It might have been more interesting if the linked article wasn't so biased--I couldn't read past the blatant pro-Apple bias in the first few paragraphs.



All kidding aside, Apple contended that the Samsung phone was a carbon-copy of the iPhone, and that people were actually buying Samsung phones thinking they were buying iPhones. Everybody knows that was a ridiculous accusation because not only does Samsung not make a phone branded "iPhone," Apple doesn't manufacture iPhones with the word "Samsung" either on the front or on the back, Samsung doesn't use iOS and Apple doesn't use anything else--and on and on, ad infinitum. In short, only a fool would believe that a single solitary soul on this earth actually bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone. The differences far outweigh the similarities. This judge had balls and simply called Apple out on it. That's it. Apple, not unexpectedly, acted the part of a spoiled child in response--and ended up rightfully a laughing stock.



No wonder Samsung hired this judge as an expert (a part time position, to be sure, as I very much doubt the judge is giving up the bench to go to work for Samsung, despite what this biased article implies.) He is by far the most intelligent legal personage involved in this ridiculous lawsuit. Samsung could do much worse than finding someone who could not only take people on a point-by-point journey through the iPhone and Samsung phones and point out the many radical differences that exist between the phones, but he could also explain the law to layman jurors as well.