"The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not. Capturing popular attention and leveraging inherent human desires is what garnered the devices and Apple so much fame and fortune, not the innovation or creativity."
Bullshit.
The iPhone may not be unique anymore, but when it was released, it was groundbreaking. It can be argued forever that Apple did not 'invent' multitouch [1, 2], didn't invent rounded rectangle, a grid of application icons ... etc. but they were the first ones to democratize it.
The iPhone was the first device to truly have 'thought through' how a touch-only device should work for a variety of tasks. There are lots of interesting projects that never move beyond research labs; I think Apple pushed the whole industry and research community forward with the iPhone.
To look at a product as a sum of its parts is often very very misleading. That's true for the iPhone. Of course other manufacturers had to start using similar technology, but that doesn't mean that they could or should copy interaction paradigms, design details (right down to the final retail packaging). AND most other manufacturers managed to use the same technology and NOT cross the line between inspiration and ripping-off. I cannot fathom how one can look at the Samsung products in question and not see that they were more than inspired.
"You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency."
Bullshit.
Simple is hard. Yes, that's an official Apple line, but anyone who's ever written a piece of code will attest to this fact. Removing cruft, making things cleaner, starting over ... is often the most difficult step. Apple clearly did the same with its products, it's clear from the prototypes it presented in court.
Also, there are umpteen examples of how things can be made simpler and better than what Apple offers. At a software level, WebOS does (did) a great job of figuring out multi-tasking on mobile devices, Android is fantastic with notifications and cross-app communication (intents).
Without getting into lawyer-esque conversations, just take a look at the Samsung products in question ... you should get what this case is about (for now, just focus on things that meet the eye ... literally)
[1] Flexible Machine Interface (Nimish Mehta , University of Toronto). Published in 1982.
[2] Fingerworks (1998). A company founded by Wayne Westerman and John Elias. I think Westerman went on to work for Apple.
For multi-touch history, check this out http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
Bullshit.
The iPhone may not be unique anymore, but when it was released, it was groundbreaking. It can be argued forever that Apple did not 'invent' multitouch [1, 2], didn't invent rounded rectangle, a grid of application icons ... etc. but they were the first ones to democratize it. The iPhone was the first device to truly have 'thought through' how a touch-only device should work for a variety of tasks. There are lots of interesting projects that never move beyond research labs; I think Apple pushed the whole industry and research community forward with the iPhone.
To look at a product as a sum of its parts is often very very misleading. That's true for the iPhone. Of course other manufacturers had to start using similar technology, but that doesn't mean that they could or should copy interaction paradigms, design details (right down to the final retail packaging). AND most other manufacturers managed to use the same technology and NOT cross the line between inspiration and ripping-off. I cannot fathom how one can look at the Samsung products in question and not see that they were more than inspired.
"You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency."
Bullshit.
Simple is hard. Yes, that's an official Apple line, but anyone who's ever written a piece of code will attest to this fact. Removing cruft, making things cleaner, starting over ... is often the most difficult step. Apple clearly did the same with its products, it's clear from the prototypes it presented in court. Also, there are umpteen examples of how things can be made simpler and better than what Apple offers. At a software level, WebOS does (did) a great job of figuring out multi-tasking on mobile devices, Android is fantastic with notifications and cross-app communication (intents).
Without getting into lawyer-esque conversations, just take a look at the Samsung products in question ... you should get what this case is about (for now, just focus on things that meet the eye ... literally)
[1] Flexible Machine Interface (Nimish Mehta , University of Toronto). Published in 1982. [2] Fingerworks (1998). A company founded by Wayne Westerman and John Elias. I think Westerman went on to work for Apple. For multi-touch history, check this out http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html