"But, in contrast, here's the Apple design patent, D504889, about those rounded corners -- how do you code around it? A tablet in the shape of a parallelogram?"

But the jury found Samsung's actual tablets, which are rectangles with rounded corners, do not infringe this patent. So her analysis that it's impossible to design around this is false.

Here's one from another recent post:

"Apple's lawyers are still clueless that the public is for the most part repulsed by Apple's IP aggression."

This isn't supported by any evidence and is almost certainly made up. I'm not aware of any survey supporting this claim.

At this point, I'm unable to tell which information about the case on Groklaw is factual and which is made up. As far as I can tell, the quotes from actual court documents are accurate, but I can't really tell about the rest.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apple-and-oranges-appl...

Copy-and-pasting from a comment I just made in another thread about how merely having an obvious patent does cause problems: You don't have to contest the patent for it to be suppressing others' design. I once worked for a company that made a humidifying air pump. We had to have the water tank held in with a removable flap rather than a door because our main competitor had patented 'holding the tank in with a hinged flap/door'. Sure, you could fight it in court, down the track, after hardware design (which is much more expensive than people realise). Or you could move onto the next problem and have a slightly inferior product.

- She got you | Rhetorical questions != Not False Statements.

[Edit: Agree she could have been more informative.]

[but if anyone knows?]

[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Dom...

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.