[afa]

Originally Posted by kartu

You don't have to be a shoe maker, to see that shoes do not fit.

And yet, it I were in need of shoes that would provide extra support for my mother's orthopaedic feet, I would trust the opinion of a professional shoe maker, who is actually trained in the art, than someone whose entire argument hinges on information gleaned off various websites.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and the latter person might very well have a valid point or two, but that would be my approach. It's the safer bet.

More importantly, the analogy simply doesn't work because it is over-simplifying the very complex world of litigation and Intellectual Property rights. You don't need to be anything more than someone with functioning eyesight to be the 'judge' in your example. I daresay presiding over a legal matter in a court of law requires just a smidgeon more knowledge.

You don't need to be "trained in German law" to see, how moronic Mrs Johanna Brukner-Hoffman's arguments are.

I don't need to be trained in art of debate to know that when someone claims a party to be "moronic" -- based on little evidence besides the (limited) information he has read off various blogs and articles -- to know that a weak argument is being made.

All "evidence" of Samsung "trying to look like ipad" is blatantly fabricated.
It has different ratio.
It doesn't look the same.
If anything, it looks like Motorola Xoom (in the middle), not iPad (on the Left):

That is your opinion, based on... well, little more than your personal thoughts and impressions. The judge's opinion was based on the careful consideration of evidence presented by the two sides, all the while keeping in mind the rights and obligations bestowed on corporations by IP and patent-related laws and regulations.

I am not arguing whether the judge's decision was right or wrong. Frankly, I haven't really been following the issue very closely. In fact, I am not even disagreeing with your stand (i.e., that the Galaxy Tab shouldn't have been banned).

What I am disagreeing with is the notion that a group of armchair (desk chair?) lawyers have a better idea of what does or does not qualify as patent-infringement than a qualified adjudicator of court proceedings. That, too, in a country that is likely not one where many of the posters in this thread reside in, or can claim to be intimately familiar with.