[mjankowski]

I had 'slide to unlock' phone a year before iphone... what a moron would go to court about such a triviality? isn't it all because apple guys have tiny weenies and seek to compensate for it in the court so that someone would say they are cool and 'innovative'?

[gutnor]

> apple guys have tiny weenies

When there is an article about Apple vs Samsung, the quality of HN really degrades...

Seriously, now, can't people look back. Soon after the iPhone, Samsung created a phone that looked quite close in presentation. That was a cheap move by Samsung, most likely not illegal.

Anyway, that pissed Apple, probably because they were quite close partner at the time, and they went against Samsung with everything they got, including the trivial. That's how it is done, nothing specific to this case. Of course, that's puzzling that some of the weaker claim managed to stick for so long, but then again, that has been the subject of many many articles.

That's it. If Joe Average didn't have a phone in his pocket, qualifying him as a legal expert, there would never have been the sort of media circus we are seeing and both companies would have calmed down.

This whole affair is like the poster child of a storm in teapot.

[mjankowski]

I consider patent wars a storm in a teapot... cheap moves to abuse the patent and legal system in order to inflict maximum damage to comepetition. I think anyone who had a chance to use android and ios would say they are different... again - why are they suing samsung? samsung is using android... because every phone that is not apple's is either android, wm or a feature phone. So what was samsung's fault exactly that it got sued? "we will sue you, because we can"? That was a rhetorical question...