Reading the court decision, some things that the decision was based on (rough translation by me):
"The defendant copied the distinctive design features of the iPad. For the viewer it is therefore an almost identical product. This is especially true when we take into consideration that the target audience will not see both products at the same time and will not compare them directly, but will rely on memorized impression. With this background, identical features are more important than deviations. "
"In relation to the iPad and iPad2 the consumer will especially remember the minimalistic design and the clear form, for which products of the plaintiff are well known, and which have been extremly successful since their launch. This form is completely copied by the defendant. Since the defendant took all the relevant design elements of the iPad 2, at least an indirect danger of confusion is unavoidable. "
Several people in this thread made comments along the lines of "there are only so many ways how you could design a tablet". Truth is, there are only so many ways how you could design a tablet that looks like an iPad. If you remove "must look like an iPad" from your design goals, there is suddenly an enormous range of possibilities. All these design possibilities have two things in common: 1. Apple can't sue you. 2. They don't look like an iPad. As an example, the back of the Samsung tablet makes an impression that is identical to that of the iPad (it is different viewed side by side, but as the court said, that is not what matters, it is the overall impression). For a possible design that is just totally different and would make it impossible for Apple to sue, see this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXXji5-vew4