This is what the JooJoo originally looked like (2008): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/2689708043_3afee5af69_o....

This is what a 1st gen iPod touch looked like in 2007: http://media.gdgt.com/img/product/1/101/ipod-touch-1st-gen-3...

On top of that, designs aren't pulled from thin air, you can subtract at least 1-2 years from the launch date.

What's your point? The only difference between the the 2008 Crunchpad/JooJoo and the iPad is the color black.

I think his point is the original JooJoo design, which he provides, looked a lot less like the iPad.

But it fulfills most of the things apple is claiming that Samsung infringed upon except the color black.

No, it also looks like the border is slightly raised more like the Kindle.

This is the form factor that I would have thought of naturally, before seeing the iPad, since it's similar to the designs that existed for computers at the time. Compare it to previous tablets/slates, laptops, Palm pilots, Newton. Most of them have some kind of raised plastic border (and often not black but some shade of gray).

Problem is, the iPad was designed for finger input. Raises bezels would mean you can't touch a segment of the edge of the screen without pressing hard enough to force your finger into that triangle. Any designer working with finger input would recognize that and design a screen flush with the bezel.

With previous devices, they were generally designed with a stylus in mind (Palm, Newton, slates, etc). A flush bezel, while not required, is a no-brainer when you think about it.

> "... is a no-brainer when you think about it."

Then it's not really a no brainer, is it? :)

Besides the sibling comment point here, its power button is placed for the right thumb in landscape mode. The icon on it tells you which way is "up".

The original iPod touch and iPhone came out in 2007, were in the making for a bunch of years, while the JooJoo was only starting as a concept in 2008.

Newsflash: Apple's design patents were filed before the iPad shipped, some as early as 2004.

on the other hand, like it is suggested to developers to not look at existing Patents, the same logic would be applied to design patents as well. If this is followed, any design can be reinvented - the more minimalistic the design is, higher would be the chances for its reinvention; this was also the central idea behind the article.

Although I am not sure about it but it appears like there have been prior art for most of the individual design concepts being pointed out here. Samsung photoframes, tablets from other parties and similar elements being icons having being used from ages before. It's the compilation of same design concepts together in Samsung Tabs as well as iPad that is creating the stir. As pointed out above, the similarity between the two appears to be more of an trademark issue than patent - if exactly and just these points are used.

Yes, it changes everything. If not everything is changed, how can Steve be right? Steve is right therefore everything is changed