Shared publicly  - 
More UK common sense as another Judge rejects Apple's patent trolling.

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. 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.

Brian Ray James (Brian)'s profile photoWill Berard's profile photoThomas Morffew's profile photoEric Souza's profile photo
Not sure that the judge's estimation of the Galaxy Tab will help Samsung's cause on the high street though. 
Lulz. I think this judge is pretty cool too :)
Unrelated, but I'm now questionning the excitement around the nexus 7 considering is holding a sale for a 7inch, 1GHz GingerBread tablet that was so unsuccesful it was discounted from £100 to £30 or so. 

Using the iPad as a metric for price comparison and saying "Wow, a tablet for that price, that's ace" is a little bit like claiming that there's an intrinsic practical advantage to having a cat as a pet compared to an elephant. I mean you're comparing it with something that's way off the side of the bell curve.
I liked this comment on the article:

The best thing is that if Apple want to appeal it, they’d have to state “We appeal this ruling on the grounds that our products are not cooler than the Samsung tab”


“We appeal this ruling on the grounds that Samsung products are every bit as cool as ours”
Have Apple patented 'coolness' yet?
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."
Ouch, that comment about Apple design features lacking originality has gotta sting.

Also, good on the court taking the time to find and cite more than 50 examples of prior art.  These suits from Apple were really cynical attempts to catch the legal system not paying attention and not fluent enough in technology to make a qualified judgment.  Glad to see this backfiring.
+Eric Souza we do things differently in the UK. Not always in a good way, but we occasionally get it right.
"Knight Ridder" - love it! Glad to see our judiciary are down with the kids.
Is it not occurring to anyone that maybe our perception of Apple abusing the patent system might be an observation bias? Everyone is sueing everyone else, and no company will turn down the opportunity of bringing a case to court if they think the cost/benefit is worth it: 

Apple is being sued just as much as they are sueing, and yet no one is thinking of them as the victim, merely the opressor - see also

A lot of the case in the "general public" (of Google+) against Apple is based about mythical perception of it being different and exceptional, as a company, the very same mythical perceptions that are the base of Apple fanboyism.
Also bear in mind the court cases brought by Apple have nothing to do with "Slab" design for phones or tablet-ism, or touch-screens. The original galaxy court case was based on the single button + touchscreen design, as well as the home screen as a grid of app icons, (exactly like an iPhone/Pad/Podtouch) - putting both side by side, it's hard to  claim they don't have a case, or, more accurately, it's hard to  think that they would turn down the opportunity of sueing given the cost/benefit calculation.

That's why those court cases are against specific devices and implementation (proprietary manufacturer's ROM and USP of GUI - three letter acronym galore), not against Android as a whole, or tablet-like, touch-based devices as a whole.
Observation bias in this case seems to be overlooking the fact that Apple sued Samsung first and Samsung has primarily just been defending against Apple's claims in response.
+Thomas Morffew surely the very name indicates a detachment, a self-awareness, an irony that's absent from the actual cult of any manufacturer - have you noticed that the fist and best indicator of cultism/fanboyism is to deny the fact it is ? 
+Eric Souza I'm looking at it beyond the scope of just Apple v. Samsung - googling "who is suing who" will yield a lot of infographics showing just that - the one I've posted is merely the most recent I could find.

If you have a company, and are considering doing anything, be it launching a new product, getting into a new territory, or sueing another company, you're making a cost/benefit calculation based on how likely you think this is going to bring revenue compared to the expense of money and energy. Every company operates like this in their legal approach. People don't sue each other out of being intrinsecally evil, they do because they think they have a case.  The bottom line is that Apple does not have an intrinsic culture of litigation anymore than any other tech company - they merely might have a legal team that's strong enough so that the cost benefit calculation means they do go to court if they think they can win.

That shit has bee going on for the past three years, and no one was paying any attention until last week's ruling and then everyone went all butthurt.
+Ben Lloyd I'm well aware of that - and that's just an admission that you will not find actual accurate unbiased information and facts through this channel. Which to me voids all points that can be made. The fact the Apple stock has steadly kept on going up since the start of the whole #boycottapple  trend, and in spite of it, indicate that to me it's a transient phenomenon of reality distortion that seems to only be relevant to the technorati of G+
I agree +Will Berard - I'm with you completely. I would rather hear people talking about #boycottbanks  (or anything which would change people's lives for the better) but that would require people to actually do something.
"I'm looking at it beyond the scope of just Apple v. Samsung"

Of course you are, Wil. Can't establish false equivalence without doing that.
+Eric Souza Seems to me that the general gist of what's leveraged against Apple at the moment is that it is claimed they have an intrinsic tendency to litigation that is, if not unique to them, above and beyond what other companies exhibit. 

This is what I'm replying to - I don't see where there would be false equivalent, since the whole #boycottapple  vibe was triggered by the Samsing court case, but rest on arguments related to litigation at large, not just vis-a-vis Samsung.
Wil, what you were replying to at the time was a topic about one particular court case and some discussion about how that might affect Apple's particular litigation strategy going forward.  You were the one that introduced the "general gist" in a move away from the more focused conversation.  That's called moving the goalposts.

I don't think anyone here would say that Apple's current tendency to litigate is either particularly intrinsic to their company DNA or unique to them either, but it certainly seems to at least be intrinsic behavior for their current leadership and legal dept. and they do distinguish themselves from most other companies with the scope and aggressiveness of their current litigious behavior.  There are certainly others that litigate with a similar degree of aggression but they aren't actually the rule - Apple is among a select few.  They just get a lot of attention when they do it, for good reason.
What I replied at the time was, as per what I actually wrote "Is it not occurring to anyone that maybe our perception of Apple abusing the patent system might be an observation bias? " 

I think that's clear enough to me that this is a point wrt to Apple general behaviour towards the patent system and litigation - you'll notice that Samsung does not appear anywhere in that comment. I suspect  you have read whatever you wanted to read in there.

As far as the rest is concerned, I wholeheartedly agree - the're not the only one to litigate, probably do so more aggressively than others (but rest assured others would if they could - it's just a cost benefit thing again, I don't think other tech companies refrain from litigation just out of being cool dudes) and get a lot of attention, not when they do (As they have been doing for a while, and no one gave a shit) but when the court ruling is made.
I'm still not seeing how it's particularly relevant to question whether we as the general discussion participants have somehow been subject to observation bias vis a vis Apple abusing the patent system, in a topic specifically reporting on the UK Court's definitive judgment that Apple's design features lacked originality, complete with 50 separate cited examples of prior art (not 1, not 5, not even 10. 50) all from before 2004.  We're not the ones that tried to overlook at least 50 examples of prior art...
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were part of the Google Plus police, I shall remain bang on topic next time - after all, all comment threads are meant to be solely about the post in question, prefferably showing aproval to the dominant opinion  exhibited in that post, and never ever try to expand to the general context the post or the conversation might fit in on the network. I won't do it again, I promise.
Gah, I was this close to being called a G+ Nazi.  Godwin scenario averted.
Add a comment...