Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Apple

UK Judge: Galaxy Tab "Not Cool" Enough To Infringe iPad 325

Posted by samzenpus
from the go-ahead dept.
zacharye writes "U.K. Judge Colin Birss has ruled that Samsung can continue selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the region because the Android tablet is 'not as cool' as the iPad and therefore is unlikely to be confused with Apple's slate. Samsung's Galaxy line of tablets 'do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,' Judge Birss said. 'They are not as cool.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Judge: Galaxy Tab "Not Cool" Enough To Infringe iPad

Comments Filter:
  • by plover (150551) * on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:34PM (#40593031) Homepage Journal

    Because that ruling really is for teh lulz. This quote is likely to become an internet meme all on its own, with thousands of pictures of cats sitting on Samsung tablets and half-witted captions about "keepn warrm on mah galaxy bcuz itz not cool"

    • by thej1nx (763573) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:49PM (#40593269)
      Are you kidding? This is hilarious!! It puts Apple in the classic catch-22 position. Either they now seriously argue that Android tablets are "every bit as cool" as its IPAD devices... or they agree with the Judge and abandon their law suit. That just might be one shrewd Judge! Either way, Apple's options suck right now!
      • by erroneus (253617) on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:00PM (#40593457) Homepage

        I think it's a ruling that lots of people should be happy with... theoretically. It certainly does call Apple on its case that "it might be mistaken for..." Clearly, the judge sees the two devices as different enough not to be mistaken for the other and that's at the core of what their [current] suit is about.

        Now, that's not to say they won't turn around and sue for some other idiotic thing, but at least that's one less thing they can sue about... in the UK. Good thing the judges tend to pay attention to what the others rule and take those ruling into consideration.

      • by PylonHead (61401) on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:10PM (#40593595) Homepage Journal

        Honestly, I went the other way on this one.

        Samsung has just had their product ruled demonstrably inferior by a court of law. Not exactly a marketing message they want celebrate.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 09, 2012 @02:05PM (#40594367)

          If you think not being cool makes you inferior, you were either a bullied or the bullied in school. Each tablet has its merits, the judge simply dealt with it in a hilarious reverse peer pressure sort of way.

          Apple: The Galaxy Tab is totally trying to copy our style. Make them stop!
          Judge: Nah, it's not as cool as you guys by far. I mean, you guys are cool right? Cause if you weren't, I could totally see Galaxy Tabs as being the cool guys.
          Apple: Um, naw bro, we're cool... But they suck, so we didn't want them tainting our style is all...
          Judge: That's what I thought. Stay cool, dudes.
          Apple: Aiight, peace J-dawg.
          [beat]
          Samsung: ...Are they gone?
          Judge: Yeah. I don't think they know what just happened.
          Samsung: I mean, I guess. You didn't have to rule us uncool though.
          Judge: ...Why's that?
          Samsung: Part of who we are is that our customers like to make up their own minds about our products, not just be told what their opinio....
          Judge: Exactly.
          Samsung: Judge, you're the best.

        • by digitig (1056110)
          Inferior in one regard. They can still market on price and functionality.
        • by 91degrees (207121) on Monday July 09, 2012 @02:39PM (#40594715) Journal
          It's demonstrably less cool. Not demonstrably inferior.

          The thing is, there's no argument that Apple products are inherently stylish. Anyone who thinks "cool" matters will go for the iPad.

          Nobody chooses Android over Apple because it's cooler. They do so because they like the apps, or because they believe in slightly less closed platforms, or because they prefer the way it works, or because they see the iPad as hipsterish (where being "cool" is actually harmful).
        • by johnlcallaway (165670) on Monday July 09, 2012 @03:30PM (#40595267)
          I buy products based on price and usability, not 'cool'. Unlike all the iDrones out there that rush out when the newest and 'coolest' item shows up. Sure, they spend more and keep Apple in business.

          Meanwhile, Samsung (and other Android devices) continues to grow their user base creating several different devices that just work. Between the wife and I we have Samsung SII, a Samsung Note, and a Samsung tablet. All have worked great and provided us more choices than 'black or white' or 'how much non-upgradable memory do you want with that'.

          In fact, my daughter just switched to an HTC android phone after having an Apple phone for years, and likes it better.

          Keep your 'cool', it might attract a few customers that can afford it. I'll take basic usability for a lower overall cost.
      • by ArhcAngel (247594)
        Actually Samsung is in the equally dubious position.
        Yay we can keep selling our product because the competing product is cooler than ours is O_o

        Or they can object to the wording and possibly get banned because it IS as cool.
        • by spazdor (902907) on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:50PM (#40594181)

          Or they can proudly declare that their product is for people who care about functionality and features rather than 'cool'.

        • by Patch86 (1465427) on Monday July 09, 2012 @04:14PM (#40595749)

          Most consumers won't care that a judge has said their product is cool. It's not exactly going to make the front page of the tabloids- outside of the Slashdot crowd, most people don't follow technology patent lawsuits ever so closely. They will notice that Samsungs are still stocked in all good gadget shops.

          However, if Apple were to seriously develop a long and protracted court case on the premise of persuading a judge and jury that the Galaxy is cool in the following scientifically provable ways...well, that's surreal and amusing enough that quite a few news outlets will report it in their "you couldn't make this up" pages. That would be some serious good press for Samsung.

          It's difficult to see how the negatives for Samsung outweigh the positives.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@NOspaM.world3.net> on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:14PM (#40593653) Homepage

        I bothered to RTFA and the cool part isn't really what he was saying, just some throw-away soundbite. The decision was because Samsung products look substantially different to Apple products. To quote:

        The judge found that Samsungâ(TM)s products were distinctive because they were thinner and had âoeunusual detailsâ on the back.

        In other words they are a different, slimmer form factor and have a Samsung logo on the back. That is a double win for Samsung because it shows a judge isn't fooled by Apple's rather weak similarities argument and that Samsung's products are officially and legally declared thinner than Apple's (assuming you care, hipsters seem to).

      • by Tough Love (215404) on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:17PM (#40593697)

        That just might be one shrewd Judge!

        That is apparent, and with a dry sense of humour.

      • Or they could simply argue that he focused only on that one issue to the exclusion of the others, thus disregarding more important considerations. It's not exactly hard for them to reaffirm their belief that their devices are cooler while still insisting that infringement took place and that the infringement is happening regardless of the coolness.

        I know it's fun to imagine Apple painted into a corner, but come on, IANAL and even I can imagine a simple defense that doesn't rely on contradicting the judge's

      • by sribe (304414)

        Are you kidding? This is hilarious!! It puts Apple in the classic catch-22 position. Either they now seriously argue that Android tablets are "every bit as cool" as its IPAD devices... or they agree with the Judge and abandon their law suit.

        Or they could argue that the judge has incorrectly applied trade dress law ;-)

        It is still funny, but only superficially.

        • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Monday July 09, 2012 @02:40PM (#40594721)
          This is English law. We don't have "trade dress", we have "passing off". Apple would basically have to show that either Samsung were misrepresenting their tablet as being either an Apple tablet, or their product was designed to be so similar that the buying public would be confused.

          Apple is a widely recognised trade mark, so if it says "Samsung" on the back the chance of confusion is minimal.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      He possibly quoted the opinion of a "professional" witness, which he has to accept as is.

  • That was a pretty sick burn on the judge's part.

    • by Rei (128717)

      Could lead Apple to do the first-ever use of a negative ruling in a legal battle in an ad promoting a product ;)

      Can you imagine this in other kind of rulings? "I find the defendant not guilty of stealing her purse because he's far too fat to steal anything but a nap, the attacker was described as running away (not waddling), the grease and tomato stains on every shirt he's worn to the court proceedings make it clear that his hands would have been too full of pizza to hold it, and judging from his unimagina

  • Horrible Logic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s.petry (762400) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:37PM (#40593095)

    The rule is fine, but the logic used is horrible. Instead of pointing out how obviously screwed up the patent system is, we see this: A special case exception based on an opinion, which is most obviously not law and can not be translated in to law!

    • Re:Horrible Logic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:40PM (#40593135)

      It's a perfectly valid ruling in light of the ridiculous design patent. OMG we invented rounded corners!!!

    • Re:Horrible Logic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:45PM (#40593215) Homepage Journal

      The rule is fine, but the logic used is horrible. Instead of pointing out how obviously screwed up the patent system is, we see this: A special case exception based on an opinion, which is most obviously not law and can not be translated in to law!

      I kind of see it the other way around; the logic of "Samsung's device is sufficiently different from Apple's device as to not risk customer confusion" is sound, but the way the judge went about positing it ('Aw man, this Samsung thing isn't as hip and cool and trendy as the iPad my GGD got me for Kwanzaa") is a bit 3rd grade.

      • Re:Horrible Logic (Score:5, Interesting)

        by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot&nexusuk,org> on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:01PM (#40593481) Homepage

        I kind of see it the other way around; the logic of "Samsung's device is sufficiently different from Apple's device as to not risk customer confusion" is sound, but the way the judge went about positing it ('Aw man, this Samsung thing isn't as hip and cool and trendy as the iPad my GGD got me for Kwanzaa") is a bit 3rd grade.

        I don't quite understand this... Whilst I agree that pretty much no iDevice is going to be confused with an Android device...

        The Galaxy tablets “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,”

        Both devices are basically a screen with almost no external buttons, plain black frame around the screen, rectangular... I'm not sure how you can get more simple. The only way I can see the iPad being simpler and more understated than the Tab is because it only has 1 button on the front instead of 4, but whilst this is visually simpler, being usably simpler is debatable (I for one find Android devices easier to use than iDevices precisely because there are these buttons that always do the same thing and are always in the same place - note, this isn't a "foo is better than bar" comment, it is simply pointing out that "less buttons == simpler" is very very debatable.

        Once you get to the software itself, on the surface iOS and Android are pretty similar - a matrix of application launcher icons, so I'm not sure you can draw any "foor is simpler than bar" conclusions here either.

        The judge found that Samsung’s products were distinctive because they were thinner and had “unusual details” on the back.

        Apple seem to think that thinner == cooler, with products such as the MacBook Air, so I'm not sure this comment is going to sit well with them.

        On the other hand, I have no idea where the "unusual details" thing came from - the back of both devices looks quite similar, except for the fact that one of them has an apple logo and the other has a samsung logo (i.e. other than the logos, they are pretty plain except for the regulatory info that they both have) Compare: http://blog.actioncreations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galaxyTabBack.jpg [actioncreations.com] http://mobodojo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ipad_back.jpg [mobodojo.com]

        So on the whole, these devices are different enough to tell apart (as much as any reasonably plain appliance can be told apart - for example, most TVs look pretty similar to each other but this doesn't seem to end with the TV manufacturers suing each other), but the way the judge has gone about deciding this seems... odd.

        • Re:Horrible Logic (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Solandri (704621) on Monday July 09, 2012 @03:11PM (#40595053)

          Apple seem to think that thinner == cooler, with products such as the MacBook Air, so I'm not sure this comment is going to sit well with them.

          You're trying to find logical consistency where there is none. The resolution/dpi on the first and second gen iPad was the worst of any tablet (aside from $99 Chinese knockoffs) but it was the thinnest tablet. Hence Apple fans insisted the thinness was cool and the resolution was "good enough". By the time the third gen iPad rolled out, it was no longer the thinnest tablet, but had the highest resolution/dpi. And Apple fans felt the high resolution was cool and the thinness was "good enough".

          It's a classic case of starting with a predetermined conclusion ("Apple products are cooler than the rest"), and cherry picking the features which support that conclusion. You'll find no logical consistency in it. It's the same misguided reasoning which comes up with "show me a competing product with the same or better features" as an argument of superiority. That argument works for nearly any product because most products have at least one feature at which they're best in class. The Samsung tablet is the thinnest so there is no competing product with "the same or better features". The cheap $99 tablet is the cheapest, so there is no competing product with "the same or better features". Rather than truly ask themselves which product has the best feature set, they subconsciously rephrase the question so that the only answer is the one they want - an Apple product. Completely oblivious to the fact that they've reworded the question to the point where it's meaningless.

      • the logic of "Samsung's device is sufficiently different from Apple's device as to not risk customer confusion" is sound, but the way the judge went about positing it ('Aw man, this Samsung thing isn't as hip and cool and trendy as the iPad my GGD got me for Kwanzaa") is a bit 3rd grade.

        It was just a way to get Apple to shut up. And why should Apple not be treated as a 3rd grader?

    • Re:Horrible Logic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tomhath (637240) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:49PM (#40593263)
      The logic is perfect. Apple is defending the coolness of its design as unique and patentable. Judge tossed it right back in Apple's face by saying Samsung's design isn't so cool that it infringes.
    • I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it [wikipedia.org], and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

      --Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

      • by s.petry (762400)

        AFAIK, "hard-core pornography" is rather straight forward extension of "pornography" which does have a very fixed definition. Comparing that to "cool", which has numerous definitions and slang variations is not a fair comparison. It's kind of like saying "Poodles are to Dogs what Fruit is to Everything".

        I get the point you are making, but don't agree it's a fair comparison. More simply: Law is always a matter of opinion. The opinion however must be clearly defined and regarding clearly defined subject

        • I don't agree at all. "Pornography", "obscenity", and "cool" are all very personal, subjective concepts, without any kind of fixed definition. The "prevailing community standards" is as close as we are able to come. If "cool" had a fixed definition, we'd all have eyebrow studs and earlobe expanders; or maybe Italian penny loafers and silk ties. In the case of Apple, many of their products are considered unutterably cool by their customer base, but just kind of "meh" by the computer industry at large. P
    • Re:Horrible Logic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Baloroth (2370816) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:57PM (#40593393)

      A judge's decision is not "law". It may serve as precedent, depending, but it is not law. Rather, it is an interpretation (a judgment, hence the term, "judge") of how the law applies or does not apply in this specific case. Since Apple was suing over a design similarity, it is perfectly logical to say the design isn't similar because it isn't as "cool." The judge can't really say "the patent system, which was enacted by the legislature and over which I have no power, is stupid, so I'm going to ignore the law and make up my own!" A judge's job is not to make law, it is to interpret it. They can comment on how stupid they think the law is, directly or indirectly (and in fact this judge may have been doing that subtly), and they can decide if a law breaks other, higher laws, but they cannot make law directly.

      • A judge's decision is not "law". It may serve as precedent, depending, but it is not law.

        Wrrrrrrrrronnnnnnnnnggg. The core concept of common law seems to escaped you.

      • by Teun (17872)
        It seems you didn't grok the judge (and the case) are working according to the British legal system.

        Recent training on the matter has told me the Brits have two kinds of law, Criminal and Common law, the Concept of civil law has yet to cross the Channel...

    • by plover (150551) *

      Maybe this is a worst case scenario. Now, Apple can threaten Samsung for every improvement that makes it "cooler", because they might make it "cool enough". "Dang, that's a cool font; better not use it on your tablet or we'll sue you!"

      Actually, I don't agree with you that the rule is fine. The judge didn't legally define cool, but he used it as the basis of his ruling. Read another way, he said "you must be |<---this cool--->| to be infringing." But how cool is that? Is the scale linear, does it

      • See, that's the beauty of it. The judge doesn't have to define cool, Apple does. Apple is in court claiming their devices are indistinguishable from Samsung's, at the same time as going on TV claiming there's no comparison. Busted.

    • by erroneus (253617)

      True: This doesn't address the stupidity of the patent system in this case. Judges try not to legislate from the bench if at all possible and perhaps it's not even permitted in the UK. (I don't know) But it does simply say "these two cannot be mistaken for each other. you have no case." And after all, it is the "they made a nearly identical device and therefore they infringe" claim this suit is over. The judge doesn't see it and rules against Apple. Done and done.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      Sign. RTFA:

      "The judge found that Samsungâ(TM)s products were distinctive because they were thinner and had âoeunusual detailsâ on the back."

      The 'cool' bit was just a throwaway opinion he expressed in summing up, not the basis of the ruling.

  • "The iPad is not as HIP! Maaaan"
  • by wisebabo (638845) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:41PM (#40593147) Journal

    Come'on when was the last time you've ever heard the words "not as cool" coming from a bunch of silly looking serious magistrates (with those funky white hairpieces).

    It's a funny image.

    • Come'on when was the last time you've ever heard the words "not as cool" coming from a bunch of silly looking serious magistrates (with those funky white hairpieces).

      It's a funny image.

      Now imagine the necessary wig ("We like dressing up, yes.") and it suddenly starts to make sense.

      • Oh, just kill me. :/ In my timezone, I'm all but asleep and tend to miss some words right now. (Good night.)
    • It's doubtful the judge meant it in a complimentary way.

    • Would you trust this man's [blogspot.com] opinion as to what is cool and what isn't?

  • by bradley13 (1118935) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:41PM (#40593165) Homepage

    If you want a device that has no controls except the touch screen itself, you are going to wind up with a screen surrounded by a narrow frame. The only choice is color, and black has been a safe bet as a trendy color for decades.

    So the usual question: what else should a tablet look like?

    Design patents aren't.

    • by MikeMo (521697)
      I dunno. Maybe. Here is a nice shot [osxdaily.com] of what "tablets" looked like before and after the iPad. Looks to me like no one thought of the simple, rounded-corner, black slate before the iPad. Maybe the idea to have a "device that has no controls except the touch screen itself" was the new idea.
      • Looks to me like no one thought of the simple, rounded-corner, black slate before the iPad.

        Except for prop designers in science fiction movies and television shows more than 25 years ago.

  • by ackthpt (218170) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:42PM (#40593167) Homepage Journal

    but they are cool enough.

    It would be interesting to get one, but not by paying UK prices.

  • Catch-22 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:43PM (#40593187) Homepage Journal

    Samsung’s Galaxy line of tablets “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” Judge Birss said according to Bloomberg. “They are not as cool.”

    Apple has 21 days to appeal the judge’s ruling.

    So, when Apple inevitably appeals the decision, can we take that as a de facto statement that they do not, in fact, find their own products to be "cool" or posses "understated and extreme simplicity" in their designs?

    • Re:Catch-22 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rei (128717) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:58PM (#40593405) Homepage

      There's an old joke in the writing community about how if you're going to write a (real) man into a book as a character and are afraid that he might sue for libel, write him in with a tiny penis [wikipedia.org]. Because the men who would sue and claim, "yes, your honor, I'm the guy with the tiny penis in this book" are few and far between.

      Michael Crichton kind of went overboard with this one [talkingpointsmemo.com], though.

      • Totally off topic, but I was just reading that article about Michael Crichton... I found it strangely amusing that Crowley found it "worse" that he might be branded as a pharma profiteer, rather than a child rapist. O_o
    • Or they could simply argue that he focused only on that one issue to the exclusion of the others, thus disregarding more important considerations. It's not exactly hard for them to reaffirm their belief that their devices are cooler while still insisting that infringement took place and that the infringement is happening regardless of the coolness.

  • by cellocgw (617879) <cellocgw&gmail,com> on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:43PM (#40593197) Journal

    News sources report a mad rush of hipsters trying to buy a Galaxy Tab before it becomes cool.

  • by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@gmai l . com> on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:47PM (#40593233) Homepage Journal

    There are those who still insist Apples are inherently better for graphics, which really isn't true anymore.

    I loved the concept of Android, but used an iPhone for the past 3 years. Android has really come a long way in that time. It should be noted that most iOS 5 features existed in Android first. The notion that Android isn't as cool, slick or intuitive as iOS was once true, but no longer is.

    I made the switch to a Galaxy S III and it actually exceeded my expectations. The OS is very intuitive, slick and looks really good. The surprising thing is I think the typography is better, which is an area where Apple normally excels. Roboto is just a great looking scalable font.

    I find great features every day that I didn't even know about. For example, I set an alarm on my phone to take a nap. It slowly woke me up with soft music like a zen alarm clock.

    • by oakgrove (845019) on Monday July 09, 2012 @12:58PM (#40593397)
      Not sure why you were modded down but one of the most striking differences between my Xoom running ICS and my iPad is the superior fonts on the Xoom. They just look clearer and I don't think that can fully be explained by the superior display resolution.
      • Directly comparing iOS and Android features is off-topic in a thread about iOS and Android?

        There is no -1 disagree.

    • There are those who still insist Apples are inherently better for graphics, which really isn't true anymore.

      I loved the concept of Android, but used an iPhone for the past 3 years. Android has really come a long way in that time. It should be noted that most iOS 5 features existed in Android first. The notion that Android isn't as cool, slick or intuitive as iOS was once true, but no longer is.

      I made the switch to a Galaxy S III and it actually exceeded my expectations. The OS is very intuitive, slick and looks really good. The surprising thing is I think the typography is better, which is an area where Apple normally excels. Roboto is just a great looking scalable font.

      I find great features every day that I didn't even know about. For example, I set an alarm on my phone to take a nap. It slowly woke me up with soft music like a zen alarm clock.

      Android uses Freetype, as all Linux devices do. Freetype is really excellent, especially when using the Droid font family that Google commissioned and released under an open source license.

      • Droid is a great font. I think Roboto (which they introduced in ICS) is even better.

      • by TheDarkMaster (1292526) on Monday July 09, 2012 @03:02PM (#40594965)
        Microsoft and Freetype uses a different concept when drawing a character on a LCD. Microsoft/Freetype prefer to adjust the font in the grid, while Apple prefer that the font is drawn as close as possible to the correct (on paper) drawing even that does not fit in the grid. The result is that if the grid does not have a high resolution, the fonts of Apple appear blurred compared with the exact same fonts drawn by Microsoft/Freetype
  • See the "Cool Bikes" episode... he thinks he's the judge of Galactic Cool Court...

  • Now the judge should go for the jugular and rule that Apple can't ever sue anybody again because of form based on the 'coolness factor'. The judge should cite Fonzie as prior art.

  • ...I'm not sure if the judge should be moderated +1,000,000 Funny of -1,000,000 Flamebait. Either way, this oughta be good.
  • At least according to Wikipedia, a design patent covers the ornamental aspects of a design and not the functional ones. I wonder which parts of apples iPad design are purely ornamental. Is there anything I can take away from the design without sacrificing functionality?

    Or is either the Wikipedia entry or my understanding of the English language incorrect?

  • Design right? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phriedom (561200) on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:00PM (#40593451)
    So Apple has the rights to "cool." Is that patent, trademark, or copyright? Or does the UK has some other category where a "registered design" means something important?
  • by jbernardo (1014507) on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:02PM (#40593487)

    ""Samsung had requested this voluntary trial in September 2011, in order to oppose Apple's ongoing efforts to reduce consumer choice and innovation in the tablet market through their excessive legal claims and arguments. Apple has insisted that the three Samsung tablet products infringe several features of Apple's design right, such as 'slightly rounded corners,' 'a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation,' and 'a thin profile.' "However, the High Court dismissed Apple's arguments by referring to approximately 50 examples of prior art, or designs that were previously created or patented, from before 2004. These include the Knight Ridder (1994), the Ozolin (2004), and HP's TC1000 (2003). The court found numerous Apple design features to lack originality, and numerous identical design features to have been visible in a wide range of earlier tablet designs from before 2004."

    They might be cool (after all, the target market values form over function) but they aren't original!

  • by Fuzzums (250400) on Monday July 09, 2012 @01:05PM (#40593533) Homepage

    That IPad they show in TFA is SO COOL!!

  • As the Galaxy Tab can't double as a hand/lap warmer it's obviously completely unrelated product, aimed at a different demographic.

  • I think the headline should have been "Placing Apple fanboy judge in case backfires on Apple" :-P
  • Judge says that only simple people use Apple products. Anything more than one button at a time confuses them.

    What? I said I was trolling...

  • Never thought I'd see Slashdot seriously link to an Onion article and- what? Really?

  • by Fujisawa Sensei (207127) on Monday July 09, 2012 @02:34PM (#40594667) Journal

    Apple's not cool anymore.

    With their domination of the tablet market, the fanatical following of their phones, and the dominance of the portable music devices, not to mention their obsession with being cool; these factors can only lead me to one conclusion: Apple is not cool anymore.

    Simply because its not cool to be part of the herd. And The Cult of the Fruit is one big herd.

  • by PPH (736903) on Monday July 09, 2012 @04:40PM (#40596051)

    ... right in the middle of Microsoft IP with this "not cool" judgment.

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...