Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Horatius

The point is, once again, "a multi-touch gesture" didn't get a patent.

That's what I'm on about.

So Apple didn't get a patent about a multi-touch gesture that involves using two figures to scroll with in a frame or whatever? If that is not the case, fine. I had assumed it was because Avalon was talking about it earlier.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

So Apple didn't get a patent about a multi-touch gesture that involves using two figures to scroll with in a frame or whatever? If that is not the case, fine. I had assumed it was because Avalon was talking about it earlier.

Well, at least you're getting closer. Add a few more limiting clauses, and you'll be approaching what Apple actually patented.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Oh, yes, of course, sure, except...that's not what he was talking about:

And they clearly didn't copy anything "exactly" hardware wise. They also clearly didn't copy the software overall "exactly". And they didn't copy parts of the software "exactly" unless they had the code.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

How exactly would Samsung engineers copy what Apple did "exactly" without the code?

They could look at the product, think it had good ideas and try to implement them in their own ways. Assuming they "copied" the iPhone that is exactly what they did. And I fail to see the problem. This is how technology progresses. In other industries, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

I tell you now that if you gave me an iPhone 5 and a budget, I could, without having one line of the source code, give you a clone so close that many people would be fooled, and have it in quantity delivery by February.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, at least you're getting closer. Add a few more limiting clauses, and you'll be approaching what Apple actually patented.

So I was right. They did patents a multi-touch gesture. Which I just described although not in detail. If not, feel free to explain.

I don't think such a thing should be patentable.

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You do not need the source code.

You do not need the hardware design.

You can do all this from a black box inspection of a prototype or retail item.

As Apple well knows.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I tell you now that if you gave me an iPhone 5 and a budget, I could, without having one line of the source code, give you a clone so close that many people would be fooled, and have it in quantity delivery by February.

And if you did, it would not be an "exact" copy software wise. Hardware wise, yeah, you could maybe swing that.

Of course, Samsung phones don't look at all like they are "exact" copies of the iPhone.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

How exactly would Samsung engineers copy what Apple did "exactly" without the code?

They could look at the product, think it had good ideas and try to implement them in their own ways. Assuming they "copied" the iPhone that is exactly what they did. And I fail to see the problem. This is how technology progresses. In other industries, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

See, this is why you need to understand the different types of intellectual property, and what they cover, and do not cover, particularly when it comes to computer-implemented inventions.

The patent covers the basic idea they had - using a particular type of gesture to manipulate a particular type of data laid out in a particular way. Copyright would cover the code they wrote to implement that method in software.

Sure, you could probably come up many different ways to program that described functionality - anyone who's ever taken a programming course knows different people come up with some very different coding to solve the same problem.

But that's why the computer industry wasn't happy with only having copyright protection - which was all they had for a long time. They wanted patent protection, because they were seeing people copying their ideas, not just their source code.

Should I have been allowed to market a perfect clone of Pac-Man 6 months after Pac-Man took the world by storm, without paying them any royalties, just because I programmed the source code all by myself?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Wangler

As Apple well knows.

But when Apple does it it's called "innovation".

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Should I have been allowed to market a perfect clone of Pac-Man 6 months after Pac-Man took the world by storm, without paying them any royalties, just because I programmed the source code all by myself?

By Apple's reasoning no one else should be able to make a video game where one thing eats another thing.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

And if you did, it would not be an "exact" copy software wise. Hardware wise, yeah, you could maybe swing that.

Of course, Samsung phones don't look at all like they are "exact" copies of the iPhone.

They just need to look and work alike.

The design I refer to is not the code, and is not the hardware. Those are embodiments of the design. You can embody a design in a lot of different ways, and the way you choose is usually determined by the tension between performance and cheapness.

The design is the way the device interacts with the user, and how it makes itself controllable by the user and how it presents data to the user and how it deals with the results of that interaction.

This is how you touch it. How it reacts. It's shape. It's weight. And the unexpected things it does for example realizing that the numbers in an email are in the format of a telephone number, and making that touchable to dial the number.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

So I was right. They did patents a multi-touch gesture. Which I just described although not in detail. If not, feel free to explain.

I don't think such a thing should be patentable.

Earlier in the thread I linked to a thread where we've discussed this exact issue before. In that thread, read this post of mine:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...38#post7490338


You say, "Which I just described although not in detail". The point is, you have to describe the details. Every detail had legal weight, and acts to limit the scope of the patent protection.

Here's a breakdown of the main independent claim of that patent.

Quote:

Claim 1 of the Apple patent
A method, comprising:

1) at a portable multifunction device

2)with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display;

3)displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display,

4)wherein the portion of web page content includes:

4a)a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and

4b)other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content;

5)detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display;

6)in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display,

6a)wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page;

7)detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and

7a)in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.

This is a very limited patent. Anyone making a competing smart phone who can't figure out how to not include this functionality isn't smart enough to be making smart phones in the first place.

Seriously - this is one particular type of gesture, used in one particular way, on one particular type of data, with the data displayed in one particular arrangement. It does absolutely nothing to stop other companies from using the same gesture to control different functionality, or using different gestures to control the same functionality. Heck, it doesn't even stop you from using the same gesture, to implement the same functionality, but apply it to a different kind of data (although that last one will admittedly still get you sued, just probably not successfully).

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Horatius

See, this is why you need to understand the different types of intellectual property, and what they cover, and do not cover, particularly when it comes to computer-implemented inventions.

The patent covers the basic idea they had - using a particular type of gesture to manipulate a particular type of data laid out in a particular way. Copyright would cover the code they wrote to implement that method in software.

Sure, you could probably come up many different ways to program that described functionality - anyone who's ever taken a programming course knows different people come up with some very different coding to solve the same problem.

But that's why the computer industry wasn't happy with only having copyright protection - which was all they had for a long time. They wanted patent protection, because they were seeing people copying their ideas, not just their source code.

I think I understand fine. I just don't think an idea like a multi-touch gesture should be patentable. In other industries, basic ideas like that do no get patents, just their specific implementations. I am not a patent expert so maybe I am wrong about that, if so please explain.

Quote:

Should I have been allowed to market a perfect clone of Pac-Man 6 months after Pac-Man took the world by storm, without paying them any royalties, just because I programmed the source code all by myself?

No.

But Samsung phones are not perfect clones of the iPhone. Not even close.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by WildCat

By Apple's reasoning no one else should be able to make a video game where one thing eats another thing.

...in a maze, while being chased by ghosts, looking like a pie with a piece missing, and making "waka waka waka" sounds.

But then, I've given up hope that you'll ever understand that.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Earlier in the thread I linked to a thread where we've discussed this exact issue before. In that thread, read this post of mine:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...38#post7490338


You say, "Which I just described although not in detail". The point is, you have to describe the details. Every detail had legal weight, and acts to limit the scope of the patent protection.

Here's a breakdown of the main independent claim of that patent.





This is a very limited patent. Anyone making a competing smart phone who can't figure out how to not include this functionality isn't smart enough to be making smart phones in the first place.

Seriously - this is one particular type of gesture, used in one particular way, on one particular type of data, with the data displayed in one particular arrangement. It does absolutely nothing to stop other companies from using the same gesture to control different functionality, or using different gestures to control the same functionality. Heck, it doesn't even stop you from using the same gesture, to implement the same functionality, but apply it to a different kind of data (although that last one will admittedly still get you sued, just probably not successfully).

OK. I don't think that Apple be able to be the only ones to use that idea. It is not worthy of a patent.

They did get the patent though. And maybe Samsung infringed. I doubt very much that Apple suffered any actual damages (that people bought Samsung phones instead of iPhones because of this). So they should get a token reward of $1.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

OK. I don't think that Apple be able to be the only ones to use that idea. It is not worthy of a patent.

Okay, now you just have to explain why you think that, and then convince either the courts or the legislature to agree with you.

But just make sure the changes to patent law you end up promoting don't screw over anyone you do think deserves a patent.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

They just need to look and work alike.

The design I refer to is not the code, and is not the hardware. Those are embodiments of the design. You can embody a design in a lot of different ways, and the way you choose is usually determined by the tension between performance and cheapness.

The design is the way the device interacts with the user, and how it makes itself controllable by the user and how it presents data to the user and how it deals with the results of that interaction.

This is how you touch it. How it reacts. It's shape. It's weight. And the unexpected things it does for example realizing that the numbers in an email are in the format of a telephone number, and making that touchable to dial the number.

Of course, Samsung phones are not only different than iPhones, they are better.

Yeah, they probably looked at the iPhone and took ideas from it. So what. So does everybody else. Android had pull down notifications since the beginning, I think. Then suddenly the iPhone has it in iOS5 (I think). Is that OK for some reason? Personally, I think it is fine. But somehow when Google/Samsung borrows ideas from Apple, all their products need to be pulled from the shelves immediately and they need to pay huge damages?

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, now you just have to explain why you think that, and then convince either the courts or the legislature to agree with you.

But just make sure the changes to patent law you end up promoting don't screw over anyone you do think deserves a patent.

I think it is a basic idea an a basic idea like that should not get get patents. It seems like that is how it works everywhere else except for software.

[The Dark Lord]

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
-Steve Jobs

Of course, when he thought that somebody stole their ideas, it was time for "thermonuclear war".

Amazing.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

...in a maze, while being chased by ghosts, looking like a pie with a piece missing, and making "waka waka waka" sounds.

But then, I've given up hope that you'll ever understand that.

If that's the case Apple has no case. Because Samsung phones look and perform nothing like iPhones. In fact it's the next iPhone that is copying Samsung ideas such as larger screens.

Are you under the impression that Samsung phones and Apple phones are identical?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, now you just have to explain why you think that, and then convince either the courts or the legislature to agree with you.

But just make sure the changes to patent law you end up promoting don't screw over anyone you do think deserves a patent.

Judge Posner, who has far more sense (and experience, knowledge, etc) than Judge Koh didn't need any changes to the law to throw out Apple's claims against Motorola, and Motorola's claims against Apple. Did you read about that case?

Basically he just got down to the nitty gritty, and determined that neither side could prove any actual damages or even provide a metric for showing damages. Here's the decision: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/979...kc91re893ri4u5

If only Koh had his sense, Apple really won big drawing her to hear this case.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
-Steve Jobs

Of course, when he thought that somebody stole their ideas, it was time for "thermonuclear war".

Amazing.

It's only stealing when other people do it. When Apple does it it's called "innovation". Ask any fanboi!

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's only stealing when other people do it. When Apple does it it's called "innovation". Ask any fanboi!

I've not seen any sign of an Apple fanboy in this thread.

Just two people who are educated as to how patents actually work, and are frustrated by people misrepresenting the facts of patent cases.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

In other industries, basic ideas like that do no get patents, just their specific implementations. I am not a patent expert so maybe I am wrong about that, if so please explain.

Yeah, that was my understanding as well. It's a specific implementation of an idea that gets patented, not the idea itself. If that's no longer the case—or was never the case, or only applies to certain things—then I too wouldn't mind seeing a bit more explanation on this area for a bystander like myself.

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by Horatius

This. This! A thousand times this! It's clear that WildCat doesn't have even the first clue about what he's talking about, despite repeated efforts to explain it to him.

Well, WildCat, enjoy wallowing in your own willful ignorance.







Christ, you too?

Please, would someone other that AvalonXQ tell me they actually understand the issues here? I'm beginning to despair of any having any useful effect it trying to teach people what patents actually are, and what they actually do.

I understand. You have explained your case succinctly and simply enough.

People here think your all arguing for Apple. I see you are trying to put them straight on how patents work and the nature of Apples claim in this case and that its being completely missrepresented. Seems like people are not putting on their critical thinking hats today.

Its just patent law in operation which Apple would be nuts to just ignore and go away.

Apple is all about design, both GUI and mecahnical. I can see them wanting to protect that in all the places that they can.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, it's from the opening introductory paragraphs of Apple's complaint. It's not a legal argument they're relying on; it's a piece of persuasive writing designed to set the stage for the legal arguments to follow. Hence why the section is called "the Nature of the Case."

What does that have to do with it being a complete lie? Are you saying you think it is OK to make complete lies in the introduction??

"...before the iPhone, cell phones were utilitarian devices with keypads for dialling and small passive display screens that did not allow for touch control...."

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

I understand. You have explained your case succinctly and simply enough.

People here think your all arguing for Apple. I see you are trying to put them straight on how patents work and the nature of Apples claim in this case and that its being completely missrepresented. Seems like people are not putting on their critical thinking hats today.

Its just patent law in operation which Apple would be nuts to just ignore and go away.

Apple is all about design, both GUI and mecahnical. I can see them wanting to protect that in all the places that they can.

I also see frustration at Apple and a patent system that allows them to take this kind of action.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

That's odd, because the Judge in this case told Samsung they could not present their earlier phones that had these features as evidence.

Also, as I already pointed out, sometimes tech can arrive at a point where something is possible. It can be both obvious at that time and obviously not been done before. Just because it wasn't done before does not mean it isn't obvious! It's because it only just became possible ! That flat out makes that part of patent law ridiculous. Sure, that can be a good way to sometimes tell if something is obvious. But there are clearly situations where it is not.

Exactly, component hardware is advancing at an astonishing rate and the uses of the new hardware to make finished products is obvious to everyone in the relevant industries, yet we have the patent office awarding patents to the one that wins the race to the patent office.

This has nothing to do with innovation, and everything to do with using patents to engage in anti-competitive behavior and stifles innovation. This is not what patents are supposed to do.

Exactly! I'm confused why some people don't seem to understand this! Even though it is fairly complicated, it is, ironically, quite obvious when u do think about it.

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Exactly! I'm confused why some people don't seem to understand this! Even though it is fairly complicated, it is, ironically, quite obvious when u do think about it.

I cant see how allowing ideas to be copied helps inovation. Surely we dont want a market of clones such they are all the same. Looks like you are confused.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Source code would be copyright. Copyright, not patents.

Patents =/= Copyright.

Patents =/= Trademarks.

Patents =/= Trade Dress.

Patents =/= Industrial Design.

Patents = Patents.


If you don't know the differences between the types of intellectual property, you can't even begin commenting on cases like this. Well, not commenting in any useful way, at least.

But some folk do seem to want to stick only to patents and not addressing the other parts of the current legal case.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

I cant see how allowing ideas to be copied helps inovation. Surely we dont want a market of clones such they are all the same. Looks like you are confused.

I'm not sure you read the 2 paragraphs. It is a very specific situation we are talking about. And it is an exclusion to the "prior/obvious" rule. We're not saying it isn't normally a good rule.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

...snip...

Should I have been allowed to market a perfect clone of Pac-Man 6 months after Pac-Man took the world by storm, without paying them any royalties, just because I programmed the source code all by myself?

That is copyright. What some folk object strongly to is that if Pac-Man had being developed with today's patent legislation in place it would have been (in principle) possible to create a patent that covered an on-screen graphic going over another graphic that then removes the second graphic and updates an on-screen counter. Which would have meant that pretty much all other games that came afterwards would be a patent violation.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Wangler

...snip...

I am starting to think not.

However does it make sense for this to be more of a copyright vs. a patent issue; perhaps the original patent should not have been issued to Apple.

Which is what some of the current case is about. Concentrating on only the patent side is ignoring a huge part of what Apple are trying to achieve with this case.

Originally Posted by Horatius

...in a maze, while being chased by ghosts, looking like a pie with a piece missing, and making "waka waka waka" sounds.

But then, I've given up hope that you'll ever understand that.

Strongly disagree, at the time of Pac-Man* what it did was unique so the patent could have been very broad and yet would have appeared quite specific in application. And once that patent is in place then even the knowledge of that is often enough to put folk of trying something that even risks being a breach. That is why some folk (and I do agree with them to an extent) consider such patents stifling.


(*For the sake of argument I'm using Pac Man as you introduced it. For historical accuracy Pac Man was not actually the first but we are talking about a hypothetical so happy to use it as such.)

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

I'm not sure you read the 2 paragraphs. It is a very specific situation we are talking about. And it is an exclusion to the "prior/obvious" rule. We're not saying it isn't normally a good rule.

hu, well ok sure. Though thats not how some people on this thread have been arguing.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

I cant see how allowing ideas to be copied helps inovation. Surely we dont want a market of clones such they are all the same. Looks like you are confused.

Yet that is exactly what does happen in other areas, for example I can copyright a novel about a kid called Harry who goes to a school for magic however I can't copyright the idea of a school for magic. What many argue is that some of the current patents are as if Rowland's could have patented the idea of a school for magic. When put that way I think it is clear why such protection could stifle innovation.

However as others argue some of the patents that people are concerned about are much more specific than a "school of magic" they are more along the lines of "a school of magic that can only be reached by a railway boarded at a specific platform, and is run by a headmaster who has a beard and a name beginning with a D".

Personally I think using patents for this type of protection was a terrible idea, it should have all been left in the realm of copyright and other IP legislation.

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by Darat

Yet that is exactly what does happen in other areas, for example I can copyright a novel about a kid called Harry who goes to a school for magic however I can't copyright the idea of a school for magic. What many argue is that some of the current patents are as if Rowland's could have patented the idea of a school for magic. When put that way I think it is clear why such protection could stifle innovation.

However as others argue some of the patents that people are concerned about are much more specific than a "school of magic" they are more along the lines of "a school of magic that can only be reached by a railway boarded at a specific platform, and is run by a headmaster who has a beard and a name beginning with a D".

Personally I think using patents for this type of protection was a terrible idea, it should have all been left in the realm of copyright and other IP legislation.

hmmm. Not sure I have a view on that.

What about this as an example. There is a web based advertising agency that through their proxy can annotate specific items within the clients content with small popup adverts that have been selected to be relevant to the specific content/words being annotated (contextual). Its a very inovative way of providing web based adverts which I could see could maybe be patented. Not sure if its the specific way they annotate the content via a proxy dynamically, or the fact that they have these popups associated with the highlighted text that is the idea. Probably the later. In my opinion its not the actual javascript implementation thats would be patented but the idea of applying adverts in that specific way. Taht seems ok to me.

Apple have some IMO very innovative GUI interactions which they were probably first to make work. Its easy to say after the fact that its simple and obvious. But sometimes its not so easy to make things uncomplex. Getting something to be simple but effective is sometimes very difficult to do.

But I do take your point.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Darat

But some folk do seem to want to stick only to patents and not addressing the other parts of the current legal case.

God forbid I should try to alleviate ignorance in the subject area I'm an expert in, rather than just spouting off on topics I'm not an expert in, like some other people in this thread.

Originally Posted by Darat

That is copyright. What some folk object strongly to is that if Pac-Man had being developed with today's patent legislation in place it would have been (in principle) possible to create a patent that covered an on-screen graphic going over another graphic that then removes the second graphic and updates an on-screen counter. Which would have meant that pretty much all other games that came afterwards would be a patent violation.

And as I've said, the scope of patent protection, or even if there should be such in this area, is a legitimate topic of debate, but that debate won't be advanced by irrational arguments made by people who demonstrably don't even begin to understand the system they're complaining about.

I guarantee you, every time WildCat claims Apple patented "a touch screen on a mobile device", and holds up this patent as proof, everyone who knows anything about the patent system immediately writes off him and his opinions. The people who you need to convince to change the system (the courts and/or the legislatures) will not be swayed by obviously flawed opinions that are simply not based in fact.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

In my opinion its not the actual javascript implementation thats would be patented but the idea of applying adverts in that specific way. Taht seems ok to me.

And this a point a lot of people skip over about patents, obviousness, and hindsight analysis. There are a lot of really simple ideas, that once you hear them, you can come up with easy ways to implement them - but the initial idea itself required an inventive leap to conceive of.



Consider the history of expanding bullets like the Minie ball. We developed rifled muskets only a short time after smooth bore muskets, but it took a couple of hundred years before anyone came up with a bullet that would let a rifle be loaded as fast as a smooth bore. And yet, once the idea of a conical-shaped bullet that expands upon firing is even mentioned, everyone who has the skill to mold bullets in the first place knows just about everything they need to know to reproduce those bullets.

But it took hundreds of years for someone to have that first, very simple idea. Hundreds of years in which lots of people were working very hard to improve the state of the art of firearms. So why did such a simple idea not arise for so long? Because as simple as it was, it was obvious only in hindsight.


Now, compare that to this Apple Patent, using these gestures in a manner that so many people claim are "obvious". We've seen two prior art documents about other touch screen devices, one going back to 1985, neither of which mention anything like the methods as were patented by Apple. One of them actually teaches away from the patented method. We've had such screens since at least 1985, and yet, no one has been able to cite anyone, anywhere, who described this method prior to the filing date of the patent. That's about 20 years of people who had everything they needed to express the same idea, in which none of them ever actually expressed it.

So, "obvious", or obvious only in hindsight? I can tell you what the courts would say about it.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Horatius

The patent covers the basic idea they had

If it only covers that, it should have been rejected immediately. A patent is for an implementation, not an idea.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I guarantee you, every time WildCat claims Apple patented "a touch screen on a mobile device", and holds up this patent as proof, everyone who knows anything about the patent system immediately writes off him and his opinions. The people who you need to convince to change the system (the courts and/or the legislatures) will not be swayed by obviously flawed opinions that are simply not based in fact.

Educate me Horatius. Why does the platform matter wrt patents? Why do Apple's patents specify the platform the patent applies to, if not because such uses have been used on other platforms and what Apple is doing is taking existing tech and patenting it for mobile devices? Imagine if way back when Benz or Ford had patented putting wheels on a device with an internal combustion engine, it sure seems to me that is what Apple is doing with their mobile patents.

There are some 250,000 patents in a typical smartphone according to articles I've read. How on earth can any company enter the smartphone market when there are a quarter million patents covering every aspect of the design and function of them, with ginormous companies like Apple seeking to put out of business any company that offers something similar (not the same) to any one of those 250,000 patents? And independent experts who can't even agree on what the patents do and do not cover?

If IBM had takes such a route they'd be the sole supplier of personal computers, and innovation in the PC market would have suffered greatly as a result. Apple would never have existed in the first place, sued out of existence the first time they attached a mouse or keyboard to a computer, if they ever made it that far.

To ignorant laypeople like myself uneducated in the intricacies of patent law it appears Apple is trying to accomplish via lawsuit what it can't accomplish in the marketplace. Look at the iPhone 4S, even Apple fans were disappointed with it. Obsolete the moment it hit the Apple store shelves, far surpassed by offerings from Samsung and HTC. Now they're trying to play catch-up with the upcoming iPhone 5. Perhaps if Apple had spent the money on R&D they spent of lawsuits they wouldn't have fallen so far behind. Oh look, the next iPhone might be 4G LTE!