It's amazing how many people don't understand what the case was even about. The iPad had NOTHING to do with this case. It was a total irrelevance!
I do think that Samsung did copy the iPad, but I also agree that the judge was completely right.
How?
Because the case was not between the iPad and the Galaxy tablets. It was between the Registered Design and the Galaxy tablets. As the judge said in this case:
"This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed."
Here's the revenant comments from the judge:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
3. Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about.
It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying:
the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not. Likewise there is no issue about infringement of any patent for an invention.
4.
So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other.
This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.
And:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html
17. There is much more material of the same sort.
Nearly all of it reveals a fundamental misconception, namely that the UK case was about whether Samsung had copied the iPad. I cannot emphasise enough that it was not. As I said in my earlier judgment "this case must be decided as if the iPad never existed". "It is not about whether Samsung copied the iPad" and "the registered design is not the same as the iPad."
So, all that matters is if Samsung infringed Apple's Registered Design, and this is that Registered Design:
Once I realised what the case was actually about (i.e. the Registered Design, not the actual iPad product design), I'm inclined to agree with the judge that Samsung's tablets do not infringe the above design.
Samsung may not have copied or infringed Apple's Registered Design but I do think they copied the iPad product design (just like I think they copied the iPhone design; Samsung in general has been trying to morph themselves into an Apple-like company by copying them, as the design of multiple products shows, from computers and cables to packaging and advertising.)
The problem I have with the forced public statements is that they only pertain to the Registered Design and have nothing to do with the iPad design, however the public will of course understand this as Apple admitting, albeit under court order, that Samsung did not copy
the iPad, but that was not the courts judgement.
Even if Apple were to agree that Samsung did not infringe their Registered Design, it don't think it would be inconsistent of Apple to maintain that Samsung copied the iPad product design, since even the judge agrees
"that the registered design is not the same as the iPad."
