I agree with the Judge's part about it not being cool enough but just cause they do a shitty job of implementing the copy does not mean they did not steal the design. IMHO it is still enough to confuse the consumer -- hell their lawyers couldn't even identify which was Samsungs. If someone who is on the same team can't tell the difference is a consumer gonna take the time to look at the diffs -- I doubt it (not giving too much credit to lawyers in general here just that they are supposedly familiar with their product).

Half these 'judges' sound like they have been on the wacky backy. Since when was 'cool' a parameter with which to ascertain IP infringement ! 

So this is how the judge decides cases?  Not on merit of infractions of IP and Patent violations but by it not being cool?  Crazy.  Well this judge is cool...  that is, not so hot!

/

/

/

I'm not......cool? :(

So to appeal does Apple have to admit to not being cool either, or will Samsung have to be cool??

Is that ICS on the 10.1? When did that happen?

Cue the usual suspects saying that the court decision means nothing because it is not the Supreme Court, and the decision might get overturned on appeal.

BTW - does Samsung even sell the Tab 10.1 in the UK anymore?

Design patents are judged solely on how others (the court) perceive the look and the potential for a violation.  As it's proving out, one judge can see it one way and another a different way.

By the way, excerpt of full ruling

In a ruling on July 9, 2012, the High Court of England & Wales sided with Samsung that the designs of the Galaxy Tab series of products are 'different' from an Apple tablet design, and do not infringe Apple's Registered Community Design No. 181607-0001. Samsung products subject to this trial were the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Galaxy Tab 8.9, and the Galaxy Tab 7.7."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."Equally important, the court also found distinct differences between the Samsung and Apple tablet designs, which the court claimed were apparent to the naked eye. For instance, the court cited noticeable differences in the front surface design and in the thinness of the side profile. The court found the most vivid differences in the rear surface design, a part of tablets that allows designers a high degree of freedom for creativity, as there are no display panels, buttons, or any technical functions. Samsung was recognised by the court for having leveraged such conditions of the rear surface to clearly differentiate its tablet products through 'visible detailing.'

Hmmm, seems that Apple kinda got their arses kicked by a Judge who, like everyone not working for Apple's lawfirm, can actually tell the difference between an ipad and a Galaxy tab AND realises that rectangles are a RIDICULOUS idea to try and sue someone for having. 

So the level of "coolness" is now an acceptable means by which to differentiate one product from another but the "look and feel" is not? (referring to how Apple lost its battle against MS over Windows vs. Mac).