Apple Must Publicly Post That Samsung Did Not Copy iPad 278
microcars writes "A judge in the U.K. has ordered Apple to post a notice on its website and in British newspapers alerting people to a ruling that Samsung Electronics Co. didn't copy designs for the iPad. This is the same Judge who ruled earlier that Samsung's Galaxy Tab was not as cool as Apple's iPad."
A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't mind seeing this happen to a few more patent trolls. Not only should the U.S. adopt a European style "loser pays" system for cases like this, but a "loser has to publicly admit he's an ass" policy wouldn't hurt either.
Why do they have to do it on their own website? (Score:5, Funny)
And we can expect (Score:5, Interesting)
They'd likely put a huge ad saying "Buy Apple iPad, the judge said it's cool" in a large font with the "Samsung did not copy" message in a tiny font in a corner of the ad (maybe even upside-down text). They'll go as far as they think they can while avoiding a contempt finding.
Re:And we can expect (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the media coverage alone of this story will do all the work
Apple cannot control that
I think what Apple actually does to comply with this will be largely irrelevant when it's being talked about on the news.
Re:And we can expect (Score:4, Insightful)
But like the climategate thing, people aren't interested in hearing that the accusers were wrong in the end. The damage is done. This judge is probably attempting to undo the damage by forcing the damagers to make the statement. It is not enough that a judge makes the statement. It has to come from Apple -- the accuser, the damager. Even so, people won't be inclined to believe as that requires people to change their beliefs and there is a very long and significant list of things that people will change before they change their beliefs.
Re:And we can expect (Score:5, Interesting)
This is all over the front pages of the major UK news outlets
People know about this, regardless of what Apple put on their website
Re:And we can expect (Score:4, Interesting)
One way to spin it: "OUR MISTAKE! Sorry, but the Samsung tablet is NOTHING like the iPad. Nothing at all. If you can find any similarities in the two products, they would merely be a coincidence. That's what we get for buying components from Samsung. Who knew they were already going to make a tablet and we're just using their parts? That's why the parts were so cheap - they were already making them. It was us who was late to the game. Besides, it's a COMPLETELY different shape than the iPad. Totally different. The Galaxy Tab is actually more similar to the other dozen counterfeit iPads... er... original tablet ideas independently developed a year or two later on the market today."
I spent over a year in Korea and they fucking copy EVERYTHING. Ever notice how the entire lineup of Hyundai copycat cars make you do a double take? There's one that looks like a BMW, a Mercedes, a Jaguar, a Bentley... you name it, they copy it. I almost bought a beautiful camera in Yongsan for an unbelievable price until I double checked the real spelling of Hasselblad. Korea is home to the finest counterfeit luxury goods in the world. No surprise here. Move along.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, it's a COMPLETELY different shape than the iPad.
And they don't stop at copying rectangular tablets (rare shape indeed) they even dare to make rectangular TVs!
And those TVs don't have rathor sharp edges either!
How shameless of them...
Re: (Score:3)
Compare VW Caddy to Renault Kangoo, who "stole" from whom, eh?
Did any company sue the other? Why not? (I guess you think South Korea is wild east where nobody protects wester IP, well, we are talking about two EU manufacturers) Why didn't they sue each other for "stealing"?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you mean, Global Climate Disruptive Uncertainty Heisenberg Principle of Precautionary Direct Action for the Projection of Greed and Sin on Human Species by Modelling of Chaos within Envelope of Creative Statistical Subjective Robust Confidence of Future Scenario-as-Predicion Caveat Reality?
ok I actually bored myself writing that. you point stands, it's already politically dead, the rest is just slow backtracking.
Re:And we can expect (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't just some newspaper ads:
The Streisand effect was designed in California too, correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could spin this in interesting ways:
Buy the iPad, certified cooler and better than the lesser Samsung Galaxy Tablet by no less than his royal honor UK Judge Numbnuts himself. (note: the Galaxy, being obviously inferior as determined by UK law, is at best a poor wanna be copy of the wondrous iPad, so buy the best: iPad)
There - all done, admitted it wasn't a copy, and get some good PR to boot. I'm sure the UK judge won't approve.
Re:And we can expect (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure at this very moment, there are dozens of staffers from ad agencies employed by Apple quaffing quad shot lattes and bouncing all manner of story arcs off of each other, the walls and the urinals at Starbucks.
This is an advertising executives dream job.
Re: (Score:2)
Often imitated, never duplicated!
Sorry, in order to see this confession... (Score:5, Funny)
...you must install iTunes and the following optional QuickTime components: X, Y, Z, Q, ...
Sorry, it looks like your platform is not supported. Please try again with the latest version of Mac OS X or Windows.
What do you mean (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the Internet age [bash.org], after all.
HA!
Content blocked per (My Company's) Policies
User:
(My Real Name and User Name)
Reason:
This URL is filtered per (My Company's) Policy for category: Tasteless.
URL:
http://bash.org/?201579 [bash.org]
Please click on Helpdesk if you feel you should have access to this site.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Apple have to do this is because they tried to trash Samsung's name publicly. Apple is not being punished here, merely made to undo the wrong that they did.
We have restorative justice, meaning the goal is always to put things back the way they were before the matter under consideration happened. Monetary damages are awarded based on lost income, and in cases like this where one party has damaged the other's reputation steps must be taken to restore it.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
How does "loser pays" work when a little guy goes after a big company like Apple, Google, or Microsoft with a legitimate complaint but gets defeated because the big company was able to spend 100,000x more on their lawyers?
Re: (Score:3)
The UK courts tend to award reasonable costs. If a complaint is sufficiently legitimate that it's seen as a sensible use of court time then it's quite likely that the judge just wouldn't award costs in that instance, or might award costs proportionate to the loser's own legal costs.
Have a read of this:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part44#IDADEICC [justice.gov.uk]
I recall one instance where the winner has been told to pay the costs of the loser, but my Google Fu needs levelling up before I can
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
How does "loser pays" work when a little guy goes after a big company like Apple, Google, or Microsoft with a legitimate complaint
You are saying that $BIG_COMPANY can afford to hire $BIG_LAW_FIRM_A (or else has its own lawyers that are effectively its own big law firm). $LITTLE_GUY has no chance.
But under "loser pays", $BIG_LAW_FIRM_B can take the case; since you stipulated that it is a legitimate complaint, odds are good that $BIG_LAW_FIRM_B will be paid by the loser ($BIG_COMPANY). $BIG_LAW_FIRM_B is not guaranteed to be paid but the odds are good, since they are as big as $BIG_LAW_FIRM_A and the complaint is legitimate. Contrast to the current situation in America, where $LITTLE_GUY cannot afford to pay any big law firm, so if any big law firm agrees to take his case, they are doing it knowing they won't get paid very much.
So, you have brought up one of the major reasons why "loser pays" is better: the defense can automatically scale if needed to match the offense.
The other major reason why "loser pays" is better: filing lawsuits without merit now actually costs money. Maybe $BIG_COMPANY doesn't even file the lawsuit against $LITTLE_GUY in the first place, which is an even better situation for $LITTLE_GUY than having a big law firm handling his defense.
There, that's two ways that "loser pays" helps in the situation you describe.
steveha
Is it really shaming? (Score:2)
He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
So they can still say the Galaxy infringed on their design. They only have to put it on their website for the UK only and they'll probably turn it around and say something along the lines of court confirming their product is cooler which is hardly detrimental to their image.
So I'm failing to see how they've been shamed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I may come off as an Apple apologist here but they aren't a patent troll. They have products that implement the patents in question as opposed to true trolls who produce nothing but lawsuits. At worst you could call them patent abusers, at best they're just playing the game.
Wikipedia:
Patent troll is a term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
hey protect their own innovations to an extent they deem reasonable
I'm pretty sure they didn't "innovate" a rectangle with rounded corners.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
hey protect their own innovations to an extent they deem reasonable
I'm pretty sure they didn't "innovate" a rectangle with rounded corners.
Hell no, Chiclets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiclets [wikipedia.org] are rectangular and have rounded corners, and have been around since 1906.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
where are mod points when needed!
Re: (Score:2)
Innovated, not invented.
iPhone wasn't a new design. I have had PDAs that are similar design from the late 90's early 00's. Screen, small bezel, a home button that sends you back to a screen with apps listed in a grid with icons with square rounded corners.
The only real inventive thing that Apple bought to devices was a very good capacitive touch screen. Everyone else was using mushy resistive plastic screens.
Re: (Score:3)
The LG Prada had a very good capacitive screen, and it was shown at a design conferenace well before the iPhone. I conference Apple employees where at.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's an idea: Follow the links in the summary. Or even to the previous /. article, where the judge cites over FIFTY cases of prior art in the last twenty+ years.
Or you could keep spouting off random crap that you feel strongly about. Who cares if it's factual.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where's the rounded rectangle phone YOU invented, huh bub? To say that it was easy suggests that it could have been done 10 years prior.
The patented design had been show previously in sci-fi classics such as Star Trek (all of them) and 2001:A Space Odyssey as well as others.
Considering your rather pathetic argument I take it that you have not been paying attention or you are trolling for a response like this.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you even looked at the patent in question? Here it is [google.com] in all its rounded corner glory. They patented rounded freaking corners. If you want to get specific, 4 rounded corners on a rectangle. Like the world has never seen that before.
Yes, that's the point of a design patent. It doesn't have to be something new, just a design specific to your product - the iPhone happens to be a rounded rectangle with a dock connector on one edge. That's what's laid out in the design patent.
It's not a method patent, as you seem to be wailing and gnashing about. Of course "the world has seen that before" - the purpose of a design patent is not to mark out totally new, never seen before things; that's what method patents are for.
Apple didn't "patent rounde
Re: (Score:3)
Apple didn't "patent rounded freaking corners", they submitted a design patent for their product in much the same way that thousands and thousands of other design patents are submitted, like that of the Ford Mustang. Zomg! Ford patented a transportation device with four wheels and an engine! Like the world has never seen that before!
Uh, no. The Ford Mustang had distinctive features that differentiated it from other "transportation device[s] with four wheels and an engine". Apple likes minimalist designs; that's cool, so do a lot of people. But it also means they have a lesser ability to protect their designs, because they are inherently more generic.
Yes, that's the point of a design patent. It doesn't have to be something new, just a design specific to your product
Except it's not specific to their product. Due to its minimalist design and lack of distinguishing features, its a design that's general across the entire field of tablet computing.
Re: (Score:3)
Which of these (http://ideas.mgstrategy.com/uploads/lg-samsung-iphone2.gif) designs is copied from which (if any)?
The two on the left are LG's, the third one is an Apple and the right-most is by Samsung.
Re: (Score:3)
Which of these (http://ideas.mgstrategy.com/uploads/lg-samsung-iphone2.gif) designs is copied from which (if any)?
The two on the left are LG's, the third one is an Apple and the right-most is by Samsung.
They all share common design elements but are distinct from each other - that's the point of the design patent in the first place. It enables companies to make the four products seen there and yet still protect themselves from someone making a clear knock off. The crux of the argument has been just how "generic" Apple's design patent is - it doesn't even have the home button in the filing. The design patents of all four of those devices will look very similar, in the same way that many cars look similar but
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is not whether or not Apple was legally right in doing this. The point is they were assholes for doing so. And I don't like doing business with corporations that are not nice.
No, the point (as put forth by the OP) was that Apple patented rounded corners, and meant "method patent", which is not what Apple did.
The point wasn't anywhere near whether Apple was being an asshole about it - yes, they were - the whole lawsuit has got way out of hand, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't correct false statements.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you also buy a coupe expecting to be able to fit your kids in the backseat?
"Well... I mean... it's a car! It SHOULD have a backseat, right? Someone should do something to protect me from this! DERP!"
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
They protect their own innovations to an extent they deem reasonable.
What innovations? Apple is an imitator, marketer, and polisher of other people's products. Did they invent the cellphone? Did they invent tablets? Did they invent mp3 players, touch screens, gridded icons, rounded corners or anything else of substance? Have they ever actually created a new product category? The best people can say is that Samsung imitated an imitator. At best.
Re: (Score:2)
First you say "innovations" then you go on about whether they "invented" tablets, phones and mp3 players.
I think you need to look at the definitions of those two words. They are not synonyms.
Re: (Score:3)
This being Slashdot and all, I'm going to give you an example of Apple style innovation using cars as examples. This is the best analogy I can come up with that uses your definition of the word so here goes:
This [cargurus.com] is tablets before the iPad.
This [lowridermagazine.com] would be the iPad in this analogy.
You might notice that the person that customized the second example did not actually "innovate" the idea of a 1970s Mercury Cougar. He took what already existed and added his own flourishes. Now how fucking retarded would he
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, Apple copied the Diamond RIO MP3 Player, Napster, Unix, Xerox, the color scheme and elegance of a piano in all of their graphic designs...
Re: (Score:2)
The second link was pretty funny. However your first link has a link to Psion [wikipedia.org] in it. Psion is generally accepted as the actual inventor of the PDA.
Did you even bother looking at the picture at the link? No grids of icons, no touch screen and no GUI to speak of. It was a glorified calculator.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Shame Roll <snip> Sony <snip>
Just because it doesn't say Sony on the case, doesn't mean it has nothing to do with Sony. It wouldn't surprise me if an least one of your electronic devices contains at least one Sony component.
Also if you buy a modern Lotus, the engine will be from Toyota.
Basically, it's a lot harder to avoid some companies than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Remind me again, what sort of trolling did Google do?
>>>Ok, now I'm curious, when did Nintendo troll anyone?
This was just a generalized roll of shame for corporations I refuse to give money to. Google supports CISPA passage and records info. Most recently they required I give them my "real name" on yahoo, else I cannot post comments.
Nintendo had a history in the 80s/90s of monopolistic behavior. They seem to be better in the 2000s, so maybe I'll remove them from the list.
Toyota refus
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:4, Informative)
I have no beef with Nintendo ever since I took my broken DS (which I bought used, although not broken at the time) into their Redmond office, and they swapped it out for a brand new one. No questions asked, no paperwork, nothing but pure customer satisfaction.
I wish more companies were like Nintendo.
Translation (Score:3)
Translation: In a society where there are private institutions which wield enormous power and influence—vastly more than any person, and increasingly exceeding that of even the most organized public institutions—and they use that power and influence to ends that are harmful, whether objectively or subjectively, the people who are affected should refrain from comment which might besmirch these powerful institutions, and should instead volunteer to suffer a life of arbitrary self-denial and misery
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, are you saying that Yahoo and Youtube are the same? I'm confused.
Google owns Youtube, but not Yahoo; Yahoo has no affiliation with Youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
Generally Nintendo seems to be the patent troll-killer these days... but they did sue Nyko in a design look-and-feel patent that sounds pretty similar to Apple's issues with Samsung...
http://gizmodo.com/5016278/nintendo-suing-nyko-over-wireless-nunchuk [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They were really ratty back in the days of the NES to anyone who wanted to produce 3rd-party games for their system without paying them insane licensing fees.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, their approach is probably what saved console gaming. It's easy to look back on that now and say that sucks but the NES certainly wasn't lacking 3rd party games and given that consoles pretty mu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/09/googles-already-using-their-motorola-patents-sue-apple/42196/ [theatlanticwire.com]
They're also helping HTC go up against Nokia and filing an antitrust complaint against Nokia in the EU.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577438740232322350.html [wsj.com]
I'd fully expect to see them
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Those examples are all of Google using it's patent portfolio to fight back against companies that struck first with patent suites. They are keeping a clean image by actually staying clean.
Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
And quite frankly allowing HTC continue the whole problem of patent lawsuits rather than actively trying to fix it doesn't help anyone but themselves (and HTC) and they could have kept those patents and went after Apple but they didn't. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too imo to keep their image clean, imo so yes I'll admit there isn't *that* much at the moment but I think that's going to change.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides that, it is also strategic, when Google hurts Nokia it will kill Microsoft its (only?) platform and chances to enter that market.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US,
Wrong jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding to a specific post calling for this to be adopted in the US, not responding to the original article, so your response doesn't really apply. I know the original article is about the UK, which doesn't follow our Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Well in that case, there have been plenty of shaming punishments here in the US, but the person can decide shaming or jail time.
This was the first one to pop up on google.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/shame-punishments-judge-orders-ponytail_n_1627010.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Read the post he was responding to.
YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
One of my biggest issues with corporate culture is the ending to so many disputes where the misbehaving corporation "admits no fault" for the situation.
They should always have to post a "we did wrong" letter after they get shown the door.
Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it particularly egregious when a corporation has committed a truly heinous act, like dumping toxic waste resulting in some number of deaths and injuries, and to keep face, they agree to settle out quickly (so the remaining survivors can get expensive medical care) on the agreement that they "Admit to no wrong doing", and nobody can talk about the atrocity they committed.
Perhaps there will be a time when people place the value of human dignity above the value of personal wealth. Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this, if your company's legal department is a profit center, publicly naming your corporation a parasite on the back side of society.
Re: (Score:2)
One of my biggest issues with corporate culture is the ending to so many disputes where the misbehaving corporation "admits no fault" for the situation.
They should always have to post a "we did wrong" letter after they get shown the door.
Maybe selling ad space to publish "we did wrong" letters can be the new business model for newspapers? They can make it into a racket and charge exorbitant fees for 'our bad' space. Since the companies have been order to post the ad by the courts, they'll have to pay the fees. If they charge enough, they won't even need subscribers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness it's a reaction to a legal culture, and to a (much lesser) extent a media culture.
It's mainly a legal check-box to prevent the settlement being a de-facto admission of guilt on anything anyone tries to sue them for that's possibly vaguely related.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are composed of people therefor it is individuals living their lives in such a way and it is much of why the world is miserable.
There is no difference between an individual and that same individual at work, it is still the same person. That individual made a decision to push the law to it's limits, just because that person did it for money doesn't mean that the person didn't do it.
There is no group of non-player characters running around doing these things, it is people. There is not a facele
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is incorrect. A person in a group behaves fundamentally differently than individually.
A good example is when you're walking on the street and meet a bunch of streetkids. There is a bigger chance they will harass you as a group, then if you met them individually. Why? Because in the latter case, they can't hide behind the group.
Same with corporations. People can have personal benefit for doing something "bad", and cleanse their souls by assuming somebody else (or the whole company) will be held responsi
If it's Apple, it'll be in the most obscure place. (Score:2)
You'll find the notice right before the equivalent of the Obituary section or a couple pages from the back of the first section.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Way cooler (Score:5, Funny)
I could see how Apple could turn this around to their benefit.
"Samsung did not copy design from the iPad for the Galaxy Tab. The iPad is WAY cooler! Even the judge thinks so."
Re:Way cooler (Score:4, Funny)
POM Wonderful did something like this very recently. [pomwonderful.com] It felt a bit bizarre to read that, via a NYTimes banner that showed on that day.
Re: (Score:2)
He's British (Score:4, Informative)
I may be way off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah like the brits want cool things?
Apple would like to pretend it doesn't even exist. that's why it's hurting them.
And what about the same case in other countries? (Score:2)
I wonder what this'll do for other cases where Apple is bending Samsung over for the same exact thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but if you have public documentation of "No this product doesn't infringe on ours" on their website...
The punch line (Score:5, Informative)
The punch line is in TFA (emphasis added):
Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.” He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
“They are entitled to their opinion,” he said.
It looks like they have to run the ads, but they can still say Samsung copied them.
Idea? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about a system something like this:
If you file a frivolous patent case against a competitor and lose, you must advertise for the said product on your website for X time period, give a public statement/apology AND you must also pay the defendant's legal expenses.
Maybe something like that would deter more patent trolling?
Simple solution (Score:2)
Put the notice in 2pt font.
At the bottom of the page.
White text on white background.
dotted font.
wingdings.
Re: (Score:3)
...and watch the judge fine them for contempt of court.
Apple's conduct is reprehensible (Score:4)
Samsung said in their statement: "Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."
Apple is like the #1 enemy in the tech industry. I remember that ad from years ago with all those drone-like people in front of the screen obeying their overlord. Well, can't people see that that's exactly what Apple and its users are like now?
If the UK adopts a California approach (Score:2)
Samsung devices will be required to contain a warning: "This device contains technology that Her Majesty's Courts have determined is not as cool as an iPad."
And Apple will post a precise statement, "In the United Kingdom, the Court has determined that Samsung Galaxy Tab does not copy the iPad. In other jurisdictions (list), an opposing judgement has been rendered."
Publicly (Score:4, Funny)
It will be posted publicly.
In a public cellar.
With no stairs.
In the dark.
In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
Apple's style... (Score:2)
Apple: "I'm sorry you're fat."
Re: (Score:2)
Lady: "Well, you have the shape of an apple."
Seriously? (Score:2)
Do they have to stand in the corner, too?
Zing! One in a row.
UK picks its judges from the pool of headmasters, do they?
Hey, what?
Apple should just post "We admit Samsung just faceplant level failed to copy the iPad." :-D
Oh, pow!
Out of bounds (Score:2)
Apple could just tell the UK to Fsk off. The Queen would be pissed. Or maybe she would smuggle in her gadget fix?
This is going to backfire so hard (Score:4, Funny)
"We're legally obligated to inform you that the courts have found that the Galaxy Tab is not as cool as the iPad, and also found by the courts to not be an iPad substitute."
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Finally, Apple has a reason for using Adobe Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they made a rectangle without a shiny back and wrote Samsung on it just like the iPad. Then they installed Android, that well known Apple OS. Then they put an SD card slot in it just like Apple did. Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe the tablet in question had an SD card slot (in fact that was one of my reasons for not buying it)
that said, the different aspect ratio, which forced a different shape to the device, the different buttons, the different back, the word SAMSUNG on the bezel and back, the different operating system with completely different interface using a completely different home screen look sort of gave me a slight hint that it may not be an iPad...
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Samsung did, in fact, copy the iPad
Provide proof please
Re: (Score:2)
At this point a court decision is not proof of anything except having a good legal team.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA, apparently, they did not.