billycravens

In the same vein, I think it's irrelevant even if affects the Tab 2 10.1. In terms of sales, none of the Tabs are significant to Samsung, relative to phone sales. I know someone can quote great sales numbers, but those tend to be the result of stuffing the channel. Out of every 1000 iPads I see in the wild, I see may 2 or 3 Tabs (though that number rises a bit when I'm at a tech conference. However, I see TONS of Samsung phones everyday.

That's clever and might work. Of course, I'm no expert on German patent law (nor on US, either, but I'm betting few to none on HN are), but perhaps there's a different standard? I'm wondering if the large encompassing "... embodies any design ..." will be a gotcha.

Reading the actual injunction suggests that if it looks like the original Galaxy Tab 10.1, it's included in the injunction:

"Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees,attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States,Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer, and any product that is no more than colorably different from this specified product and embodies any design contained in U.S. Design Patent No.D504,889."

It's not clear in the article whether this ruling only applies to the original GT 10.1, and doesn't apply to the GT 2 10.1. My understanding is that it applies to the Galaxy Tab 10.1, all revisions (in the same sense of an injunction against all versions of the iPad as opposed to only the original iPad). The Tab 2 10.1 is an iteration on the first one, not substantially different, so I suspect it's covered by this injunction.

Can anyone direct me to the new URL for Hacker News? I missed the announcement where this site was converted to Hacker Ads.

Operating a device app store with all the bandwidth and infrastructure that's involved is an entirely different creature than adding features to an API.

Google charges the same 30%: http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/a...

However, this isn't an apt comparison to what Adobe's doing. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc provide the infrastructure, hosting, payment processing, and the integration into the device. Adobe is providing none of this, yet is still claiming a piece of the action.