reason and Koh has opened herself up to attack by making ridiculous statements of judgement — you don’t say they are “indistinguishable” unless you have PROOF that indeed they are indistinguishable especially when you are the presiding judge. She didn’t need to make such statements. One would expect such statements from apple’s attorney but not the judge unless she was presented with *conclusive proof*. She wasn’t presented with any proof whatsoever, just opinion, including her own opinion which should never have entered the situation.

I get why you might be annoyed with some of the “negative” comments here toward the judge — not the most pleasant. I understand that. However, don’t let those blind you to the actual actions taking place in this case(s). . . it’s rather strange, to say the least, and Koh is at the center of it.