It's official -- Note2 infringes says Apple

[TerryMathews]

Most of those pre-date even the examples you've given. We had Icons and UI layouts back in the 80's and 90's on PCs. Hell, phones have had mute/silence switches probably further back than that. Native apps existed long before non-native apps. The concept of an app store (more the central repository for apps than the idea of selling things) has been around on Linux for a long time as well. The idea of one app running and saving the state of non-running applications is essentially how CPUs have worked since some of the earliest computers were created.

The thing that you're missing is that patents don't cover ideas, they cover implementations of ideas. If someone came out with a new way to design an automotive engine tomorrow, they could still get a patent for it even though modern combustion engines have been around for decades now. Most of the things you've listed are ideas that have been around for a long time. Over that time, some companies may have patented some implementation of those ideas, but in many cases those implementations have been around for so long the patents have expired.

That's why Apple could patent their slide to unlock method and several other methods of implementing the idea are also able to exist without infringing on Apple's patent.

And if you want to break it down, the iPhone only really represented such a large shift in the idea of a smartphone because it did a lot of little things and packaged them together. The parts on their own aren't often all that amazing or anything new, but the sum of them certainly was, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Apple certain did patent their implementation of some of those parts, but for many of the things you've listed, I'm not aware of Apple having patents related to them.

So I'm not really sure what your point is. Is it that Apple has obviously used ideas that have already existed and that were created by others so why are they complaining when people use theirs? That's what I think you're getting at, and if it is, it completely misunderstands how patents work.

No, I'm not. You are. A patent has to be innovative and non-obvious to be valid. Prior art is usually a perfect example of why a patent should not be granted or upheld.

Go read some patent decisions, especially Great Atlantic v Supermarket Equipment Corp.

 

[Zaap]

I'll have to dig up an old post of mine, where I pointed out that yes, a lot of companies are involved in litigation on a regular basis, it just doesn't get reported. I'll edit this later once I dig it up.

If it's the same as other attempts at this I've seen, you merely pointed out litigation, not frivolous litigation that Apple engages in. Once more, you can stop pretending that no one can recognize such things. Show me where Google is suing some supermarket in Poland for its logo, or where Ford is trying to stop Chevy from selling a car it makes because the design of the speedometer was supposedly copied from them. If "everybody's doing it" as you and others claim, them ACTUAL examples should be easy for you to find, not difficult.

So I'm merely saying, okay, have at it. Produce all these examples, and prove how "everybody does the same thing" as claimed.

Even though it wouldn't excuse Apple, you've yet to actually prove your assertion that "everybody does it" in the first place.

The first problem with your statement is that you claim it's 'abuse' which makes it almost impossible to refute. Any example that might be produced can simply be dismissed as non-abuse.

Once again, you're claiming that "everybody does the same thing" as an excuse for Apple, so then you should be able to find plenty of examples of "the same thing" as you're claiming. I gave several types of examples above. Please demonstrate where these sorts of suits are common.

If the story stopped there, that would probably be the case, but Apple bought the iPhone trademark from Cisco which had registered it prior to 2003. The case is apparently more complicated than you make it appear and it really deserves its own topic.

No, once again you don't have the facts straight. First off, the name is iFONE, not iPhone. No, Cisco or Apple did not own the name iFONE, and had no right to sue over it. Cisco also didn't have a product called an iPhone. ONLY Apple ever infringed on the iPhone patent of Cisco's, not the Mexican company which never used that name, nor made anything remotely similar to the original device, which wasn't even made in 2003 when they registered the name.

See how you play both sides of this? The claim with the microphone logo is that "Apple would never just go after someone for the use of something that's just similar- no, it HAS to be the exact same thing. So what's the problem?"

Then out of the other side of your mouth, iFONE from 2003 is the EXACT SAME as iPhone from 2007. You're as fast and lose with the facts as an Apple attorney, and prove my point about why people don't trust Apple with overly broad patents.

They lost the case by the way because it was absurd, and it seems like now they've been banned from selling iPhones in Mexico as it was ruled that THEY infringed on the name, not the company that already had it. An awesome result that they well deserved. They got their asses slapped down good, thinking they could railroad another company out of its name by throwing money around. Instead, they now stand to lose millions losing the right to market the iPhone in Mexico. JUST desserts and hopefully how they'll be slapped down in other cases where they're trying to throw their weight around. There should be a hefty price to pay for companies that use such shoddy practices.

That's the real shame of this whole sad episode. With all of Apple's current legal shenanigans, all they've really managed to do is weaken their stock, give tons of free advertising to Samsung making them "The Company that Apple fears" and remove themselves from at least one market. CEOs and board of directors have probably been fired for much less a shoddy performance with such crappy results.

 

[Tom]

I don't see why you can't understand this.
Some people don't believe designs can be patented - not inventive.

Some people believe that even if designs can be patented, that a picture of a microphone does not rise to the threshold of non-obvious. To me, if any design patents are valid, then they must be non-obvious, significantly different than the industry standard, and not driven by necessity. For example, the Armana Radarrange. Due to safety, it could practically only be laid out in the configuration it was sold in. Anyone building a microwave would have to build in the same fashion.

Apples "Snow White" design language should be patentable if anything is. The Luxor lamp. The Jeep.

Two separate arguments for the same situation. Concept no good. Concept ok, specifics no good. Follow?

I understand what you're saying. But it isn't up to you.

 

[Tom]

According to this article Apple owns the rights to the name iphone for cell phones in Mexico.

The Mexican company owns the rights to the name ifone for some kind of services.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3...mexican-trademark-standoff-whats-really-going

 

[Mopetar]

If it's the same as other attempts at this I've seen, you merely pointed out litigation, not frivolous litigation that Apple engages in.

And as I've said, if you're just going to label certain litigation as frivolous, there's no point in even having this debate with you. You'll merely say that any example I've produced is an example of non-frivolous lawsuits.

Also, if Apple is winning many of its cases, how are they frivolous?

So I'm merely saying, okay, have at it. Produce all these examples, and prove how "everybody does the same thing" as claimed.

Here's my old post: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33917158


Out of curiosity I decided to look through the list again and found a few interesting results. Some company I've never heard of (Washington Research Foundation) is suing Apple. Sprint Nextel is suing someone for trademark infringement. Bayer is suing another company for patent infringement. Ericsson is suing Samsung over patents and Emerson is suing over trademark infringement, and Disney is involved in a suit.

Those are just the ones from the companies that I recognize. There are loads more that I don't. According to the website, they've added 210 cases in just the last 7 days. Also note that these are only cases in the U.S. Who knows how many there are in other countries. Also, how many of those have been reported in the news?

Once again, you're claiming that "everybody does the same thing" as an excuse for Apple, so then you should be able to find plenty of examples of "the same thing" as you're claiming. I gave several types of examples above. Please demonstrate where these sorts of suits are common.

I've listed some major companies (with which I'm familiar; there may be other major companies in that list that I'm not familiar with so I've skipped them) that have filed suits in the last few days. Given the number of lawsuits that are being added all the time (We'll assume ~40 per day given that suits probably aren't filed on weekends) and it becomes fairly evident that this happens quite frequently. How many lawsuits has Apple filed in the U.S. this year? Probably 3.

No, once again you don't have the facts straight. First off, the name is iFONE, not iPhone. No, Cisco or Apple did not own the name iFONE, and had no right to sue over it. Cisco also didn't have a product called an iPhone.

You can sue if you feel a trademark is too similar. Go ahead and try to sell watches under the Tymex brand and see how far you get.

ONLY Apple ever infringed on the iPhone patent of Cisco's, not the Mexican company which never used that name, nor made anything remotely similar to the original device, which wasn't even made in 2003 when they registered the name.

Not a patent so I don't see how they could infringe on it.

Wikipedia has a pretty good history of the iPhone trademark. It would appear that it started in 1993 when a company named Infogear trademarked "I PHONE" and in 1996 trademarked "IPhone". The company produced a product using the name in 1998. Cisco acquired the company and later released a product using the mark. All of this was done in the U.S. In 2007, Cisco licensed the mark to Apple.

Also, in 2002 Apple applied for the iPhone trademark in several other countries, although Mexico is not included on that list.

So really, the iPhone mark, or some variation of it, predates the iFONE mark. The problem is that no one may have explicitly filed for the mark in Mexico, which means the case is much less clear cut.

See how you play both sides of this? The claim with the microphone logo is that "Apple would never just go after someone for the use of something that's just similar- no, it HAS to be the exact same thing. So what's the problem?"

One of these is a design patent. The other is a trademark. They're not the same thing at all.

Then out of the other side of your mouth, iFONE from 2003 is the EXACT SAME as iPhone from 2007. You're as fast and lose with the facts as an Apple attorney, and prove my point about why people don't trust Apple with overly broad patents.

As I've said, they're completely different things. The only comparison you can make is that they're both forms of intellectual property. Also the iFONE case is probably a lot more complex than you've made it out to be. Who knows what kind of international treaties (things like NAFTA) or other international law might come into play.

They lost the case by the way because it was absurd, and it seems like now they've been banned from selling iPhones in Mexico as it was ruled that THEY infringed on the name, not the company that already had it.

I don't have any details of the case so I can't comment on the verdict other than Apple lost. I imagine that they've appealed, though.

An awesome result that they well deserved. They got their asses slapped down good, thinking they could railroad another company out of its name by throwing money around. Instead, they now stand to lose millions losing the right to market the iPhone in Mexico. JUST desserts and hopefully how they'll be slapped down in other cases where they're trying to throw their weight around. There should be a hefty price to pay for companies that use such shoddy practices.

And there you go injecting personal feeling into it again, which is why even if I point out examples of other companies engaging in lawsuits, I don't think that you're likely to accept them.

 

[Zaap]

^ Sorry but it's impossible to take you seriously.

Litigation does not equal frivolous litigation of the type Apple engages in. I've asked for specific examples of "everybody doing the same thing" as you've claimed. Show me Coke suing Pepsi for packaging their soft drinks the same way, or copying their can. Show me a washing machine company suing because someone else uses a 'spin cycle' that they claim to own due to an overly broad patent being granted. Show us ANY example that is the same type of cases. SPECIFICS, please. If "everybody does it" that should be simple, not just you pointing to *any* litigation that you can't prove is "everybody doing the same thing".

No one is saying there isn't legitimate litigation, just that Apple's suits aren't. You of course know that, you're just throwing up smoke, which is typical in these discussions from the Apple side.

And once again, iFONE doesn't equal iPhone. Skipping over that blatant fact and still pretending Apple has a case (even after they've lost and proven beyond a doubt they didn't) just shows me you're not going by facts, just your belief that Apple can do what it wants. It's why no one believes you or them over things like the microphone example. When iFONE registered in 2003 can in ANY WAY be an infringement on iPhone registered in 2007, then it just proves you'll believe ANYTHING Apple ever claims about microphone icons or whatever, no matter how false and nothing like what they're claiming to own. That attitude in a nutshell is why people don't trust Apple and overly-broad patents.

 

[Zaap]

Not a patent so I don't see how they could infringe on it.

On January 10, 2007, Cisco announced it had filed a lawsuit against Apple over the infringement of the trademark iPhone, seeking an injunction in federal court to prohibit Apple from using the name.

You're right not a patent, a trademark. So the only company ever to actually violate Cisco's trademark was Apple, not iFONE.

 

[cheezy321]

^ Sorry but it's impossible to take you seriously.

Litigation does not equal frivolous litigation of the type Apple engages in. I've asked for specific examples of "everybody doing the same thing" as you've claimed. Show me Coke suing Pepsi for packaging their soft drinks the same way, or copying their can. Show me a washing machine company suing because someone else uses a 'spin cycle' that they claim to own due to an overly broad patent being granted. Show us ANY example that is the same type of cases. SPECIFICS, please. If "everybody does it" that should be simple, not just you pointing to *any* litigation that you can't prove is "everybody doing the same thing".

No one is saying there isn't legitimate litigation, just that Apple's suits aren't. You of course know that, you're just throwing up smoke, which is typical in these discussions from the Apple side.

And once again, iFONE doesn't equal iPhone. Skipping over that blatant fact and still pretending Apple has a case (even after they've lost and proven beyond a doubt they didn't) just shows me you're not going by facts, just your belief that Apple can do what it wants. It's why no one believes you or them over things like the microphone example. When iFONE registered in 2003 can in ANY WAY be an infringement on iPhone registered in 2007, then it just proves you'll believe ANYTHING Apple ever claims about microphone icons or whatever, no matter how false and nothing like what they're claiming to own. That attitude in a nutshell is why people don't trust Apple and overly-broad patents.

Took me 2 seconds to find this with a simple 'coke sues pepsi' search:

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/coca-cola-sues-pepsico-over-trop50-packaging/nQmWf/

I dont see how you can seriously say Apple is the only company out there that engages in these shenanigans.

 

[Mopetar]

Litigation does not equal frivolous litigation of the type Apple engages in.

If it were frivolous, they wouldn't be winning any of their cases. It seems that they're probably winning about half of the time. I don't know the exact rate, but it's probably close to 50% as it seems like there are about as many stories posted about each.

What you really mean to say is "litigation that I disagree with from a moral standpoint." As I pointed out to another poster, there's no sense even discussing that since it just goes round in circles, unless someone is going to change their opinion.

I've asked for specific examples of "everybody doing the same thing" as you've claimed. Show me Coke suing Pepsi for packaging their soft drinks the same way, or copying their can.

This one took me 3 seconds to Google: http://www.ajc.com/news/business/coca-cola-sues-pepsico-over-trop50-packaging/nQmWf/

Show me a washing machine company suing because someone else uses a 'spin cycle' that they claim to own due to an overly broad patent being granted.

I don't know if I'll find one for spin cycles, but I did find a story about Maytag suing LG over a patent related to airflow systems in their washers and dryers. I don't know if it's an "overly broad" patent though, so you'll have to use your discretion to determine if it qualifies.

Show us ANY example that is the same type of cases. SPECIFICS, please. If "everybody does it" that should be simple, not just you pointing to *any* litigation that you can't prove is "everybody doing the same thing".

Considering it took my under 10 seconds of googling to find both specific examples for some random examples you came up with, it would seem to suggest that, yes, this is pretty common.

No one is saying there isn't legitimate litigation, just that Apple's suits aren't.

Once again, you're assuming from the start that Apple's suits aren't legitimate. There's no debating you because you've reached a conclusion (i.e. Apple's suit's aren't legitimate) and then arguing from that position. If you really want to have a discussion, please point out all suits which you don't believe to be legitimate and why you don't think they are legitimate.

I have a feeling that your reasons won't have any legal basis and are only applicable if you apply your own morality. As I've said before, that's an utterly pointless thing to do.

You of course know that, you're just throwing up smoke, which is typical in these discussions from the Apple side.

I'm not on any side, nor do I think taking sides accomplishes anything, especially when trying to have a reasonable discussion.

And once again, iFONE doesn't equal iPhone. Skipping over that blatant fact and still pretending Apple has a case (even after they've lost and proven beyond a doubt they didn't) just shows me you're not going by facts, just your belief that Apple can do what it wants.

It doesn't, which is now a matter of legal fact. I'm not disputing that, merely pointing out that some of your own 'facts' weren't necessarily correct, and that your representation of the case and legal implications seemed off.

Also, the case is probably subject to appeal and who knows if Apple is persuing that or not. Also after reading the article that Tom posted, it would seem that you were incorrect about Apple being unable to sell the iPhone in Mexico.

It's why no one believes you or them over things like the microphone example. When iFONE registered in 2003 can in ANY WAY be an infringement on iPhone registered in 2007, then it just proves you'll believe ANYTHING Apple ever claims about microphone icons or whatever, no matter how false and nothing like what they're claiming to own. That attitude in a nutshell is why people don't trust Apple and overly-broad patents.

As I pointed out, depending on international laws and trade argeeements, trademarks registered in one country may be automatically valid in another. I don't know for certain, but merely pointed out the legal possibility. If such a thing does exist, then it's possible that the iPhone mark could predate the iFONE mark.

And really the whole case apparently was started because Apple believed that the mark wasn't being actively used.

You're right not a patent, a trademark. So the only company ever to actually violate Cisco's trademark was Apple, not iFONE.

Violate in the sense that it was legally upheld by a court or violate in some other sense? I don't believe that it ever came to a court verdict as the two parties reached an argeement, although it's pretty likely that if Apple was unable to show that Cisco had abandoned the mark (which some believe was certainly possible) that it's likely any court would find Apple to infringe.

Also, I don't believe that Cisco ever attempted to sue the company that owned the iFONE mark, so really, we can only speculate about whether it would violate it or not.

 

[Brian Stirling]

For starters there's the conclusions reached by various judges and juries that in some cases Apple's patents have been violated.

So, if Apple's position is vindicated, how are they abusing the system ? Even if they lost, I don't see how that would be "abuse" since they wouldn't gain anything.

For four score and seven years it was legal to own people in the USA -- didn't make it right!


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

Which was overturned.

I'm not saying a person can't disagree with a court case. I am trying to get some clarity about what the people who object to Apple and patents and lawsuits are actually bothered by.

There's a lot of blame Apple..but if the real issue is patents, Apple didn't create patents. If the real issue is civil courts and juries, Apple didn't create that either.

That's a pathetic dodge...

It is true that Apple did not invent the idea of patenting things and it's also true that some things warrant protection by law, but what Apple is doing is carpet bombing with these patents and the goal is to achieve ownership of ideas they did NOT invent and thereby deny them to the competition. This is very anti-competitive and must come to an end.

I think Apple has parlayed there reputation of coolness and have many MANY people, including patent clerks, starstruck.

But, as I mentioned to Cheezy, the number and percentage of folks complaining about Apples games is increasing. A year ago you could follow a news link on an Apple lawsuit and in the comments section you see a mix of comments for and against Apples tactics. But, if you look around today you see far fewer comments supporting Apple and far more against them.

If Apple keeps up with these games they will eventually run afoul of the DOJ and the patent office will begin to realize they are and have been played. But, even if this doesn't happen, the anger of the public will cut into there bottom line. Think about it, Apple has waged a nasty war to block there competition from being able to compete but not much has actually been blocked for very long ... meanwhile, Androids market share keeps growing and the percentage of the public that have had enough of there games keeps growing as well.


Brian

 

[dguy6789]

^ +1

 

[Tom]

That's a pathetic dodge...

It is true that Apple did not invent the idea of patenting things and it's also true that some things warrant protection by law, but what Apple is doing is carpet bombing with these patents and the goal is to achieve ownership of ideas they did NOT invent and thereby deny them to the competition. This is very anti-competitive and must come to an end.

I think Apple has parlayed there reputation of coolness and have many MANY people, including patent clerks, starstruck.

But, as I mentioned to Cheezy, the number and percentage of folks complaining about Apples games is increasing. A year ago you could follow a news link on an Apple lawsuit and in the comments section you see a mix of comments for and against Apples tactics. But, if you look around today you see far fewer comments supporting Apple and far more against them.

If Apple keeps up with these games they will eventually run afoul of the DOJ and the patent office will begin to realize they are and have been played. But, even if this doesn't happen, the anger of the public will cut into there bottom line. Think about it, Apple has waged a nasty war to block there competition from being able to compete but not much has actually been blocked for very long ... meanwhile, Androids market share keeps growing and the percentage of the public that have had enough of there games keeps growing as well.


Brian

Other than people I meet online I don't know a single human being that gives a tinker's damn how much Apple sues anyone, whether Android sells more than other smartphones, or most of the other nonsense we like to debate..

I don't care either. What I care about is America and our system of laws, so I object to throwing out the right of Apple, or anyone else, to work within our system to protect their rights; and to calls to dismantle our protections of intellectual property..particurlarly over such a ridiculous issue such as "fans" of a phone, which is pretty hard to take seriously.

 

[WelshBloke]

Other than people I meet online I don't know a single human being that gives a tinker's damn how much Apple sues anyone, whether Android sells more than other smartphones, or most of the other nonsense we like to debate...

How is that relevant? I've never met anyone IRL that cares if apple invented "slide to unlock" or the like, they just want it on their phone regardless of who made it.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Other than people I meet online I don't know a single human being that gives a tinker's damn how much Apple sues anyone, whether Android sells more than other smartphones, or most of the other nonsense we like to debate..

I don't care either. What I care about is America and our system of laws, so I object to throwing out the right of Apple, or anyone else, to work within our system to protect their rights; and to calls to dismantle our protections of intellectual property..particurlarly over such a ridiculous issue such as "fans" of a phone, which is pretty hard to take seriously.

For decades it was legal for one American to own another, but those laws were immoral and wrong and were eventually eliminated. Many of Apples patents will also eventually be stripped away but in the mean time they are immoral and wrong as well. The fact that they have the law on there side, for now, does not make it right -- how do you not see this...


Brian

 

[Mopetar]

The fact that they have the law on there side, for now, does not make it right -- how do you not see this...

Perhaps his morality is different than yours and he doesn't see it as wrong or doesn't care. That's why arguing about what's "right" outside of the law when discussing legal matters is pretty pointless unless you're looking to change the law. And as I've said before, every large company engages in basically this same behavior, so it's silly to expect that they'll act like saints based on your moral code. The only reason Apple gets so much attention around here is because the other side happens to be something that people around here like. Face it, if Apple were suing car manufacturers, there wouldn't even be a peep about them here.

And I think WelshBloke is pretty much spot on. Most people don't care about anything beyond the feature itself. That's why I honestly doubt this is going to have much if any impact on Apple's sales. If it were going to, it would have happened already, but given that their market share has continued to increase, I honestly can't put much stock in your assessment that they're somehow going to lose massive amounts of sales. I think that you're assuming that the general population subscribes to your morality and actually cares. Whether the first is actually true or not is irrelevant it's pretty apparent that most people don't care. Even having a discussion about this with the average person would probably put them off as much as if someone tried discussing Jersey Shore with me.

 

[Zink]

For decades it was legal for one American to own another, but those laws were immoral and wrong and were eventually eliminated. Many of Apples patents will also eventually be stripped away but in the mean time they are immoral and wrong as well. The fact that they have the law on there side, for now, does not make it right -- how do you not see this...
Brian

"Slavery is bad everyone, who's with me? Also I think Apple is bad so you guys should agree with me on that too." XD

I think this is the kind of issue where it is too easy to take sides. The patent system seems broken but there is no question that Apple was first to make a very popular smartphone and others copied.

 

[Tom]

For decades it was legal for one American to own another, but those laws were immoral and wrong and were eventually eliminated. Many of Apples patents will also eventually be stripped away but in the mean time they are immoral and wrong as well. The fact that they have the law on there side, for now, does not make it right -- how do you not see this...


Brian

I don't have anything to say to someone who thinks owning a person is in any way comparable to owning one's own creations.

 

[WelshBloke]

I don't have anything to say to someone who thinks owning a person is in any way comparable to owning one's own creations.

I don't think (at least I hope he wasn't) implying that. He was just pointing out that just because someone is within the law doesn't mean that what they are doing is right.

At the moment we have escaped any really drastic results. How would you feel about the whole patent issue if some patent troll manages to take Apples entire line of mobile devices off the shelf? How would that be good for the industry or the consumer?

 

[Brian Stirling]

I don't have anything to say to someone who thinks owning a person is in any way comparable to owning one's own creations.

One's own creations -- like rounded rectangles and the swipe -- please...

What Apple did from day one with the iPhone is "patent the hell out of it" but not so much the hardware like touch screens and the like, no, they figured if they patented how you use these devices you can eliminate competition. That's the deal, they want ownership of how you USE the devices.

So, you have a touch screen device with no mouse, how do you select text or move things on screen. Well the answer is easy and obvious ... you put your finger down and move it (swipe). This is what Apple wants to deny to others and the fools at the patent office have been beaten into submission with Apple filing and refiling and refiling again of the same patent applications.

Again, most of these patents will eventually be overturned but in the mean time Apple is abusing the system. The fact that Apple has been granted patents for things that should not be owned doesn't make it right even if it's legal. Slavery wasn't right even though it was legal for 87 years, and while it was legal there were folks that argued slavery was OK because it was legal...


Brian

 

[XenIneX]

Well, I think we've found the counterpart of Godwin's Law for relative morality of legislation...

 

[cheezy321]

Well, I think we've found the counterpart of Godwin's Law for relative morality of legislation...

This. Bravo sir.

 

[zsdersw]

I remember all kinds of criticism of Rambus on these forums when they were abusing the legal system... not so much now that Apple is doing the same.

I don't really care if they win some cases and lose others; a win doesn't mean they were right to sue and a loss doesn't mean they were wrong to sue.

 

[MrX8503]

So, you have a touch screen device with no mouse, how do you select text or move things on screen. Well the answer is easy and obvious ... you put your finger down and move it (swipe).

I thought a stylus was superior. 🙂

 

[deathBOB]

I don't really understand the astonishment here. The iPhone interface was worlds ahead of the competition when it came out, why shouldn't Apple be able to protect elements of that interface? It's not like the underlying technology wasn't there for its competitors to use, they just had no innovation with the UI, which is the most important part of any consumer product.

To Brian's point about selecting text: it's much more complicated than how you describe. I don't remember enough from my Evo, but I do not believe the implementation of text highlighting is identical between Android, iOS, and Windows Phone.

So now that we've had 10 pages of this thread, can anyone identify what patents Apple claims Samsung is violating? My quick google search turned up nothing.