The judge's justification here sounds flimsy at best. Both tablets are "minimalist and modern" with "flat screens and round edges"? So Samsung can only make archaically designed tablets, if possible with a curved screen?
And then: "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer," Brueckner-Hoffmann explained, "other designs are possible."
I'm not a lawyer, so I might get laughed out here, but this just seems like a ridiculous claim. Other designs are possible, that much is true. You can make a car with 5 wheels and the engine in the passenger's seat too, doesn't mean there's going to be a market for it.
My common sense might be too common, but I hope this gets thrown out at higher levels of the court.
Edit: To clarify, I own neither, and I am not interested in either, I just found the situation too absurd not to chime in.
From what I remember, tablets before the iPad looked rather different[1]. The full glass/plastic front hadn’t really been tried. Early [Apple tablet mockups[1][2] based on the iPod touch, though close, lacked the thick black border and the now iconic home screen. Those features are now considered obvious, but clearly, they really weren’t.
So does that mean Apple now has a monopoly on capacitive tablets with slim bodies? It's still ridiculous when you think about it. That's how competition happens in a given market - by building similar features. Apple does it, too.
it appears, having one or less buttons on a tablet is patented by apple. hopefully samsung will add at least two buttons on galaxy tab 7.7 and stop copying apple.
And then: "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer," Brueckner-Hoffmann explained, "other designs are possible."
I'm not a lawyer, so I might get laughed out here, but this just seems like a ridiculous claim. Other designs are possible, that much is true. You can make a car with 5 wheels and the engine in the passenger's seat too, doesn't mean there's going to be a market for it. My common sense might be too common, but I hope this gets thrown out at higher levels of the court.
Edit: To clarify, I own neither, and I am not interested in either, I just found the situation too absurd not to chime in.