Couple of points: while Judge Koh does indeed live in Apple's backyard, she's of Korean ancestry, so whichever way she acts she's vulnerable to accusations of bias based on irrelevant issues.
Next, the issue is not whether the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks like an iPad, but whether it looks like whatever is in the design patent; in fact, the iPad itself doesn't look much like the patent.
What makes the Judge's ruling so preposterous is that the patent covers a rectangular thing with no ornamentation except a slider on one edge. You'd have to be blind not to notice that the Galaxy HAS ornamentation (it says SAMSUNG on the front and back), it has sockets and connectors, and a camera hole. In short, as the UK judge ruled, it doesn't LOOK LIKE THE PICTURES in the patent.
Beyond that is the obvious point that the patent itself is challenged by prior art. Ironically, the Knight-Ridder tablet clearly violates the patent, so Apple should sue them for having produced a product before Apple decided to invent the design that we certainly saw in the 1968 film "2001 A Space Odyssey"! (And of course Kubrick is in deep doo-doo for that film: clear violation of Apple's patent).