Facts that form a good starting point for understanding that Samsung's defense is not open and shut: (1) Some copying is legal. (2) Some copying is illegal.

Facts that form a good starting point for understanding that Samsung's defense is not open and shut: (1) Some copying is legal. (2) Some copying is illegal. (3) The line between (1) and (2) is not clearly drawn. (4) Many companies copy Apple -- some legally and some illegally. (5) Samsung copies Apple a lot closer then most other mainstream (read: non-pirate) companies do. ... The problem with Samsung is why (5)? To say "that's the only way to design something" flies in the face of (4). Why can't Samsung differentiate their tablet as well as (say) the HTC Flyer? They appear to be interested in looking as identical to Apple's products as possible -- to the point where Samsung lawyers can't even quickly say which is which when a judge holds both products over their head. When the copying is this blatant and close, accusations of piracy are unavoidable. I'm not saying Samsung's guilty of crossing the line between legal and illegal - that's what experts and lawyers and judges are paid to do. But I'm saying they are knowingly closer to the line then most companies are comfortable being and that it's silly to casually dismiss the idea that Samsung could have infringed Apple's IP (as people here frequently do).