Galaxy Tab 10.1 Launch in Australia Delayed Again as Apple Objects to Design

[vrDrew]

As some have suggested, it seems possible that Apple doesn't expect to win any or all these cases. They just want to delay their competition as much as possible, and give themselves more time to work on their own updates.

I don't think that Apple really does expect to prevail on every infringement alleged in every court case.

At the end of the day the Patent System is all about "delay." Patents are supposed to give an inventor sufficient time to profit from his unique invention. Current US Patents have a lifetime of 20 years from the date of filing. Which - in the computer business - is several lifetimes. I'd imagine that the present economic value of most computer patents filed in 1991 was pretty minimal. So if Apple can keep Samsung on the legal hot-seat for a year or two, that plays to Apple's advantage. It means another fifty or a hundred million iPads in the hands of customers.

Is Apple "abusing" the legal system here? No, I don't think so. They came out with what are, unquestionably innovative and popular products with the iPhone and iPad. They patented, trademarked, copyrighted, and registered as much of them as they could. And Samsung copied them. (I don't understand why people are in such denial over this) Whether Samsung's copying rises to the level of legal IP infringement is something for the Courts to determine.

If Samsung doesn't want to be sued, then Samsung ought not to make such blatant copies of Apple products. It is certainly possible to do so. I'm quite sure that Windows Phone, or Windows Tablet will look quite different from Apple's products.

Lastly, I'm still wondering why so many people are such passionate supporters of Samsung. I am totally unaware of any actual innovative products ever produced by Samsung. They seem to be little more than a nasty conglomerate, whose growth has been funded through the profits they enjoy as a de facto monopoly in South Korea.

Samsung has a pretty poor reputation for looking out for computer owners: it has admitted to being part of cartels and conspiracies to fix the prices of everything from DRAM chips to LCD panels, and has paid hundreds of millions in fines and penalties.

Lastly, one little story to further illustrate what a sneaky, nasty, organization Samsung is:

In 1995 Samsung bought storied German firm Rollei, maker of the famous Rolleiflex camera. Samsung, however, thought it would be a good idea to "use their optic expertise" to start putting the Rollei name on a line of watches. Of course, there is a very well known Swiss watchmaker with a name that sounds very similar to Rollei. And they fought Samsung tooth and nail to keep their Rollei watches from being sold in Germany and Switzerland.

Samsung gave up the effort, and sold Rollei back to its management in 1999.

 

[KnightWRX]

And Samsung copied them. (I don't understand why people are in such denial over this)

Denial ? Because we don't share your opinion we are in denial ? It can be said that those that continue banging the "copying" argument are in denial that Samsung didn't really copy the Apple products, just made standard phones/tablets using standard UI guidelines.

Seriously, spreading your subjective opinion as an objective fact is a good way to harm your credibility.

Lastly, I'm still wondering why so many people are such passionate supporters of Samsung.

I'm wondering why so many people are such passionate haters of Samsung.

For one, I'm not a supporter of any corporation. I'm pro competition and fairness. To me, it seems Apple's complaint is over broad and harmful to the market. That is it. It could be against Samsung, LG, Motorola, Dell, Google heck even bloody Wal-mart I would still stick the same speech about it.

Why do we have to be bloody supporters siding with one side or the other all the time ? Why can't we just be casual objective observers ?

Your attempts at polarising this into a "With us or Against us" argument is another point that is harming your credibility and making your biases transparent. You are obviously on Apple's side, so anyone argument counter to you is a Samsung supporter. Maybe there's more to life than your little black and white philosophy here.

 

[Oletros]

And Samsung copied them. (I don't understand why people are in such denial over this) Whether Samsung's copying rises to the level of legal IP infringement is something for the Courts to determine.

So, even if Samsung wins all the processes, you still we convinced that they copied and they rip off Apple.

And after that afirmation, is the other people wich is in denial, right.

If Samsung doesn't want to be sued, then Samsung ought not to make such blatant copies of Apple products. It is certainly possible to do so. I'm quite sure that Windows Phone, or Windows Tablet will look quite different from Apple's products.

Yap Motorola XOOM

 

[Dude-]

It's not that they're not innovating. Their lawyers have to keep busy too. It's not like they can put their lawyers to work designing the next awesome gadget. They're good at lawsuits and copyright so that's what they do.

Image

Sorry if this has already been covered, but when I originally wrote and tried to post the network failed.

www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue160/156_Dauphin_DTR1.php
www.computercloset.org/DauphinDTR1.htm
t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGAofvStsMUuXgVXvPoWYeQ7fa2JleO6nzVKN36Q1XOBBvXFgLCam5Hg4

Apple has fallen into a trap, more latter.

Dude, these examples are not the best. It reminds me of my Dauphin DTR1 desktop replacement, does that mean that nobody should be allowed to make a shiny flat black box with rounded corners, or use a portable computer as a desktop replacement, no, of course not. I can go to electric parts stores and buy black housing boxes I could put a computer and a display into. Remember Newton, or the Amstrad PDA or Palm devices, and I think Psion might have had something. There are many different devices over the years with this style, gps units for one, media players, monitors and TV's and touch screen ones. The point is that there is nothing particularly unique even in style as that is the style that the form factor ultimately reduces too and Apple would need unique non functional frills or unique non reductionist or obvious functional extensions to differentiate from the ultimate style reduction, that should be the only thing protectable and that only under copyright. So ultimately it is difference from the ultimate reductions in unique ways again that should only apply. Unless it copies in a non reductionist or obvious way unique things in a fashion that the two items could be mistaken for one another flatly as the same or through trademark use from the same manufacture, with these uniqueness requirements there is no protection and case to answer, as the reductionist style is not unique but obvious and therefore not novel. I hope the court can use this testimony again. These registries tend to over give registration rights and then have an expectation of guilty until you prove yourself innocent by costly means and innocence to people that wrongly register until you prove them guilty by costly means. This means that there are broken registers of intellectural property around, in affect some maybe potentially doing acts criminal institutions normally might favor, like facilitating and reinforcing illegal intellectural property and applications against the public interest, and it would be good to see a legal challenge to at least some of them on that basis and Human Rights to a fair market.

The trap, well the Australian IP system is not broken as some others and has been more fair and logical. This case could easily be dismissed as has happened elsewhere on simple low cost technical decision making outside court. A strange place to test such a case, and maybe that is why Samsung seems eager to comply with it.

I indeed hope they do get whooped on obviouse grounds. Asian companies tend to have a different view, going as far as look a like and sound alike to sound trendy, but that does not mean that they are the same products. Some of this squinting to see similarities lawyers have been doing since the 80's has to be reigned in.

 

[AppleFan1984]

It's not that they're not innovating. Their lawyers have to keep busy too. It's not like they can put their lawyers to work designing the next awesome gadget. They're good at lawsuits and copyright so that's what they do.

Image

Welcome to 2006:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/

True, it's not a tablet computer, but it does have round corners, black border, and a thin form factor - the guts of Apple's design patent.

----------

The reward for innovating a unique and ground-breaking product should be that your competition doesn't get to clone your ideas with no investment of their own. If everyone wants to see companies like Apple continue to innovate, those companies need to enjoy the exclusivity of their ideas. That is the payoff and motivation for innovation.

Indeed, which is why Samsung has 17 claims against Apple for violating Samsung patents.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/aus...in-patent-battle/story-e6frgakx-1226124879223

----------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRH8eimU_20

I don't know much about this device, but Apple at least had a concept of a tablet device which used a true touchscreen circa late 1980's.

...inspired by Alan Kay's Dynabook in 1969:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook

 

[DeathChill]

I have a really hard time believing that people here aren't seeing the similarities between Samsung's mobile devices and Apple's. Look at the Samsung's Galaxy Ace and tell me that doesn't look familiar; look at the Galaxy Tab 10.1 before and after the iPad 2 launch. Hell, what about that Samsung remote that looked exactly like an iPhone 4? That's before we even get to any software similarities!

 

[AppleFan1984]

False.

Apple alleged that Samsung infringed on quite a number of their patents and Community Design Registrations. European courts ruled that some of Apple's claimed patents were invalid (the "swipe to lock" patent, for example) - but they agreed, at least as far as the preliminary injunction is concerned, that Samsung had infringed on enough of the remaining claims to order the Galaxy and half of Samsungs other smartphones banned.

Here's a convenient summary of the actual outcomes:

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/08/dutch-court-says-no-infringement-of-9-out-of-10-ip-rights/

9 out of 10 of Apple's allegations met with a judgment of non-infringement.

Details:

Phone/tablet war between Samsung and Apple: Dutch court denies design and copyright infringement claim
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98ea2c6f-876c-4080-89c9-133e1290e3dd

Samsung Wins In Dutch Court
Samsung Electronics shares rose early on Thursday after a Dutch court rejected most of the patent infringement claims by Apple
http://www.businessworld.in/businessworld/content/Samsung-Wins-Dutch-Court.html

Samsung gets boost from Dutch court
http://arabnews.com/economy/article493518.ece

Its roughly similar to a criminal case, where the prosecution alleges a whole range of crimes. The Judge dismissing the jaywalking and littering charges doesn't mean the defendant isn't guilty of murder.

A useful metaphor, if almost exactly backwards: in this case it's more like the judge understood the murder charges were junk so he focused on the jaywalking charge.

Note that the judge granted Samsung several weeks to make the minor software change needed to avoid enforcement of the injunction. No one expects delays for any Samsung product shipments in Europe over this.

That the judge allowed action on this one item was almost a token courtesy to Apple, to help it save face after the blistering dismissal of everything else the company alleged against Samsung.

While technically a win for Apple in the headlines of the American lay press, the international professional audience sees it for what it is.

 

[KnightWRX]

Look at the Samsung's Galaxy Ace and tell me that doesn't look familiar;

Yes, it looks awfully familiar... looks like another Samsung model that was released before it :

What else did you have in mind ?

 

[divinox]

I have a really hard time believing that people here aren't seeing the similarities between Samsung's mobile devices and Apple's. Look at the Samsung's Galaxy Ace and tell me that doesn't look familiar; look at the Galaxy Tab 10.1 before and after the iPad 2 launch. Hell, what about that Samsung remote that looked exactly like an iPhone 4? That's before we even get to any software similarities!

Which software similarity? Icons? In a grid*? You mean like the first touch-phone to ever come out**? Like every other phone capable to present icons that way? Or what? The use of green for the "phone" icon? Also like every other phone that ever felt the need to colorize it? What software similarities are we talking about here? Really?



* Which is not even the home-screen on a Samsung device, but merely a place to find your apps.

** back in 1992

 

[DeathChill]

Yes, it looks awfully familiar... looks like another Samsung model that was released before it :

What else did you have in mind ?

It's weird how familiar that looks, but I must be crazy because we all know the iPhone 4 is the first iPhone Apple has ever made.

Also, is Samsung the only Android manufacturer who puts that large mechanic button there? What does it do?

 

[KnightWRX]

It's weird how familiar that looks, but I must be crazy because we all know the iPhone 4 is the first iPhone Apple has ever made.

Wait, that looks like an iPhone 4 to you ? Where's the curved glass back ? The distinctly bare front panel (the iPhone has no branding nor capacitative buttons nor a square home button), where's the thinness ? The aluminum frame that doubles as an antenna ?

I think you're quite imagining things.

Also, is Samsung the only Android manufacturer who puts that large mechanic button there? What does it do?

The home button like every other Android device has (either mechanical or capacitative). They've been on Android since day 1 :

It's the little house on this prototype that pre-dates the iPhone. Are you saying Android copied the "home button" off the iPhone even though they had it before the iPhone was shown publicly now ?

*sigh*. Do we have to repeat all these facts every time ? And people wonder why some of us don't see the resemblances... Of course we don't, we actually know a thing or 2 of Apple's competition.

 

[divinox]

Wait, that looks like an iPhone 4 to you ? Where's the curved glass back ? The distinctly bare front panel (the iPhone has no branding nor capacitative buttons nor a square home button), where's the thinness ? The aluminum frame that doubles as an antenna ?

I think you're quite imagining things.



The home button like every other Android device has (either mechanical or capacitative). They've been on Android since day 1 :

It's the little house on this prototype that pre-dates the iPhone. Are you saying Android copied the "home button" off the iPhone even though they had it before the iPhone was shown publicly now ?

*sigh*. Do we have to repeat all these facts every time ? And people wonder why some of us don't see the resemblances... Of course we don't, we actually know a thing or 2 of Apple's competition.

Just thought of something funny. Weve all seen the rumors of the elongated home-button on the ip5. How the hell are Apple going to manage to file law suits against Samsung, if Samsung, in court, quite easily can provide evidence that Apple have in fact made their devices more "Samsung-like" by choice. Im starting to think that for this very reason we will not see an enlongated button for quite some time (at least not unless they also do major changes to the overall design).

I can really see someone going... "Oh, ****" at Apple HQ when they realized this.

(let the down-voting begin).

 

[vrDrew]

9 out of 10 of Apple's allegations met with a judgment of non-infringement.

So a little bit of stealing is OK by you? I'll have to remember that.

For Apple, the effect is the same: Most of Samsung's smartphones are still subject to the ban, and the Tab is kept out of Germany - Europe's biggest market.

As I noted earlier in this thread, Apple has a whole arsenal of Patent and Trademark claims. And deciding which to pursue, and in which Jurisdiction, is part of a very carefully orchestrated campaign.

One patent that Apple has is the so-called '381 Patent (7,469,381) - which covers "Scroll Back and Bounce" when navigating a document. It sounds sort of insignificant, but it is one of the biggest weapons in Apple's IP arsenal.

Basically, the "Spring Back and Bounce" effect lets the user know when he's come to the end of a list. There isn't really any way to duplicate the effect without violating the Patent without seriously harming the user experience. Some manufacturers let you know you are at the end of a list by making the frame "glow" - but it takes a fraction of second for your brain to process.

Apple has succesfully defended '381 in an earlier battle with Nokia. The US Patent office re-examined the claim, and re-affirmed its validity (Nokia settled out of court with Apple.) Its also worth noting that the "Spring Back and Bounce" effect isn't included with the version of Android that Google ships. Presumably because Google believes Apple's patent is unbreakable.

Its worth noting that Samsung and HTC, among others, chose to implement the "Spring Back and Bounce" effect in their products on their own.

Apple has made the '381 a centerpiece of its US Federal lawsuit against Samsung, and also included it in its Australian case. Most legal people covering the case believe that is why Samsung agreed to the ban. Samsung may very well be able to modify their software to avoid infringement, but the user experience is going to suffer as a result.

 

[divinox]

So a little bit of stealing is OK by you? I'll have to remember that.

For Apple, the effect is the same: Most of Samsung's smartphones are still subject to the ban, and the Tab is kept out of Germany - Europe's biggest market.

As I noted earlier in this thread, Apple has a whole arsenal of Patent and Trademark claims. And deciding which to pursue, and in which Jurisdiction, is part of a very carefully orchestrated campaign.

One patent that Apple has is the so-called '381 Patent (7,469,381) - which covers "Scroll Back and Bounce" when navigating a document. It sounds sort of insignificant, but it is one of the biggest weapons in Apple's IP arsenal.

Basically, the "Spring Back and Bounce" effect lets the user know when he's come to the end of a list. There isn't really any way to duplicate the effect without violating the Patent without seriously harming the user experience. Some manufacturers let you know you are at the end of a list by making the frame "glow" - but it takes a fraction of second for your brain to process.

Apple has succesfully defended '381 in an earlier battle with Nokia. The US Patent office re-examined the claim, and re-affirmed its validity (Nokia settled out of court with Apple.) Its also worth noting that the "Spring Back and Bounce" effect isn't included with the version of Android that Google ships. Presumably because Google believes Apple's patent is unbreakable.

Its worth noting that Samsung and HTC, among others, chose to implement the "Spring Back and Bounce" effect in their products on their own.

Apple has made the '381 a centerpiece of its US Federal lawsuit against Samsung, and also included it in its Australian case. Most legal people covering the case believe that is why Samsung agreed to the ban. Samsung may very well be able to modify their software to avoid infringement, but the user experience is going to suffer as a result.

Apple, in iOS5, will implement "swipe-to-(camera)roll". This is patented by MSFT. Why dont i see you posts like this directed towards Apple? Are you, or are you not, a supporter of a thieving company? :- )

Regarding the bold. Took me 1 minute to think of an alternative solution. Friction. Slowing down the scroll, anticipating the end of the list, should -- if i am correct (its not like i can be bothered to test this) -- be intuitive enough. An even easier option (an additional 5 seconds) would be to use colors (or gradients) or even leaving an empty row at the end.

That said, i dont think that the bounce-back should be patentable (only a specific implementation of achieving said effect; i.e. specific code*).

* which would then be covered by copyright, rather than patents.


P.S. I hereby claim exclusive rights to the use of the highly intuitive friction system. Ill consider selling it for a beer or two. Just give me a call! (If Apple calls, make that 2 billion beers).

 

[AppleFan1984]

So a little bit of stealing is OK by you? I'll have to remember that.

While you're at it you may also want to remember that stealing and patent infringement are different offenses. Stealing has not been found by the court, nor even alleged by Apple.

For Apple, the effect is the same: Most of Samsung's smartphones are still subject to the ban, and the Tab is kept out of Germany - Europe's biggest market.

You may want to review the Dutch court's ruling: it's not in effect right now, and won't go into effect for several weeks (Oct), giving Samsung plenty of time to address the issue long before any phones are actually held back from shipping.

As I noted earlier in this thread, Apple has a whole arsenal of Patent and Trademark claims. And deciding which to pursue, and in which Jurisdiction, is part of a very carefully orchestrated campaign.

True, and in a request for a preliminary injunction it's in the plaintiff's interest to pick the subset most likely to prevail. That's exactly what plaintiffs usually do, and most analysts agree that Apple gave this their best shot as well.

That Apple lost on all but one of these, and that the only one that survived has nothing to do with the device form factor, pretty much spells it out for the earnest reader.

Meanwhile, Samsung's allegations of 17 patent violations by Apple have yet to be tested in court.

It's almost too bad this whole thing will be settled long before the court date. Any wagers on who will pay more to whom? Will Apple wind up paying out like they did in their fight against Nokia?

One patent that Apple has is the so-called '381 Patent (7,469,381) - which covers "Scroll Back and Bounce" when navigating a document. It sounds sort of insignificant, but it is one of the biggest weapons in Apple's IP arsenal.

Indeed, it was the only one found to have any merit in this case.

Basically, the "Spring Back and Bounce" effect lets the user know when he's come to the end of a list. There isn't really any way to duplicate the effect without violating the Patent without seriously harming the user experience.

Why do you feel Mac OS has been delivering a "harmful" user experience all these years?

 

[KnightWRX]

So a little bit of stealing is OK by you? I'll have to remember that.

Patent infringement is not stealing. Also, you might not be aware of every patent out there. Samsung has said they will remove the offending functionality before the ban is in effect on the 3rd of October, making this whole point moot.

Equating infringement with stealing is a way to blur the conversation into emotionality. Apple have not been deprived of their property here, nothing was stolen.

 

[dethmaShine]

Just thought of something funny. Weve all seen the rumors of the elongated home-button on the ip5. How the hell are Apple going to manage to file law suits against Samsung, if Samsung, in court, quite easily can provide evidence that Apple have in fact made their devices more "Samsung-like" by choice. Im starting to think that for this very reason we will not see an enlongated button for quite some time (at least not unless they also do major changes to the overall design).

I can really see someone going... "Oh, ****" at Apple HQ when they realized this.

(let the down-voting begin).

Don't worry. You're fine here.

Samsung can sue for a rectangle button but Apple cannot sue samsung for copying the entire design, top to bottom. Just what I expected.

 

[Navdakilla]

Apple is trying to squash the competition
. . .

before they even become the competition haha

 

[vrDrew]

Apple, in iOS5, will implement "swipe-to-(camera)roll". This is patented by MSFT. Why dont i see you posts like this directed towards Apple? Are you, or are you not, a supporter of a thieving company?

Apple and Microsoft have extensive cross-licensing of each others mobile phone patents.

Its not stealing if you ask first and pay for it.

I realize that distinctions like this are probably beyond the typical Android Drone's limited comprehension. But I thought I'd toss it out there anyway.

 

[KnightWRX]

Its not stealing if you ask first and pay for it.

You mean like how Apple asked first and paid for the iPhone trademark license from Cisco in 2007 ?

I realize that distinctions like this are probably beyond the typical Android Drone's limited comprehension. But I thought I'd toss it out there anyway.

Who are you referring to here ? I don't see any Android drones as you put it.

 

[kdarling]

One patent that Apple has is the so-called '381 Patent (7,469,381) - which covers "Scroll Back and Bounce" when navigating a document. It sounds sort of insignificant, but it is one of the biggest weapons in Apple's IP arsenal.

I wouldn't say it's even close to being the "biggest". As an aside, an automated patent analysis tool has found possible holes in it.

Apple has succesfully defended '381 in an earlier battle with Nokia. The US Patent office re-examined the claim, and re-affirmed its validity (Nokia settled out of court with Apple.)

Apple settled with Nokia before the '381 patent could be tested in Delaware court.

When was this reaffirmation supposed to have happened? And how/why?

Edit: I have found that there were pending reexaminations for all the Apple v Nokia patents... requested by Nokia... but later Nokia asked for their request to be delayed. Still looking to see if a reexamination actually took place or not.

Thanks for any updated info!

 

[Oletros]

Samsung can sue for a rectangle button but Apple cannot sue samsung for copying the entire design, top to bottom. Just what I expected.

And this conclusion comes from ...

The ones glad seeing Samsung suing Apple for this is the same people is glad seeing Apple suing for design infractions

Its not stealing if you ask first and pay for it.

So, Apple stealed Voice Mail design and Nokia patents?
Apple stealed iPod interface?

 

[DeathChill]

Wait, that looks like an iPhone 4 to you ? Where's the curved glass back ? The distinctly bare front panel (the iPhone has no branding nor capacitative buttons nor a square home button), where's the thinness ? The aluminum frame that doubles as an antenna ?

I think you're quite imagining things.

I see that I went over your head. You said the current Ace looks like its predecessor so it couldn't possibly be a copy of the iPhone 4. I implied it looks like the 3GS/3G.

I quite enjoy your ridiculous attempts at discrediting how similar they look. Of course it's not an exact clone, Samsung isn't ludicrous.

The home button like every other Android device has (either mechanical or capacitative). They've been on Android since day 1 :

It's the little house on this prototype that pre-dates the iPhone. Are you saying Android copied the "home button" off the iPhone even though they had it before the iPhone was shown publicly now ?

*sigh*. Do we have to repeat all these facts every time ? And people wonder why some of us don't see the resemblances... Of course we don't, we actually know a thing or 2 of Apple's competition.

*sigh* Do we have to try and invent arguments? I asked if other Android device makers chose a home button that mimics the iPhone setup and the second was if that was an actual home button or it performed some other task. Why would stock Android stuff be relevant to Samsung's copying.

Apparently you're one of the few who doesn't believe Samsung is copying:
http://www.google.ca/m/search?sourc...i&q=samsung galaxy ace looks like iphone&sa=N

Divinox: Sorry, I'm at work on my phone but if you do a bit of Googling you can find the image comparing the TouchWiz app drawer to iOS' comparable home screen and see the very obvious similarities. Please don't bother with the icon grid argument as no one is trying to say that is an issue.

 

[vrDrew]

You mean like how Apple asked first and paid for the iPhone trademark license from Cisco in 2007

Apple tried, extensively, to purchase the "iPhone" trademark from Cisco prior to announcing the iPhone. Apple and Cisco also negotiated a settlement of before the iPhone went on sale. At the end of the day iPhone was worth a lot more to Apple than it was to Cisco: Win/Win.

I'm not sure what the point here is: Cisco, which owned a trademark, exercised its rights in precisely the same way as Apple is doing against Samsung - by suing. Thats what companies do when they have a complaint against a competitor.

But apparently when Apple is doing the suing, they become the bad guy. It is this absurd double-standard that is so tiresome.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple tried, extensively, to purchase the "iPhone" trademark from Cisco prior to announcing the iPhone. Apple and Cisco also negotiated a settlement of before the iPhone went on sale. At the end of the day iPhone was worth a lot more to Apple than it was to Cisco: Win/Win.

Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best. That is not how it went down :

http://www.pcworld.com/article/128499/whats_in_the_iphone_name_cisco_sues_apple.html

You're talking of when Apple vs Cisco trademarks part 2 came about, IE, over iOS, not iPhone.

----------

I see that I went over your head. You said the current Ace looks like its predecessor so it couldn't possibly be a copy of the iPhone 4. I implied it looks like the 3GS/3G.

Wait the ACE looks like a 3GS/3G now ? That's the first time I've even heard that. You're thinking of the Vibrant (which is another quite subjective manner, as I do not find the Vibrant and the 3GS/3G to be alike). Everyone and their dogs seem to be comparing the ACE to the iPhone 4.

Anyway, neither Samsung model looks like iPhone in my own opinion and it seems that of others here.

I quite enjoy your ridiculous attempts at discrediting how similar they look. Of course it's not an exact clone, Samsung isn't ludicrous.

So wait, it's not an exact clone but it's blatant copying ? I'm quite confused now.

*sigh* Do we have to try and invent arguments? I asked if other Android device makers chose a home button that mimics the iPhone setup and the second was if that was an actual home button or it performed some other task. Why would stock Android stuff be relevant to Samsung's copying.

It's relevant before you claim that Samsung stole the very concept of the home button from Apple. As for it's placement/shape/look, it doesn't look a thing like the iPhone button, except for being centered. All Android phones or close to all of them have it under the screen in portrait mode, so that's not novel on Samsung's part either.

Apparently you're one of the few who doesn't believe Samsung is copying

I don't believe the copying is as blatant as is being stated by the few who think Samsung is copying (we can both make "few" arguments if you wish to go there).