Really? i see this case more as "anti-frivolous lawsuit vs. pro-frivolous lawsuit as long as it's someone i like." i've seen apple users speaking out against these suits btw.

There are some similarities, but there is also prior art. It's only Apple that decided that such things are even patentible. Not to mention, Apple has been using Samsung's patents on the communications protocols w/o paying...

Details not withstanding, the idea of icons arranged in a grid predate any product by Apple. It think that's the general point of the argument. Not only that, this is a very logical thought and evolution. If the screen is rectangular, then a grid is the best way to use the space.

I hope they don't do away with typed passwords, cause this will be an utter fail in places that are really noisy, or you need to be discrete.

Really? a silhouette of a person for contacts? a phone head set to bring up the phone? OMG, how innovative and original!

I doubt that will happen... no matter what the relation ship is... youtube adds probably bring in good money for Google, so it's in their best interest to make sure their apps works well on the most popular single smartphone and tablet.

Or how about just not use such ludicrous headlines?

700 lumens? that's not really that bright... that's like about a 60w light bulb...

the actual physical product was made by apple, but using design elements and concepts that are Sony inspired... this means that Apple did copy Sonyish designs. My overall points is that, the Apple design patent isn't original enough to be worthy of being patented.

I think you are missing the point. Android is an open source system. Anyone is free to use it for their own devices and even modify it the way they see fit. In order to have access to Google services and applications, the device and software need to meet certain requirements, seems like this was NOT a device that…

really? This hasn't been covered? I could have sworn that everyone was talking about RT not running old desktop apps and you'd need pro for that.

Is a rectangular slate (which has been used by other makers and in science fiction) an innovation? On the other hand.. Apple uses many of Samsungs patents w/o paying... just about things like communication protocols...

Shape: it's a rectangle with rounded corner.. how innovative is that?

I'm guessing the theory is to save money. rather than suing everyone, just sue the only company that stands a chance right now of making a viable competing product.

Good on them. The system looks nice, but still not enough to get me to switch.

My question comes back to you, just how much does it really matter? With everything else you could pick at, will this effort really matter that much to anyone?

if i am reading the various article correctly, Apple designed a product that was very similar in design elements to the Sony designs.

Cause you know... Apple has never used anyone's IP w/o permission... even in this specific case, there are Samsung patents that Apple is using w/o paying (which are far more substantial than obvious design elements).

So in other words... three (maybe more who knows) different companies thought of similar designs... sounds like this makes the design too obvious to be patent-able.

The Surface Pro is not going to compete against the iPad. If you look at speculated price and features it will be going up against things like the upcoming Asus Taichi IMHO.