Apple Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone

djphat2000 · Jul 2, 2012

kdarling said:
Nope, it's not a moot point.

When something is already used by others, even if you didn't know it, you cannot patent it.

That's what a prior art search is supposed to find.

So the next question is then, did anyone sue over it? Did anyone win or lose over said suit? Seriously, Steve Jobs could have drawn an iPad 20 years ago on a napkin and patented it before anyone ever thought to do so. And only started to use it recently. Or not, either way. I want to see proof, facts, actually cases that went in either direction.

Not fanboy or hater, but want to know actually what is the case.

----------

mjtomlin said:
Before Apple got into this market, Google made it clear that its primary reason for getting into this space was to make sure Microsoft didn't dominate the mobile market like it did with the desktop market. This was to ensure that Google had a fair playing ground to compete with Microsoft's mobile ad business. There were no restrictions in the mobile device category like there was placed on the desktop. Meaning Microsoft was free to only support its ad network in its mobile OS. If Microsoft became a dominant player in the mobile space, this would effectively lock Google out of what was becoming a very large market.

Google's Android was a clone of Blackberry/WinMo the two best selling mobile operating systems in the US. at the time. From Google's own files (released during the Oracle trial)...

http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/googles-first-android-phone-prototype-was-a-blackberry-lookalike/301732

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/google-phone-2006-first-android_n_1455345.html

And of course a prototype in the wild captured in late 2007...

http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild

Furthermore I'm not saying Google stole anything, but it is clear that they went back to the drawing board to create something that was more like the iPhone then what they initially intended on releasing. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the entire user interface and interaction was completely changed to attempt to resemble the way the iPhone worked.

After the release of the first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, it was painfully obvious this is exactly what they did. The touch interface was half-assed as if it had been bolted on; it wasn't responsive, it only worked in some parts of the OS and it didn't support multi-touch.

We're not talking about features here... We're talking about the feel of the device and the way it works- the overall experience. This is what Steve Jobs was upset about - You don't need a multi-touch based interface to have similar features. The fact is the iPhone was very unique in how you used it, the interface, the interaction. And I'm not talking about a grid of icons, I'm talking about redesigning the interface for finger based touch input. No other company had done that, they all relied on desktop controls; scroll bars, menus, etc. Apple had to re-imagine the touch interface and it was even more difficult because they supported multi-touch.

This is why copy and paste took so long. You couldn't simply click and drag... there is no clicking on a touch interface. If you put your finger down and dragged it, the interface panned or scrolled. On devices previous to the iPHone, in order to pan or scroll, you used scroll bars. So copy&paste were much easier and obvious to implement, because outside of the scrollbar was the content that could be selected/highlighted.

Enjoyed reading that.

Also the use of the stylus. Which was around for like a decade or so. Making the interface of say,... WM phone easier to use. Same for Palm and even back to the Newton. Your "finger" as a means of using the phone solely was pretty hard to do at the time given the GUI you had to work with, and even the touch screen itself. Not all of them were very good. Didn't give that responsiveness (or at least correctly all the time) we now enjoy. Some of them were just slow in its feedback.

Oletros · Jul 2, 2012

<a rel="nofollow" href="https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15169451" target="_blank">Originally Posted by kdarling</a> 
Nope, it's not a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot" target="_blank">moot</a> point. 
 
When something is already used by others, even if you didn't know it, you cannot patent it. 
 
That's what a prior art search is supposed to find.

Click to expand...

 
 
So the next question is then, did anyone sue over it? Did anyone win or lose over said suit? Seriously, Steve Jobs could have drawn an iPad 20 years ago on a napkin and patented it before anyone ever thought to do so. And only started to use it recently. Or not, either way. I want to see proof, facts, actually cases that went in either direction. 
 
Not fanboy or hater, but want to know actually what is the case. 
 
---------- 
 


<a rel="nofollow" href="https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15169761" target="_blank">Originally Posted by mjtomlin</a> 
Before Apple got into this market, Google made it clear that its primary reason for getting into this space was to make sure Microsoft didn't dominate the mobile market like it did with the desktop market. This was to ensure that Google had a fair playing ground to compete with Microsoft's mobile ad business. There were no restrictions in the mobile device category like there was placed on the desktop. Meaning Microsoft was free to only support its ad network in its mobile OS. If Microsoft became a dominant player in the mobile space, this would effectively lock Google out of what was becoming a very large market. 
 
Google's Android was a clone of Blackberry/WinMo the two best selling mobile operating systems in the US. at the time. From Google's own files (released during the Oracle trial)... 
 
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/googles-first-android-phone-prototype-was-a-blackberry-lookalike/301732" target="_blank">http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones...okalike/301732</a> 
 
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/google-phone-2006-first-android_n_1455345.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1455345.html</a> 
 
 
And of course a prototype in the wild captured in late 2007... 
 
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild" target="_blank">http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-and...pe-in-the-wild</a> 
 
 
Furthermore I'm not saying Google stole anything, but it is clear that they went back to the drawing board to create something that was more like the iPhone then what they initially intended on releasing. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the entire user interface and interaction was completely changed to attempt to resemble the way the iPhone worked. 
 
After the release of the first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, it was painfully obvious this is exactly what they did. The touch interface was half-assed as if it had been bolted on; it wasn't responsive, it only worked in some parts of the OS and it didn't support multi-touch. 
 
 
We're not talking about features here... We're talking about the feel of the device and the way it works- the overall experience. This is what Steve Jobs was upset about - You don't need a multi-touch based interface to have similar features. The fact is the iPhone was very unique in how you used it, the interface, the interaction. And I'm not talking about a grid of icons, I'm talking about redesigning the interface for finger based touch input. No other company had done that, they all relied on desktop controls; scroll bars, menus, etc. Apple had to re-imagine the touch interface and it was even more difficult because they supported multi-touch. 
 
This is why copy and paste took so long. You couldn't simply click and drag... there is no clicking on a touch interface. If you put your finger down and dragged it, the interface panned or scrolled. On devices previous to the iPHone, in order to pan or scroll, you used scroll bars. So copy&paste were much easier and obvious to implement, because outside of the scrollbar was the content that could be selected/highlighted.

Click to expand...

 
 
 
Enjoyed reading that.

I'm sure you liked, his wrong facts support your prejudices

coldmack · Jul 2, 2012

mjtomlin said:
There is only one example that may show that Apple was "inspired" by Android, and that's the notification center, but it was also improved upon by Apple.

I wish I could agree with that, but in usage that is not the case for me. I find it better on my Android tablet, than on my iPhone and iPad.

Twixt · Jul 2, 2012

djphat2000 said:
Forgive me, but that's an opinion. Assuming they can't keep up the pace (of which they created) thru fair competitive means. Not being a fan boy or hater in either direction here, but every company should have the ability to protect there work (patents) to the fullest extent of the law. Now if Apple is wrong on this. They lose there case, and life continues. If they are proven right, Samsung and or any other company in said violation will Cease and desist. And if they figure out a way to get around the injunction or fix the issue at hand, then swell. They go back to selling there products.

This case is needed in order to get past this point. If Apple is right, and they prevent Samsung from selling a product that infringes on theres. Good for them. Samsung and Google will have to figure out a better way to compete on whatever feature was in question. Maybe they find a better way of doing it, or the just drop the feature all together. But, that's how its supposed to work. Not a free for all were you and anyone else can copy anyone else and just get away with it.

I forgive you

Here is a what I added to complement my first post, it is somewhere, lost between page 20 and 30 of this lonnnng thread:

"
People reactions here are emotional in one way or another because we not all have same interest.
Apple employees or blindfolded fanboys applause. Samsung new converted are shocked.
There are some more categories including patriotic ppl, customers with conflicting interests, also some who do not get that monopoly or duopoly is not a good thing etc

I can understand Apple's approach as a professional, and I might appreciate for pro interest that Apple acts this way, meaning injunctions.

But as a customer I do not. When I buy any idevice I am fully aware that I am paying twice as much as I should because of nicely designed hardware helped by refined and effective marketing. And any incremental bit of competition will trigger incremental bit of innovation that will either bring new features or lower my next phone's price tag by lowering this apple premium. And apple tries hard to kill or delay this incremental bit.
Obviously my writing here reflects my customer point of view.
"

djphat2000 · Jul 2, 2012

Oletros said:
I'm sure you liked, his wrong facts support your prejudices

He presented information to backup his claims.
You are totally free to do the same to refute.

Bezetos · Jul 2, 2012

mjtomlin said:
Google's Android was a clone of Blackberry/WinMo the two best selling mobile operating systems in the US. at the time. From Google's own files (released during the Oracle trial)...

http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/googles-first-android-phone-prototype-was-a-blackberry-lookalike/301732

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/google-phone-2006-first-android_n_1455345.html

And of course a prototype in the wild captured in late 2007...

http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild

Those were initial concepts that don't prove anything. They only demonstrate that Google was working on a phone with a keyboard, similar to what Blackberry and other similar phones were offering.

Furthermore I'm not saying Google stole anything, but it is clear that they went back to the drawing board to create something that was more like the iPhone then what they initially intended on releasing.

It is not clear, it is pure speculation.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, the entire user interface and interaction was completely changed to attempt to resemble the way the iPhone worked.

Speculation. A post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

After the release of the first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, it was painfully obvious this is exactly what they did. The touch interface was half-assed as if it had been bolted on; it only worked in some parts of the OS and it didn't support multi-touch.

We're not talking about features here... We're talking about the feel of the device and the way it works- the overall experience. This is what Steve Jobs was upset about - You don't need a multi-touch based interface to have similar features.

"Look and feel" is a magic word used by Apple fans when asked to describe what was stolen and it means absolutely nothing.

The beta version of Android, on which Google has been working for years, has been released a couple months after the launch of iPhone. It wasn't very different from Android 1.0 used in T-Mobile G1.

Steve Jobs was upset because he was under the impression he invented everything and people are trying to exploit him. It's not a secret that he had a Jesus complex.

The fact is the iPhone was very unique in how you used it, the interface, the interaction. And I'm not talking about a grid of icons, I'm talking about redesigning the interface for finger based touch input. No other company had done that, they all relied on desktop controls; scroll bars, menus, etc. Apple had to re-imagine the touch interface and it was even more difficult because they supported multi-touch.

Most of the things that the iPhone had was seen on other devices. I didn't have scrollbars on my touch-enabled Nokia smartphone. One of the couple "new" things was pinch to zoom (which was already used in e.g. Microsoft PixelSense, DiamondTouch).
Please don't state things that are just false.

This is why copy and paste took so long. You couldn't simply click and drag... there is no clicking on a touch interface. If you put your finger down and dragged it, the interface panned or scrolled. On devices previous to the iPHone, in order to pan or scroll, you used scroll bars. So copy&paste were much easier and obvious to implement, because outside of the scrollbar was the content that could be selected/highlighted.

Uhm, and now you're trying to find a lame excuse why it took them so long to implement that functionality? Why? (Maybe because you're a devoted fan..) The current implementation of copy&paste has been suggested a year before it was implemented by some iPhone users. Copy & paste was also implemented on Android before iOS.

You simply give Apple to much credit and you glorify their work. You're doing exactly what their marketing strategies wanted to achieve.

And I still haven't heard from anyone what was stolen from iPhone except the "look & feel", which is extremely vague to say the least.

Oletros · Jul 2, 2012

djphat2000 said:
He presented information to backup his claims.
You are totally free to do the same to refute.

No, he has presented his opinion, not facts.

It is curious that you claim that anything "against" your views has to be proven in courts, it is opinion and anything "backing" what you think is a fact written in stone

Bezetos · Jul 2, 2012

mjtomlin said:
We're not talking about features here... We're talking about the feel of the device and the way it works- the overall experience. This is what Steve Jobs was upset about - You don't need a multi-touch based interface to have similar features. The fact is the iPhone was very unique in how you used it, the interface, the interaction. And I'm not talking about a grid of icons, I'm talking about redesigning the interface for finger based touch input. No other company had done that, they all relied on desktop controls; scroll bars, menus, etc. Apple had to re-imagine the touch interface and it was even more difficult because they supported multi-touch.

Just to add to my previous comment, here's what Bill Buxton has to say:

Multi-touch technologies have a long history. To put it in perspective, my group at the University of Toronto was working on multi-touch in 1984 (Lee, Buxton & Smith, 1985), the same year that the first Macintosh computer was released, and we were not the first. Furthermore, during the development of the iPhone, Apple was very much aware of the history of multi-touch, dating at least back to 1982, and the use of the pinch gesture, dating back to 1983. This is clearly demonstrated by the bibliography of the PhD thesis of Wayne Westerman, co-founder of FingerWorks, a company that Apple acquired early in 2005, and now an Apple employee:

Westerman, Wayne (1999). Hand Tracking,Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface. U of Delaware PhD Dissertation: http://www.ee.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf

In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one's homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation."

Rocketman · Jul 2, 2012

Oletros said:
No, he has presented his opinion, not facts.

It is curious that you claim that anything "against" your views has to be proven in courts, it is opinion and anything "backing" what you think is a fact written in stone

That is merely a characterization. One might even say misrepresented or overstated opinion.

kinderdm · Jul 2, 2012

Right or not, I don't care. I am so tired of these companies trying to sue everyone rather than licensing the tech. It just stifles innovation and competition so Ive decided to vote with my wallet. I have had the iphone for 4 years now but no more. If apple wants to be a patent troll then I will avoid them like other patent trolls. I hope others will follow suit and vote with their wallets. if you want my money then make a better product. If its your tech that you made and didn't just buy then you should know how to do more with it that anyone else that could possibly steal it or license it. My personal request of any company for which I am a customer. "Spend on innovation, not litigation."

Oletros · Jul 2, 2012

mjtomlin said:
Google's Android was a clone of Blackberry/WinMo the two best selling mobile operating systems in the US. at the time. From Google's own files (released during the Oracle trial)...

And of course a prototype in the wild captured in late 2007...

Still forgetting the touch only prototypes

mjtomlin said:
Furthermore I'm not saying Google stole anything, but it is clear that they went back to the drawing board to create something that was more like the iPhone then what they initially intended on releasing. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the entire user interface and interaction was completely changed to attempt to resemble the way the iPhone worked.

Do you have anything to back this change?

mjtomlin said:
After the release of the first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, it was painfully obvious this is exactly what they did. The touch interface was half-assed as if it had been bolted on; it only worked in some parts of the OS and it didn't support multi-touch.

The touch interface was not half assess, it worked in ALL the interface. Do you have anything to back your claims? Where didn't worked?

mjtomlin said:
We're not talking about features here... We're talking about the feel of the device and the way it works- the overall experience.

Yes, because you can't point any single thing, you always talk about the whole experience and such nonsens

mjtomlin said:
This is what Steve Jobs was upset about - You don't need a multi-touch based interface to have similar features.

Steve Jobs was upset in 2.010, way after Android was presented. he was upset when HTC gave multitouch to the Nexus One.

mjtomlin said:
I'm talking about redesigning the interface for finger based touch input. No other company had done that, they all relied on desktop controls; scroll bars, menus, etc. Apple had to re-imagine the touch interface and it was even more difficult because they supported multi-touch.

LG with their Prada did before, it was touch only and didn't have scroll bars or menus

There were some mockups of pinch and zoom and other multitouch gestures in other prototypes

mjtomlin said:
This is why copy and paste took so long. You couldn't simply click and drag... there is no clicking on a touch interface.
If you put your finger down and dragged it, the interface panned or scrolled. On devices previous to the iPHone, in order to pan or scroll, you used scroll bars. So copy&paste were much easier and obvious to implement, because outside of the scrollbar was the content that could be selected/highlighted.

And then, how is that Android had copy and paste before the iPhone and how some people did mockups of iPhone copy and paste way before Apple?

djphat2000 · Jul 2, 2012

Oletros said:
No, he has presented his opinion, not facts.

It is curious that you claim that anything "against" your views has to be proven in courts, it is opinion and anything "backing" what you think is a fact written in stone

So those articles are "opinions"? Fine, what refutes that then?
I've only stated the same thing over and over again. Show me what a court has determined the outcome of any of these patent lawsuits to be. Not opinions on whether or not its frivolous or wrong for them to ever have gotten the patent. As we don't get to make that choice anyways. Plain and simple. If you have something other then opinion to add to this that proves one way or another (not assuming I'm only in Apple's court here, but to "know" the actual factual real deal, not mumbo jumbo I "think" argument for or against).

Again, that person pointed to something to read about this. If you think or know its false, show something to support against it. The Gizmodo article in particular you said is false. That it was a WM-clone not RIM. Fine, where did you get that info? And even so, both cases were BEFORE Google bought the company. After which, they changed it to what we all got to see in the G1. While this was happening someone from Google was on Apples Board. That said someone is not there currently....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124930285423801287.html

There business were starting to overlap. Google moving in on Apples current business. They had to split. iPhone before Google phone. Google had no mobile OS before they purchased one. They changed it (it was supposed to be a clone of some other mobile phone OS).., to that of what "We claim, and Apple in some cases here..." ends up being a copy of the iPhone. Look and feel, exact features aside. We don't get to make the claims for or against. But, a court does.

Do you know of any patents that Google has of which Apple has clearly violated? Or do you just say Google had it first, so they must own it? Same would hold true for Apple. Did they make something before Google, or copied it? Did Google patent the idea or did Apple? I'm looking for facts. I think your looking to prove Apple wrong on this. Which is fine, so long as its factually based. As it pertains to this case of Apple vs Samsung. Apple is winning this round. Could change, may change, may not.

Oletros · Jul 2, 2012

djphat2000 said:
Show me what a court has determined the outcome of any of these patent lawsuits to be. Not opinions on whether or not its frivolous or wrong for them to ever have gotten the patent. As we don't get to make that choice anyways. Plain and simple. If you have something other then opinion to add to this that proves one way or another (not assuming I'm only in Apple's court here, but to "know" the actual factual real deal, not mumbo jumbo I "think" argument for or against).

I'm not the one claiming that Google and Android has ripped off iPhone. YOU are the one that has to provide those proofs, not me.

djphat2000 said:
There business were starting to overlap. Google moving in on Apples current business. They had to split. iPhone before Google phone. Google had no mobile OS before they purchased one.

Ho can be that Google moved to Apple business when Google bought Android way before nobody knew that Apple was doing a mobile phone?

djphat2000 said:
They changed it (it was supposed to be a clone of some other mobile phone OS).., to that of what "We claim, and Apple in some cases here..." ends up being a copy of the iPhone. Look and feel, exact features aside. We don't get to make the claims for or against. But, a court does.

Again, you're the one claiming that it copied and ripped off. Any proof? Because if you don't have none, why you still claim that?

Ah, and please, can you pint where I have said that Android was a clone of WM or BB?

djphat2000 said:
Do you know of any patents that Google has of which Apple has clearly violated? Or do you just say Google had it first, so they must own it? Same would hold true for Apple. Did they make something before Google, or copied it? Did Google patent the idea or did Apple? I'm looking for facts. I think your looking to prove Apple wrong on this. Which is fine, so long as its factually based. As it pertains to this case of Apple vs Samsung. Apple is winning this round. Could change, may change, may not.

Can you point where I said nothing about Apple infringing patents? Please, point me where I said that

It seems that you read what you want to read, not what it is written.

Still, so many pages and you haven't pointed anything concrete about what Google has copied. And please, don't say courts and blah, blah, blah, if you don't have any example, say that.

Seiga · Jul 2, 2012

Why is Apple so afraid of Google honestly?!?!?!? "If we can't win, we sue!" That should be Apple's slogan.

aristotle · Jul 2, 2012

coldmack said:
The iPhone UI wasn't that big of a departure seeing as the the old Apple Newton and Palm OS, which also was more button and dialog based menu system. So......

Right, and the Apple Newton was an Apple product and some of the people who founded Handspring worked on the Newton project. So it all comes back to Apple doesn't it?

babyj · Jul 2, 2012

kinderdm said:
Right or not, I don't care. I am so tired of these companies trying to sue everyone rather than licensing the tech. It just stifles innovation and competition so Ive decided to vote with my wallet. I have had the iphone for 4 years now but no more. If apple wants to be a patent troll then I will avoid them like other patent trolls. I hope others will follow suit and vote with their wallets. if you want my money then make a better product. If its your tech that you made and didn't just buy then you should know how to do more with it that anyone else that could possibly steal it or license it. My personal request of any company for which I am a customer. "Spend on innovation, not litigation."

So which mobile will you buy?

You can't go for anything running Android or Windows (as Google and Microsoft have both sued over and enforced patents), nor anything from Samsung as they've done the same.

Guess that leaves you with Blackberry?

Kurwenal · Jul 2, 2012

Seiga said:
Why is Apple so afraid of Google honestly?!?!?!? "If we can't win, we sue!" That should be Apple's slogan.

I have a different suggestion for Apple's slogan: "We raised our cash reserves from $9B in 2005 to $100B in 2012 but some think we 'can't win.'"

coldmack · Jul 2, 2012

aristotle said:
Right, and the Apple Newton was an Apple product and some of the people who founded Handspring worked on the Newton project. So it all comes back to Apple doesn't it?

Ah didn't know that, bit. However, Handspring was for the most part ex-Palm OS execs and developers who were unhappy at Palm. So, I am sure some of the Newton people brought ideas to Handspring, but it was pretty much using a stock Palm OS.

----------

babyj said:
So which mobile will you buy?

You can't go for anything running Android or Windows (as Google and Microsoft have both sued over and enforced patents), nor anything from Samsung as they've done the same.

Guess that leaves you with Blackberry?

Or some Symbian based OS, if they don't mind some old-school goodness.

kdarling · Jul 2, 2012

aristotle said:
Right, and the Apple Newton was an Apple product and some of the people who founded Handspring worked on the Newton project. So it all comes back to Apple doesn't it?

If you're looking for origins, the founder of the Newton project originally came from HP.

(Steve Sakoman also worked at Silicon Graphics, PalmSource, and founded Be Inc.)

Like I keep saying, it's people who invent things, not companies... and often the same people have been involved in many famous creations.

studio¹³¹ · Jul 2, 2012

a coworker went to the google event and came back with one of these today (amongst 3 other devices), the screen, weight, size of it was pretty impressive -- kinda bums me out the iPhone sees the same design year after year...

Seiga · Jul 2, 2012

Kurwenal said:
I have a different suggestion for Apple's slogan: "We raised our cash reserves from $9B in 2005 to $100B in 2012 but some think we 'can't win.'"

Or perhaps "We hate competition and promote Monopolization". Yeah, that sounds better.

aristotle · Jul 2, 2012

coldmack said:
Ah didn't know that, bit. However, Handspring was for the most part ex-Palm OS execs and developers who were unhappy at Palm. So, I am sure some of the Newton people brought ideas to Handspring, but it was pretty much using a stock Palm OS.

----------

Or some Symbian based OS, if they don't mind some old-school goodness.

The initial release of Palm OS was in 1996 see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_OS
The Apple Newton OS dates from 1993 see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_OS

The Newton predates Palm by over three years. So like I said, some of the newton folks ended up at Palm/Handspring. Newton finally was shelved in 1997 but some of the people at Apple obviously saw the writing on the wall and jumped ship over to Palm.

Apple pioneered the touchscreen PDA almost 20 years ago. They pioneered the rows of icons on a PDA. Whenever I see people bring up Palm as prior art to the iPhone I laugh because the newton predated Palm.

Judas1 · Jul 2, 2012

Maybe I'm smarter than the average joe, but I could have thought of slide to unlock. Think about it. How many ways are there to use a touch screen to unlock so that it doesn't accidentally unlock? Three, maybe four, one of which is a sliding motion, because you can accidentally tab, but not slide. And wow, so innovative of Apple to be the only one to realize that when people get sent a text with an email address, it'll be convenient for people to be able to click the text to email. Nobody but Apple engineers are smart enough to think of this. And definitely, nobody but Apple programmers can write the codes because it it needs maybe a few dozen lines of codes. Ohs nos! Too hard!

devilstrider · Jul 2, 2012

Just sold my iPhone 4 and picked up a Galaxy Nexus. Damn good phone I must say.

devilstrider · Jul 2, 2012

Judas1 said:
Maybe I'm smarter than the average joe, but I could have thought of slide to unlock. Think about it. How many ways are there to use a touch screen to unlock so that it doesn't accidentally unlock? Three, maybe four, one of which is a sliding motion, because you can accidentally tab, but not slide. And wow, so innovative of Apple to be the only one to realize that when people get sent a text with an email address, it'll be convenient for people to be able to click the text to email. Nobody but Apple engineers are smart enough to think of this. And definitely, nobody but Apple programmers can write the codes because it it needs maybe a few dozen lines of codes. Ohs nos! Too hard!

Lol I did all that on my old windows mobile phone before the iPhone was in existence.

Apple Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone

macrumors 65816

macrumors 603

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 603

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 603

macrumors newbie

macrumors 603

macrumors 65816

macrumors 603

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

Contributor

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

Our Staff