Doesn't matter. Design patents are about non-branded aesthetics. (A typeface can be design-patented because coming up with a beautiful typeface is hard. In many countries, including the US, typefaces can't be copyrighted.) But trademarks are about consumer confusion, i.e. consumers accidentally buy a Samsung tablet because they think they're buying an iPad, which has a reputation.
Xuzz was commenting that he confused the tablets, which isn't relevant. It would have been relevant if he said "I really noticed how nice the Samsung looked and how little glare it had due to case design (just like Apple). Those details are subtle but non-obvious."
Here more from wikipedia for anyone interested:
> Trademarks and trade dress are used to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of a manufactured object. To get trademark protection, the trademark owner must show that the mark is not likely to be confused with other trademarks for items in the same general class. The trademarks can last indefinitely as long as they are used in commerce.
Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items,[7] even those of different utility than the patented object. An actual shield of a given shape, for example, can be cited as prior art against a design patent on a computer icon with a shield shape. The validity of design patents is not affected by whether or not the design is commercialized.
I didn't know this stuff until I looked it up in response to your comment, so thanks.
Which is one reason why I think Apple will have trouble here. Samsung only needs to show that there is a functional basis for their design decisions (rounded corners => more comfortable, black bezel => better contrast, metal band on frame => stronger, more scratch resistant, etc). and the issues of design patents and trade dress fall away.
Yea, I was lumping "aestetics" into "functionality" as opposed to trademarks, which are "informative". That was wrong terminology. I also was thinking that the readability of a typeface would be covered under a design patent, but upon reflection it would not.
