The Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn’t resemble an iPad to me. You know, at some level of abstraction you can show that any two designs are the same, but I think the level of abstraction you have chosen goes too far.
The obscure device you found is on the left. iPad which is an actual product, is in the middle. Samsung's Tab is on the right. The iPad and Tab are practically identical.
The left two are only similar in that they are both rectangular. The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all different.
You can't argue a:b :: b:c.
Anyway, I don’t agree and since we all don’t have any empirical results – only different opinions – we might as well stop here. I only fear that the courts and the politicians who wrote the law also didn’t have any empirical results.
Maybe you ought to be specific on what is so non-obvious about the iPad, because I have a feeling you are simply have not been made aware or fail to recognize previous art.
So I guess the standard here is whether or not someone would reasonably be fooled into thinking a Galaxy Tab was an iPad. Honestly, it seems reasonable to me. The Samsung looks like a clone.
Now, the law is ridiculous in the face of the fact that the devices aren't compatible. Treating the box that the things come in as the defining aspect that needs protection instead of the very different software contained therein is just insane. But apparently it's the law, and frankly it seems to have been applied correctly if I understand it right.
If it was thought this injunction was just and applied correctly, I don't think we'd be arguing.
[1] http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/RCD/regulati...
The bezel size, color, texture, and material are all the same.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/12/main.jpg