While there is probably some truth to the notion that Samsung took the best external design elements of the Ipad for the Tab, it's sort of ludicrous to ban their product because of it. The underlying principle of the law in the US as I understand it is that Samsung can't sell something that confuses buyers into thinking that they are actually buying an Ipad. I imagine that the basis of the German law is similar.

I am quite surprised that Apple actually won this case, and dare I say that I think Apple is probably surprised as well? I think that they do these design lawsuits mostly as pushback against competitors, kind of policing the boundaries, scaring the Samsungs and Sonys of the world from copying too much. I don't think they actually expect to win injunctions though.

I sense a budding social scientist who's been reading a little too much 1990s French Theory. And probably one who's never had to actually live in a country with a nasty authoritarian regime.

You kind of ignored my real point there, which was about information censorship. If you read the first of my links (rsf.org), you'll see that Tunisia already filters out opposition websites without any help from Microsoft/Bing; similar to mainland China's efforts. Ben 'Ali has decided that it's best that his subjects not read too much about what people say about him and his awful little cabal elsewhere. Reading those things is illegal in Tunisia, too.

Do you really want to suggest that this censorship is about 'liberalist' Western standards, and not about dictators and their control of information? If that's what you think then you have a rather broad sense of cultural relativism or a really authoritarian view of what Arab cultural norms are.

The point of dragging these examples into the discussion is that once Bing starts filtering its results by region (and I emphasize that it's by region, not by individual country, which is a very interesting choice on Microsoft's part), and not simply letting the local countries do what they can to filter the firehose themselves, they're on a very slippery slope indeed.

The blackberry example I think, shows how far American (or Canadian) companies are willing to go to make nice with oppressive regimes when their commercial interests are threatened.

In Tunisia, turning on your computer and looking at http://en.rsf.org/tunisia-election-campaign-impossible-for-23-10-2009,34826 will allow you to access material which is illegal in the country where you are. That's Reporters Without Borders, which has campaigned for the release of Tawfiq Ben Brik and other imprisoned Tunisian journalists.

In Saudi Arabia, turning on your computer and looking at http://www.daralhayat.com/ will frequently allow you to access material which is illegal in the country where you are. That's a Saudi Arabian-run newspaper published out of London which is frequently banned by the regime.

In Syria, turning on your computer and looking at http://www.amazon.com/Ambiguities-Domination-Politics-Rhetoric-Contemporary/dp/0226877884/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282044580&sr=8-1 will allow you to access material which is illegal in the country where you are. That's Lisa Wedeen's very interesting study of the Syrian regime's cult of personality, in readable online form.

Don't be surprised if Microsoft very soon starts filtering these links as well, or whatever the regime in your country wants. Blackberry sure folded quickly under commercial pressure, didn't they? It's a slippery slope.

No, I am not complaining about "Arab countries not letting me watch adult content"; read the post again. The compliant is that Microsoft is making the choice for me. "Turning off Safe Search" is of course not illegal here or anywhere else on earth. Looking at pornography may be illegal, but changing a search setting so that I can search the entire web is certainly not included in the civil code here or in any other country. You are confusing two different things.