Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So you're both fine with a court using completely irrelevant evidence to rule on a case?
"Your honor, O.J. Simpson was acquitted. Therefore my client, Casey Anthony, is also innocent."
EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.
The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.
A car is a car even if its from the 1920s.
Modern car vs old school car
1) Both transport people from one location to another via voluntary control by the users on, mostly, paved roads.
2) Both have engines, 4 wheels, hard cover passenger compartment, headlights, instruments, user interfaces, and both use gasoline as the primary fuel.
On top of that, their general layout (design) is similar.
The same goes with the "tablets".