'Embarrassing revelation' indeed. How in the world is it possible that a German court can impose a EU-wide ban in a trial that contained what is basically fabricated evidence? How did this slip past Samsung's lawyers ( I remember this whole thing blowing up at the hands of the tech media, no? ) Didn't the court do its own, independent, impartial research into the matter? Why didn't the court compare some physical devices as opposed to basing a decision with such far-reaching consequences on some printed pictures?! Can somebody who has studied the law explain to me the benefit of allowing plaintiffs to have command over which court they want to litigate in? It feels self-defeating.

After reading this I'm also surprised how the author of this article can possibly assess that, "there’s also Dusseldorf, Germany, where judges are proving themselves quick [and] competent" after this incident that demonstrate just how patently (!) incompetent they really are. But I guess this is just testimony to the fact that actual evidence and reason are tertiary in a justice system that can be defeated by cherry-picking courts that are friendly to whatever the litigator's cause. How can the public trust in a judiciary framework that functions with this total lack of precision and attention to detail.

On a different note, and I'm sure nobody really cares but since Düsseldorf is my hometown I'd like to point out that it is spelled with an umlaut. If for some reason you can't do that, how about spelling it Duesseldorf :) That's how it's done in German if you can't use the umlaut for any reason (url's etc.). Is it common to just leave out diacritics when dealing with foreign vocabulary in the english language ?