[rustynails77]

I love how you turn some people into "people" like it was all people. Remember the Palm os? No? Revionist history? Wasn't that before iPhone? What about Knight Ridder's iPad in the 90s? Doesn't ring a bell? Thought so. I also love how revisionist history of Android being a black-berry clone, then suddenly not is still propagated. When Google first took over Android, it's aim was to work on all platforms - to be open. That's still the aim... blackberry, or iPhone like - it doesn't matter. I feel it important that the tech community discusses the validity of patents, not -only- write letters to a congressman. Let the world discuss how broken and harmful they are. Also, I advise you to pick your examples a little better to blindly defend companies that you love. My love is first and foremost to society. I have no particular preference to Apple, Google, Android, Canonical, Microsoft - or whatever. But anything that harms society, I will take offense to. Before you shoot me down for being anti-Apple, I own no Samsung or Google/Android products, but I own an iPad3, iPhone4 and three iPod touches. However, I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition, and in effect, harm society.

[nessus42]

> I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition

Who has Apple sued that aren't blatantly copying the iOS UI? Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone? Are they suing HP over webOS? Are they suing Nokia over Symbian? Are they suing BlackBerry?

I don't see how permitting blatant copying of a company's UI is supposed to encourage innovation. If we want to encourage innovation, then we must encourage companies to innovate -- not copy.

[mullingitover]

> Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone?

The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.

It's interesting that Microsoft chose to purchase a license outright rather than work out a cross-licensing deal. It seems like MS did this to lay the groundwork for Apple to purse their competition in the Android space, since Apple could then go to court and say, "Look, even Microsoft paid for a license!"

[nessus42]

> The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.

I'd be willing to bet good money the the reason that Apple licensed iOS UI patents to Microsoft was to make Microsoft sign something saying that they wouldn't copy the iOS UI too closely, rather than for Apple to make a killing on licensing fees. Making a killing on licensing fees is Microsoft's approach, which they have used successfully against Android.

Apple took this same approach they're taking now back with Windows 1: They licensed Mac OS UI elements to Microsoft, but then ultimately sued Microsoft when Apple felt that Microsoft violated the terms of that license and made a UI that was too similar in look-and-feel to Mac OS.

If anything, this is evidence that Apple is not trying to squelch competition or innovation. They don't seem to mind competition at all, and will even license their technologies, as long as other companies aren't slavishly copying Apple's design.

[taligent]

I also love how "people" talk about Palm phones even though they've clearly never actually used or seen one. Because if you there is no way you would make a comparison between them and the iPhone. They are world's apart.

Also no offense but you might want to cut down on the hyperbole. Society is not going to be harmed by companies like Samsung having to find other ways to style their phone or design their UIs.

[smokeyj]

> They are world's apart .. you might want to cut down on the hyperbole.

Rustynails backed his comment with evidence and reasoning, while your reasoning is backed by.. hyperbole.

You seem like the type who would defend patents over for-loops because - Hey, it wasn't obvious to you. How about you come up with an objective test to determine if something is "obvious", and maybe the rest of us will take you seriously. Until then, please, lay more hyperbole on us.