or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Dutch court says Samsung's rounded corners don't infringe Apple design
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dutch court says Samsung's rounded corners don't infringe Apple design

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
A Dutch court handed Apple its fourth patent defeat in a year on Wednesday, finding that the rounded corners of Samsung's Galaxy Tab products do not infringe on Apple's registered design features.

The ruling, handed down by a district court in The Hague, covers the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy Tab 8.9, and Galaxy Tab 7.7.

Apple had argued in court that the devices violated its rounded edge design patent, a design feature widely adopted among tablet manufacturers in the wake of the iPad's success. According to Reuters, however, the court sided with Samsung, and ruled the devices were not infringing on Apple's designs.

Galaxy Tab


Samsung, in a statement, said that "Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners." The company went on to say that numerous examples of prior art exist for Apple's registered design features.

The decision is at least the fourth patent defeat for Apple in Dutch courts in the past year, following Samsung victories related to 3G patents and multitouch technology in June and October of last year, as well as a decision in January finding that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not violate other Apple design patents.

As is the case with Apple v. Samsung across much of the rest of the world, the Dutch courts have gone back and forth handing out victories between the two companies. Late last year, Apple won a ban on Galaxy products running Android 2.2.1 or later without Samsung's proprietary photo gallery software, due to their infringement on Apple's "rubber-banding" software patent. The two companies, mobile market leaders in terms of both profits and units sold, are locked in patent struggles across at least 10 countries.
post #2 of 41
Are there tablets with square corners?
post #3 of 41
I would really love to see all this conclusive prior art specifically of pronounced FLAT-CIRCLE rounded corners. Of course there are numerous devices with varying amounts of curved finish on corners. But from a visual branding perspective, the slight blunting or smoothing or elliptical curving of an edge is not the same thing as Apple's very pronounced signature circle corners that they popularized consistently across their entire hardware (and software) style.

I wish that distinction would be made when Samsung and others discuss prior art. And the fact that people seem to ignore that nuance just further explains how those same people kept producing/accepting such pathetic designs for so long before Apple came along.
post #4 of 41

Has Samsung paid the billions they owe Apple yet, after losing to a bona-fide jury decision?

post #5 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Has Samsung paid the billions they owe Apple yet, after losing to a bona-fide jury decision?

 

The Jury in the US also said The Galaxy Tab did not infringe on design patents. The award was for patent on the Galaxy line of phones.

post #6 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Has Samsung paid the billions they owe Apple yet, after losing to a bona-fide jury decision?

They don't owe billions. . . YET. The case isn't over, much less a final amount owed set by the court. Lots of judicial decisions still to be made. Then it's nearly guaranteed that both Apple and Samsung will appeal some of those court rulings as neither will be totally happy.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 41
Quote:
its rounded edge design patent, a design feature widely adopted among tablet manufacturers in the wake of the iPad's success
Seriously...

Some HP prior "art" over a windows tablet, circa 2006, coming with rounded corners and bezel 'design features' worthy of a 'design patent'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC
Edited by Sensi - 1/16/13 at 1:08pm
post #8 of 41
Was Apple's argument as simplistic as is being represented in this story?
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Was Apple's argument as simplistic as is being represented in this story?

What I find ludicrous is that this "article" is literally a reformatting of the Reuters article, which itself is just a quick note that Apple lost, followed by the "rounded corners" sound bite from Samsung, which AppleInsider lemmingly copied. Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #10 of 41

Wait... Apple took Samsung to court over rounded corners? Seriously?

 

Sigh.

 

Just... for Pete's sake, Apple. Could you invest those resources back into product development, because this is just getting stupid.

post #11 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Wait... Apple took Samsung to court over rounded corners? Seriously?

 

Sigh.

 

Just... for Pete's sake, Apple. Could you invest those resources back into product development, because this is just getting stupid.

No, they took it to court for blatant copying of look, shape, form, and feel. Something that take a lot of time, money, and resources to develop. And something that is so easy to steal. 

post #12 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Was Apple's argument as simplistic as is being represented in this story?

Yes, it really is. Apple thinks they should have a monopoly on a round-cornered rectangle, and the courts are rightly smacking them down.

The Apple devices are very nice, I have them and use them - and I've probably been using and promoting Apple products longer than most people here. But don't fool yourself that the rectangle and circle are somehow inventions of Apple.
post #13 of 41
We all know what samescum were doing, even their head of mobile communications JK Shin was quoted as saying the differences in user experience from Samsung devices and Apple’s newly announced iPhone were like, “Heaven and Earth.”

Quote:"“Do you know how difficult the Omnia is to use? When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better? If you compare the UX with the iPhone, it’s a difference between Heaven and Earth.”

Then they said internally: "“Influential figures outside the company come across the iPhone, and they point out that ‘Samsung is dozing off.’ All this time we’ve been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide. Yet when our UX is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple’s iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth. It’s a crisis of design.” If they're the innovators some would like us to believe, then why would they be "paying all their attention" to what others do? Because they copy, not innovate.

“I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone. When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”

Yes, we all know what they were thinking, "lets copy Apple".
You only need to look here.

Courts may base their findings on legal grounds or facts at point, but we know what samescum's intentions were, its what they've been doing for decades. If only Sony had the balls to fight them 20 years ago, they wouldn't be so arrogant about copying today.
Edited by Kr00 - 1/16/13 at 3:02pm
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post


Seriously...

Some HP prior "art" over a windows tablet, circa 2006, coming with rounded corners and bezel 'design features' worthy of a 'design patent'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC

 

How come the face isn't flat?

 

Prior art fail.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

How come the face isn't flat?

 

Prior art fail.

/me might be stupid, but I feel you're nitpicking. Working as a lawyer maybe IRL? Apart from that, I can't see any other professional excuse :p

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

Yes, it really is. Apple thinks they should have a monopoly on a round-cornered rectangle, and the courts are rightly smacking them down.
Source?
post #17 of 41
Okay, in the view of the LAW, Samsung has apparently done no wrong with its smartphones outside of the US, and no wrong at all with its tablets or any other product. Patents only go so far, as shown by Apple's continuous losses against a company that has blatantly ripped off everything from design to form factor and feel. Legally, it's all good. But, really, take one look at some of Samsung's products and tell me they're not reminiscent, to say the least, of Apple's products. It's MORALLY wrong.

By the way, if you added an Apple-esque home button on that tablet in the photo and changed the screen to iOS, you've pretty much got an iPad.
post #18 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?

 

Basically, the three judge Dutch court ruled that they had to abide by the British High Court's previous decision that the various Tabs did not infringe Apple's generic registered design.

 

Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's court costs.  

 

Apple was also explicitly warned that if they tried to interfere with sales, imports or exports of those models, they would be subject to an "immediately payable" penalty of  100,000 Euro a day, up to a 10 million Euro limit.    This is no doubt because of Apple's previous attempts to scare off Tab retailers by sending out lawsuit threats.

 

Ruling in Dutch here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

No, they took it to court for blatant copying of look, shape, form, and feel. Something that take a lot of time, money, and resources to develop. And something that is so easy to steal. 

 

This trial was not about copying any real product.  The trial was about incidental infringement of an old registered design.  Apple likes using it because it's so generic, it could apply to many designs.  They know they could not win by claiming infringement of the actual iPad design.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

The patent D670,286 does not say anything about rounded corners. At least you should look it up before commenting. It's all about look, shape, and, form. Something that takes a lot of time and money to develop and very little to steal.

 

This trial was not about  D670,286 (the 2012 iPad design patent), nor any other iPad design patent.

 

It was about this registered Community Design from 2004 for a very generic display that was never produced.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Was Apple's argument as simplistic as is being represented in this story?

 

Probably.  Apple's design argument almost always looks like the following.  Its core is about shapes with rounded corners.  In one case, the lawsuit even suggested that competitors could avoid infringement by not using rounded corners.  That's where much of the complaints about Apple "wanting to patent rounded rectangles" came from.   Apple basically said it themselves.

 


Edited by KDarling - 1/16/13 at 4:38pm
post #19 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


What I find ludicrous is that this "article" is literally a reformatting of the Reuters article, which itself is just a quick note that Apple lost, followed by the "rounded corners" sound bite from Samsung, which AppleInsider lemmingly copied. Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?

The EU Community Design Patent that Apple claimed is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

 

The Dutch Court statement is here (unless you read Dutch you'll want to use Google Translate):

http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=BY8487&u_ljn=BY8487

 

Remember the recent British case where Apple was required to "advertise" that Sammy didn't infringe on a particular design patent? This is related to that case. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 41

Pipped by KDarling!

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post


Yes, it really is. Apple thinks they should have a monopoly on a round-cornered rectangle, and the courts are rightly smacking them down.

The Apple devices are very nice, I have them and use them - and I've probably been using and promoting Apple products longer than most people here. But don't fool yourself that the rectangle and circle are somehow inventions of Apple.

You really should not try to sound smart and smarmy when you have no clue about the basic facts -- and Apple's reasoning -- behind the suit.

post #22 of 41
Yay! European courts rule that design laws can not be enforced. Time to start ripping off everything from their fashion industry! No wonder Europe is sinking into an economic abys: they have no respect for design or intellectual property.
As for Samsung, it's sad that their line looks like a collection of badly made Apple knock-offs. It would be fun to see an original idea from them, but I won't hold my breath!
post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerbrent View Post

Yay! European courts rule that design laws can not be enforced. Time to start ripping off everything from their fashion industry! No wonder Europe is sinking into an economic abys: they have no respect for design or intellectual property.
As for Samsung, it's sad that their line looks like a collection of badly made Apple knock-offs. It would be fun to see an original idea from them, but I won't hold my breath!

Agreed. Sadly, Europe is falling the way of China as far as respect for intellectual property.
post #24 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Pipped by KDarling!
I figured KDarling would come to the rescue. Like he and other anti-Appler's do over at MacRumors any time a patent story comes up, 1biggrin.gif
post #25 of 41

Remove the curtains from the eyes. Samsung Tabs (or whatever they are) infringe on Apple's designs. It includes the 'rounded rectangles'. It is a part of the design. Many things have rounded rectanges, but a few look horribly exactly like Apple's design.

"We're surrounded by anonymous, poorly made objects. It's tempting to think it's because the people who use them don't care -- just like the people who make them." - Jony Ive, 2014
Reply
"We're surrounded by anonymous, poorly made objects. It's tempting to think it's because the people who use them don't care -- just like the people who make them." - Jony Ive, 2014
Reply
post #26 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I figured KDarling would come to the rescue. Like he and other anti-Appler's do over at MacRumors any time a patent story comes up, 1biggrin.gif

 

Hello!   The 1950s called.  Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts. 

 

If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched.   Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.

 

I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor.  I have no reason to care what brands you use.  

 

I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way.   There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.


Edited by KDarling - 1/16/13 at 10:05pm
post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


I figured KDarling would come to the rescue. Like he and other anti-Appler's do over at MacRumors any time a patent story comes up, 1biggrin.gif


Attacking the poster is quite mature¡

 

... although I could probably learn from my own sarcasm.

post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Basically, the three judge Dutch court ruled that they had to abide by the British High Court's previous decision that the various Tabs did not infringe Apple's generic registered design.

 

Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's court costs.  

 

Apple was also explicitly warned that if they tried to interfere with sales, imports or exports of those models, they would be subject to an "immediately payable" penalty of  100,000 Euro a day, up to a 10 million Euro limit.    This is no doubt because of Apple's previous attempts to scare off Tab retailers by sending out lawsuit threats.

 

Ruling in Dutch here.

 

 

This trial was not about copying any real product.  The trial was about incidental infringement of an old registered design.  Apple likes using it because it's so generic, it could apply to many designs.  They know they could not win by claiming infringement of the actual iPad design.

 

 

This trial was not about  D670,286 (the 2012 iPad design patent), nor any other iPad design patent.

 

It was about this registered Community Design from 2004 for a very generic display that was never produced.

 

 

 

 

 

Probably.  Apple's design argument almost always looks like the following.  Its core is about shapes with rounded corners.  In one case, the lawsuit even suggested that competitors could avoid infringement by not using rounded corners.  That's where much of the complaints about Apple "wanting to patent rounded rectangles" came from.   Apple basically said it themselves.

 

 

 

So samescum weren't thinking about copying anything from Apple when they communicated this?

 

“I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone. When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”

 

Oh, FYI, Trade dress is as important to a company as is patents and copyright. So trade dress is ok to plagiarise? Easy to isolate a few words out of context. You can do that with any patent and then they'd all read the same too. Why not take the document as a whole? It explains precisely what design means to Apple. Why do you troll an Apple forum anyway? Just curious.

post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Hello!   The 1950s called.  Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts. 

 

If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched.   Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.

 

I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor.  I have no reason to care what brands you use.  

 

I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way.   There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.

 Hers some evidence, and pretty damning at that. Stop trolling Apple forums to get your jollies.

 

“I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone. When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”

 

Nobody can deny samescum weren't thinking about innovating anything while they were talking like this.

 

“Do you know how difficult the Omnia is to use? When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better? If you compare the UX with the iPhone, it’s a difference between Heaven and Earth.”

 

​Courts makes judgements that show no resemblance to the truth all the time. Take a step back and see the trees in the forrest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time to take your old blinkers off and put your hate for Apple aside and have an educated journey into the world of the truth.

post #30 of 41

Kr00, none of what you presented has anything to do with the Dutch ruling. In fact the Community Design Patent that Apple was still trying to assert did not represent any actual Apple product. What you posted doesn't in any way disprove what KDarling wrote. 

 

I think most us us probably agree that Samsung has attempted to mimic Apple, sometimes much too closely. Apple has valid complaints. Infringing this particular Community Design has been proven not to be one of those valid complaints.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


What I find ludicrous is that this "article" is literally a reformatting of the Reuters article, which itself is just a quick note that Apple lost, followed by the "rounded corners" sound bite from Samsung, which AppleInsider lemmingly copied. Would it kill AppleInsider to piece together better coverage, additional context, or even a statement from the Dutch court?

 

That's what I'm wondering as well. I didn't think it was "just" about rounded corners but numerous design elements taken together. The grid of icons wasn't just about a grid of icons either -- Samsung didn't even bother to change the sunflower on the image database that was the analog of iPhoto. They didn't ignore the iPhone/iPad or try and make their's different, they clearly tried to make their product "just like" Apple's. But the public gets the idea that this is really trivial stuff, because the Media has been telling that story. I can't be sure anymore what things are about -- because our media absolutely sucks. There is no attempt at integrity -- much like Samsung. Apparently, all these companies are annoyed at Apple for having standards, being an innovator and not rolling around in the muck like them. If Apple actually cloned others, had sweat shops, and ripped off ideas from products they were paid to build -- they'd be Samsung, wouldn't they?
post #32 of 41
Well I did notice a MAJOR difference in the package design between Samsung and Apple... if you note the Home Screen background that sort of has a horizon 1/3rd from the bottom on both; Apple uses a desert landscape while Samsung has a picture of a beach. ;) Other than that, I can't tell that these weren't two products from the same company if I didn't look for the logo.
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

 

That's what I'm wondering as well. I didn't think it was "just" about rounded corners but numerous design elements taken together.The grid of icons wasn't just about a grid of icons either -- Samsung didn't even bother to change the sunflower on the image database that was the analog of iPhoto. They didn't ignore the iPhone/iPad or try and make their's different, they clearly tried to make their product "just like" Apple's.But the public gets the idea that this is really trivial stuff, because the Media has been telling that story. I can't be sure anymore what things are about -- because our media absolutely sucks. There is no attempt at integrity -- much like Samsung. Apparently, all these companies are annoyed at Apple for having standards, being an innovator and not rolling around in the muck like them. If Apple actually cloned others, had sweat shops, and ripped off ideas from products they were paid to build -- they'd be Samsung, wouldn't they?

The overall case had nothing to do with icons, colors, or any of the sort. It didn't even have to do with any Apple product (like an iPad). Nor did the Dutch case discussed here even rule on the merits of the Apple-asserted Community Design I linked for you earlier if you actually had any interest in seeing what Apple's claims were. The Dutch ruling from a couple days ago (which I also linked if you're truly curious about it) affirmed that the British Court had already ruled that Samsung had not infringed on that specific IP and they were not going to find any differently. The only thing of substance they added were penalties for Apple if they were to pursue interference with Samsung's Tab sales.

 

You don't have to guess about why the Dutch court ruled as they did. Follow the links in both posts 18 and 19 and it should be clear.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/17/13 at 6:26am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

Well I did notice a MAJOR difference in the package design between Samsung and Apple... if you note the Home Screen background that sort of has a horizon 1/3rd from the bottom on both; Apple uses a desert landscape while Samsung has a picture of a beach. ;) Other than that, I can't tell that these weren't two products from the same company if I didn't look for the logo.

 

The iPhone wasn't the first phone with that kind of packaging.  

 

The iPhone used it months after LG's new Prada, which came out with a style of having the phone directly under a removable box lid, and then accessories under that.  

 

 

 

 

That's the trouble with most fansite comparison charts.  They carefully cherry-pick only non-iPhone-like styles for their "before" images, and people with little or no pre-iPhone experience believe them.

 

Heck, you can put together all sorts of such charts.   Here's one I just made up.  It's both just as truthful as the ones that others posted, and just as meaningless.

 

 

 

This is not to say that Samsung didn't choose to look as much like Apple as legally possible.  I think they did, at least at first.  However, Apple didn't invent most of what some newbie fans claim.

 

As GatorGuy noted, none of this has anything to do with the Dutch decision, which was only over a non-product design that virtually every court and jury has decided was not infringed due to being so generic.


Edited by KDarling - 1/17/13 at 6:44am
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Hello!   The 1950s called.  Joe McCarthy wants you to help with the Communist witch hunts. 

 

If you disagree with any facts I present, you're quite free to present counter evidence that's as well researched.   Otherwise, stop hiding your laziness and ignorance behind bogus accusations.

 

I'm almost sixty years old and a cancer survivor.  I have no reason to care what brands you use.  

 

I do think that the more people know, the better they can make up their own opinions... intelligently... either way.   There are way too many articles online these days that leave out important information on a topic, and there are too many myths floating around.

This is a good age to to put your integrity together and stop trolling. You are doing a great job of intelligently telling lies.

post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen View Post

This is a good age to to put your integrity together and stop trolling. You are doing a great job of intelligently telling lies.

And exactly in what facts has kdarling lied in this thread?
post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post


Yes, we all know what they were thinking, "lets copy Apple".
You only need to look here.

Courts may base their findings on legal grounds or facts at point, but we know what samescum's intentions were, its what they've been doing for decades ...

 

intent is the "state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action".  whether the intent resulted in identical implementation(s) is what's being argued in courts.  in this particular context, a Dutch court did not find Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patents.

post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

intent is the "state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action".  whether the intent resulted in identical implementation(s) is what's being argued in courts.  in this particular context, a Dutch court did not find Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patents.

Courts are fallible. Plenty of people have been executed who were subsequently found innocent. A court will never know the true intent of what they were planning. If one email is enough to show what they were thinking, imagine all the evidence that isn't known that would be damning for them. Truth? Is it really known by anyone? As I said. Samescum have been renowned for this type of behavior. Just because an accused hasn't the prof, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
post #39 of 41
Apple appealed this to the Dutch Supreme Court. To put a period on it they also found Samsung wasn't infringing on Apple's iPad design.
http://www.nu.nl/gadgets/3488754/hoge-raad-geeft-samsung-gelijk-in-rechtszaak-apple.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 41
Cool! I go to an American forum to read Dutch news!
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Dutch court says Samsung's rounded corners don't infringe Apple design
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Dutch court says Samsung's rounded corners don't infringe Apple design