"orthogonal frequency division multiplexing" is an egregious offense by Apple and they should be punished by the fullest extent of the law.
You do not mess around with "orthogonal frequency division multiplexing".
Everyone thinks they can use "orthogonal frequency division multiplexing" and not pay HTC, and clearly that is not the case. "orthogonal frequency division multiplexing" means HTC in Spanish. So it is in their freaking name.
Come on Apple.
While you're trying to be funny, a patent for a specific technology certainly has more merit than the generic "look and feel", rounded corners and icons on a display "when the device is powered on" trade dress registration Apple tries to pull. Doesn't change just because YOU don't understand what it means.
I completely agree with the whole "patent lawsuits stifle innovation", until I saw a Samsung phone and an LG phone the other day the look almost identical to the iphone 3 in form factor. A coworker with the iphone and the guy who owns the samsung swapped phones and had to dial their own numbers later on to get their phones back.
In my eyes, SOME of these patent lawsuits combat the lack of innovation rather.
It has gone out of hand though...
LOL, I don't believe you for a second, you mean your colleges missed the big Samsung logo on one of the phones and didn't notice the difference in size until much later?
Its smacks desperation.
"Notification looks and behaves" isn't the same as pixel for pixel.
OTA updates just fits in with the iCloud route they are going. Makes sense. I'm sure they didn't look at android and think "thats a good idea".
People criticize apple a lot and its users but if that site represents Android and their users i feel really embarrassed for them.
Are you forgetting that it's Apple who sues others over "look and feel" nonsense?
So when others "copy" from Apple all it takes is that it's superficially influenced for them to be guilty of infringement but when Apple "copies" it doesn't count unless it's pixel for pixel identical?
What are you talking about fella?
The iPhone was a game changer in the phone industry, if you don't accept that then, OK that's your right to have an opinion.
When I say "smartphone" I mean a smartphone as we know them today not one that was just called a smart phone before the iPhone came along.
At that time, did all these other so called smartphones that you mention have large touch screens and a beautiful operating system that's a pleasure to use, not to mention movement and proximity sensors, a mute switch that you don't need to switch the screen on to use and a built in iPod? No I didn't think so.
OK so the original product didn't have MMS but it did have a proper web browser and proper email what did the others have that made them smart?
I think you need to have a think about what came before and what there is out there now. Maybe Apple didn't "invent" the smartphone but they sure as hell re-invented it and now everyone else is copying them wholesale.
Sure, you can cherry pick your own favourite features and use it to create your own definition of a smart phone, but it doesn't change the real definition. Sensors, mute switch, built in music player? When did this define a smart phone? Plus, yes, I'm pretty sure ALL of them had some kind of built in media player.
How about I cherry pick some feature from an Android phone that doesn't exist on the iPhone, does that mean I can say that the iPhone is not a smart phone as we now them TODAY?
Smart phones before iPhone: some were just large touch screens, some had full qwerty keyboards, just like todays smart phones.
They all had an operating system that allowed installing of apps and 3G had certainly by 2007 become a defining feature of a smart phone, the first iPhone had neither of those.
They all had browsers and unlike the first iPhone you actually had use for it since they had a decent 3G connection. With 2G you don't even want to browse anything but WAP pages so the fully HTML capable browser of iPhone 1 was pretty useless.
