Slashdot Mirror

That's clear enough.

No, that's just the definition of a design patent.

And what gave you the idea that simply slapping "Pepsi" on a Coke bottle would make it not infringing?

What an idiotic strawman comment, i never said or implied anything of the sort.
Are the differences between the 2 devices pictured here not immediately obvious to you? Or here? Or here?

Taking a quick look at this makes me realise just how insanely similar they are, and just how much apple has a point.

But then you take a quick look at this or this or this and then you realise just how different they are. Yes it's possible to make them look very similar if you set up the screen just right and look at it from the right angle but obviously you can see why Samsung opposes this litigation.

and think that you can invalidate it by pointing out that tablets are not new, or that other things have round corners.

The reason for that is that Apple is cherry picking similarities and ignoring key differences, like this or this or this, that last one even Apple so obvious that they went to the trouble of photoshopping it to make them the same size and aspect ratio.
I just think it's a waste of time, no one who wants an Apple iPad is going to buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab just because they look similar from a certain angle, if they were infringing on the trademark then that is a different story though.

That's your idea of a closer analogy? I daresay you are biased and painting things with deceptive license.

Let's make an honestly closer analogy:

When opening my apartment door I notice that my key has the apartment number written on it in a special way. Being a locksmith, I get an idea: Does the fancy lock just read the number to determine if the key's good? Because that would be bad. In the same style, I write a different number on my key, the number of my neighbor's apartment, and try it there. It works. We have a problem. I check the whole floor -- all vulnerable to this silliness.

I call up my locksmith friend and tell him how stupid this is. We have a good laugh and talk about what I should do. The next day I call the apartment manager, explain we've got a real problem, and I tell him what I did. I even walked his handyman through the steps so they could clearly understand. The manager has the problem fixed the next day. Job done, right?

The thing is, the super sends the cops to talk with me. With my having been a locksmith contractor to the same police force, it went okay, but it left me shaken. I mean, I talked with the super directly and gave him all my contact info. He knows who I am. Why send the cops?

Later on, the apartment manager sends a notice to everyone in the building, telling them there was a security problem, but it's fixed, and he sincerely apologizes. In particular he says:

It has come to our attention that a resident of our building devised a way to open your door. Access to your apartment was limited and rectified immediately.

Please note: This incident was not the result of a targeted attempt to access your apartment. This resident alerted us to the ability to open your lock and advised that your door was only opened when testing the security of his own apartment. The member advised that he has not taken pictures of your apartment or taken any items.

And now they've sent me a letter telling me they had to inform the police about how I got into the other apartments because it could be a criminal act; that tell me they've locked me out of my apartment; they say they had to spend money to fix this whole lock problem because of me — the nerve! — they say they have the right to get the money it took to fix their problem from me — what! — they say that they want complete access my keys, pens, desk, and tools; and they say that they want me never to look for security problems in the building again.

Your darn tootin'! If this is the thanks I get! Some people!

568 accounts to be exact.
http://i.haymarket.net.au/News/20111014034645_FSS-Solicitors_Redacted.pdf

Try clicking a few of the links in TFA next time. Or were you surprised that the summary actually included more than just a paraphrasing of the original article?

It took a lot of work to delete all references to "ass" and "douchebag".
Ehud

Dear Maged,

I read with interest your letter to Patrick Webster copied at
http://i.haymarket.net.au/News/20111014034645_FSS-Solicitors_Redacted.pdf

Mr. Webster informed your client of a security flaw in their software that allows
access to members' confidential and financial information. He did so in accordance
with accepted business principles of Full and Open Disclosure.

Your response shows that your law firm clearly lacks an understanding of the law,
the facts, and of technology. I'll use an analogy to make these complicated
ideas seem simpler. If I spot your garage door is wide open, and I enter, say
"hello," and let you know that you left it open... that is not trespassing. It is
a good Samaritan effort to inform you. Your bullying email is not the right
response.

Your bullying letter to Mr. Webster strongly suggests that you need to get an
expert who understands the technology.

That way you won't come across like a ludite, and have yourself, your law firm,
and your client, show yourselves to be total head-in-the-sand ostriches. Your
client was notified about a security flaw, and now wants the security researcher
to pay for them to fix it? Absurd.

It's one thing to be uneducated. That can be corrected. It's quite another
to be uninformed and open one's mouth and prove it. You've done the latter.

Best and kindest regards.

Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ USA