4 ms·

>I cannot tell who made what TV when I look at them at Walmart from 10 feet away. That made me laugh and it's definitely true but a TV is just a box that shows

>I cannot tell who made what TV when I look at them at Walmart from 10 feet away. That made me laugh and it's definitely true but a TV is just a box that shows a picture. With computer it is different because there are so many paths one can choose to create an individual UX. >So they did identify it. True but the neither the judge or lead council really knew which goes to the point of the average user being confused. I could, as you and others, spot the difference. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't pretend to understand patent law, but I will say that I'm disappointed by other tablet UI designs with the lone exception being the Metro UI. There is a great chance to explore instead of playing it safe. To me it is offensive since you are literally being given a blank slate with which to create.

div 15y ago
This lawsuit has nothing to do with the software UI. This is about the physical design of the iPad being patented. That's why being able to distinguish between a Tab and and iPad from 3 feet away can be seen as somewhat relevant. This is the European version of the patent: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/61944044 http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/61944044
- technoslut 15y ago
  >This lawsuit has nothing to do with the software UI. I never said this was about software in regards to the lawsuit. I only said I was disappointed in the software creativity. User experience, in terms of software and hardware for a tablet, is different from a TV.