Did Samsung not cite the Domino in the Prior Art? WTF "a hand-held computing device with a rectangular shape, rounded corners, and devoid of buttons" etc. "it has a touch-enabled surface communication technology called "Braille..."and"infite power supply"[1] <pls excuse: sarcasm>

[but if anyone knows?]

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

The Domino can be disregarded. Only prior art that can run software compatible with Apple hardware can be considered. The Jury foreman explained it better than I could as follows:

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.

This is widely recognized as blatant misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art by the jurors. "software compatibility" has absolutely zero relation to the notion of "prior art". This is one of the sorest points in this judgement, which has absolutely no credibility overall.

How can that restriction be applied to prior art but not the Samsung device?

In the world where he's looking for a reason his patent wasn't completely anticipated by TiVo (or ReplayTV or ...): http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953