Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Seeking Ban of iPhone 4S in Europe
First time accepted submitter KingofSpades writes "Samsung has announced that they will try to stop the sale of Apple Inc.'s iPhone 4S in France and Italy. Samsung believes that Apple is 'severely violating' some of their patents. From the article: 'Samsung will file motions with courts in Paris and Milan seeking the ban, each citing two patent infringements on wireless telecommunications technology, the Suwon, South Korea- based company said in an e-mailed statement yesterday. Apple unveiled the iPhone 4S in Cupertino, California this week and aims to start sales later this month.'"
FIGHT
<OVERDRAMATIC>
"Let the Battle Begin!"
</OVERDRAMATIC>
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
isn't the 4s the exact same design as the 4, just with some relatively minor hardware upgrades? which patents could apple possibly be violating that they were violating already? the only "new" technology is the camera which has an extra lens or something, and the processor, which apple developed internally and has been available for months. would be interesting to see which patents, exactly, samsung is claiming apple is violating.
And not because Apple did the same thing to Samsung using a German court to block sales of the Galaxy Tablet in Europe?
This is about hardware and design patents -- not software patents that are just ideas dreamed up. They actually built the thing.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Yeah, were you saying that when Apple did the same thing to Samsung?
Both suits are garbage, but I hope Apple gets to taste some of their own medicine here.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Sammy has taken off the gloves and has taken out the big guns... WCDMA patents. They could have gone after basically every 3G device there is (if they were assholes) but have used them very strategically to stick it to Apple, while actually gaining popular support for using a broad patent in their arsenal.
And not because Apple did the same thing to Samsung using a German court to block sales of the Galaxy Tablet in Europe?
Two wrongs and a right - ever hear that one? ;)
ooh burrrn!
-- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
It's not OK... ... but it is amusing.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Two wrongs and a right - ever hear that one? ;)
Well actually they do. If Samsung are blocked by Apple from selling their products, and Apple are blocked by Samsung from selling their products as well, that will force them to make a patent settlement to get them out of a stalemate that hurts both companies.
Is this some kind of strategy Samsung and Apple help each other to get more attention and more profit?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
which patents could apple possibly be violating that they were violating already?
This is over patents that Apple has been violating all along. Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and have all been tryng to negotiate licensing deals with Apple since the day the iPhone was shipped and they still haven't come to an agreement. The different companies have had different thresholds of how far they are will to push negotiations before suing. Apple crossed Samsungs threshold when they used a shitty German "Design Patent" to force the Galaxy Tab off the market because it was a black rectangle with rounded corners.
What it all comes down to is that Apple thinks that it should be able to license all the hardware/communication patents that these companies hold under FRAND terms, while at the same time refusing to license any of it's software patents. Many of the communication patents are related to the GSM/CDMA standards, and thus do require FRAND licensing, but not all of the hardware patents.
Patents are bad. Patent lawsuits that create problems for Apple are good, because they're likely to get noticed and hopefully result in improvements.
Lawsuits over say, patents related to RAM are obscure, hard to understand, and in the end only drive up the prices. The global economic impact might be huge, but the average user won't notice much, so chances are nothing will get fixed.
However when people are not able to buy the phone they want that gets their attention, and maybe will get them to see that the system could use improvements.
any plans to ban it germany, file a motion in berlin? these patent wars are getting stupid - why not just share the knowledge and build an awesome product instead of all this crazy fighting over who has the biggest penis.
It's ok for Samsung to do it because Apple are a bunch of poo-poo-heads!!!!
It has a WCDMA radio in it. Samsung holds a patent related to that kind of thing. In the older iPhones, only the Verizon ones had CDMA radios, the AT&T ones had GSM. Now I suppose Samsung could have gone after them, but that might risk angering Verizon and Samsung doesn't want to do that. This one though, all phones have both radios so they can go after it and try to block it generally.
IANAL, so I probably shouldn't even speak these word, but doesn't the equitable doctrine of laches mean that if Samsung knew that everybody was violating their WCDMA patents and did nothing to enforce them, then they eventually forfeit the right to enforce them.
Although now that I think about it, they might be trying to enforce WCDMA patents specific to HSPA+, which wasn't present before the 4s.
If anyone knows, speak up.
Unlike the "look and feel" patents Apple is blocking the new Samsung Galaxy Tab over, this is actual real patent. On a side note, patent system still broken.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Yeah, they built a working physical representation of a "2001 A Space Odyssey" handheld tablet computer (or a Star Trek ALCARS handheld tablet, or any of a couple hundred tablet computers described in sci-fi stories over the last 50 years.) Then effectively under threat of law claimed that the tablet was their original idea and that anyone building one needs to pay them. This either makes them brazenly stupid or brashly assholerific. I'll let you pick, please, be my guest!
Well samsung is actually doing this in revenge for a hardware patent, admitted a retartedly vague one for a rounded rectangle with a touch screen, but that no less is a hardware patent.
Oooh, ooh! I'll take the latter for $1000, Alex!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Apple is bad.
iPhone is good.
Apple != iPhone
Apple "resorted to legal measures" first with their touchscreen-on-a-rounded-rectangle bullshit.
Yeah, they built a working physical representation of a "2001 A Space Odyssey" handheld tablet computer (or a Star Trek ALCARS handheld tablet, or any of a couple hundred tablet computers described in sci-fi stories over the last 50 years.) Then effectively under threat of law claimed that the tablet was their original idea and that anyone building one needs to pay them. This either makes them brazenly stupid or brashly assholerific. I'll let you pick, please, be my guest!
Having watched 2001, without anything other information, could you build one of those tablets? Particularly back in 1968?
Prior art anticipates what it enables one of ordinary skill in the art to do. Because of 2001, Apple cannot patent "a flat surface for displaying video," but they can certainly patent the iPad.
Indeed, no shareholders particularly like the idea of "just give them the multi-million dollar market and prove you are the bigger man". Plus even pretending we lived in a world where doing nicer things for the benefit of the customers will get you sales (which it isn't, sony and ubisoft's sales are as good as ever no matter how badly they screw over their users), the customers don't even have the option to buy their tablets right now.
The iPhone 4S isn't available to buy, it's not even available to pre-order yet. But Samsung managed to get ahold of one, reverse engineered it, and found it to infringed on their patents. Impressive.
The way Apple employees tend to lose prototypes of the iPhone at bars, it can't be that hard to get one.
It doesn't matter if you could build one or not. Apple didn't sue Samsung over its inner workings. They sued because both objects were rounded rectangles, and a couple of the icons used a similar color scheme.
iPhone is good.
Android is better.
Android > iPhone
For years these companies have just been accumulating patents and preparing for this. Once products actually start being banned from markets, average people will see how silly and unproductive the whole patent thing is. Then maybe we can get some real reform.
On the outside there doesn't appear to be many changes. On the inside there have been many hardware changes. However it is easier to call someone a fanboy rather than give Apple any credit. You do realize that Apple was able to put in a larger processor, make the phone operate both CDMA and GSM, put in a larger camera-- all the while keeping the same form factor with a slight increase in weight (3g). I would think geeks would appreciate the engineering it would take to do this.
The processor package doesn't get physically much if any bigger by going to dual-core. The radio in the Verizon I-phone was already capable of GSM. The firmware just didn't take advantage. The camera does seem to have some better optics and that is a good thing. Overall, it looks like a just a merging of the Verizon and AT&T phones along with a few closely compatible part upgrades that had become available from internal and external suppliers. No form factor heroics here.
It's perfect timing to take a revenge against Apple and it's actions towars Galaxy Tab... And maybe kill the whole iPhone market in the long term. ...), several android phones have a better hardware than the iPhone 4 (maybe even a better hardware than the 4S), Android is now known and has earned recognition,...
Apple lost it's Guru, Steve Jobs. Markets are waiting to see how things will go... If Apple get one big backlash it's stock value will probably fall down and Apple could be pushed back in a corner like it was before in the Macintosh vs PC.
Unlike a few years ago, there are now viable alternatives to the iPhone. Android Market is catching up (faster growth, quality of application increasing,
Shouldn't it be the other way around...? Isn't that why Apple brought out the patent guns in the first place, because they thought Samsung was too much like them and they couldn't compete?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The same Slashdotters who are worried about patents in the H.264 standard someday possibly being used to sue someone are now excited when patents around technology core to 3G are being exploited. Hypocrisy.
That's why everyone was pointing out up until now that the fear of this type of tit for tat patent war amounted to the old cold war MAD scenario and thus wouldn't happen. Apparently, Apple didn't get the memo.
Well, since Samsung sits on some of the patents that you -have- to infringe to provide 3G, they know you infringe if you provide 3G without paying them.
Apple will probably try to argue that they should be let off for that reason, we'll see how that works out for them.
.... Wonder where they will be located on the phone??
Now which ever way you hold it you'll probably be covering an antenna limiting it's effectiveness without an approved apple rubber ring slapped on it...
Oh and since US mobile networks are basically over subscribed, You'll probably never have both functioning at the same speed on a network, So you'll end up with exactly the same speed as an iPhone4, while Sprint charge you twice the price for the privilege...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Would you both kindly shut the fuck up? Thank you.
Why are these battles always in Europe? Not that I want any product being blocked here in the states, but why isn't there ever battles to block sales here?
I thought it said Samsung seeks to ban iPhone 45 in europe (thats forty-five, the same caliber as the gun that Colt tamed the west with.and I wondered if Apple were doing a 'firefox version inflation thing'
By the way, that same hardware design was already present in a 1969 film called 2001 A Space Odyssey...
The icon-grid can be tracked back to Xerox' work (which was stolen by both Apple and Microsoft... Which is why Apple got denied when he tried to block Windows). We can find it on Palm Pilot devices (I already had an icon grid for the application launcher on my old Palm IIIxe monochrome)
Capacitive sensors were already used more than 20 years ago (I remind seing some of them on some microwave) and you can find some tools "out of the box" from microchip to make capacitive control panels (including sliders, buttons, switches and x-y zones)... Oh... and I should check but I think that it's the same technology which is used on touchpads on PC and Mac for years.
Tablet computers were already done by Microsoft (which was a big failure... well, Windows is not really made for tablets)
Gestures ? Well, ask to a 8year old boy who never saw an iPhone/Android, tablet,... what gestures he may do with one finger, with two fingers and you'll probably get the same list that Apple is trying to protect... It's trivial and as such can't (oops.. shouldn't) be patented.
On the other hand, Apple refused to pay for the 3G/GSM/... licences, saying that these should be covered because they are buying chips made by other who should have paid these... They have a lot of litigation about these technical patents (that can only be understood by people who are electronics engineers with telecom specialisation).
So, well, I'd like to see iPhone 4S Banned from Whole Europe and Korea... It could teach to Apple one basic law : "A bad peace is always better than a good war".
Well samsung is actually doing this in revenge for a hardware patent, admitted a retartedly vague one for a rounded rectangle with a touch screen, but that no less is a hardware patent.
It was a design patent (or the European equivalent). It's important to distinguish between utility patents and design patents.
That is too dumb for anyplace, I see why you posted it as an AC.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
It's not available to pre-order, but pick a random bar in Cupertino and you'll probably get one free.
Somehow I never knew that. A design infringement makes a lot more sense. (Unless of course, Samsung now has to release a triangular tablet with sharp corners.) I'm pulling for Samsung here.
Neither Android nor iPhone are scalars.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Apparently, Apple didn't get the memo.
And it looks like they're massively outgunned, too.
This is almost like North Korea going against USA... Hmm.... Apple mobile is best mobile. Dear Leader Steve Jobs .... Humm... Suddenly, I have a weird feeling of irony. Strange.
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
The iPhone is shiny, but Android phones are shiny and don't involve giving money to Apple.
No, they involve giving money to Microsoft.
If you can't innovate, litigate.
Yesterday, Apple announced iPhone 4S - which is basically iPhone 4 with upgraded CPU and graphics hardware (that's nobody going to use, since all app writers want their stuff to run well on prev-gen iPhone 4) and a better camera that's now on par with what was top of the line for Android.
In a week, Samsung will announce Nexus Prime. Suffice it to say that the phone has a 1280x800 OLED screen. It's not the only feature, not even the biggest, but it does show the relative scale of differences.
So, what did you say about "innovate"?
No, it's okay for Samsung to do it because I like the popcorn.
The second wrong makes you feel right?
You left out how apple copied the design of the iPad from existing real and sci-fi sources.
Samsung has at least invented useful technology, what has apple invented again? Right, nothing, they just evolutionary design things as miniaturization goes forward. Nothing Apple has done in the last 20 years has been revolutionary, that has always been done by other companies.
iPod: Wasn't the first mp3 player, just nicely designed and user friendly, hardly revolutionary concepts.
iPhone: Jobs: guys guys guys, check this out. Guys. Guys. We take our iPod.... and we add a phone! Revolutionary concept there.
iMac: Guys, with these new innovations from companies like Samsung, we can design a whole computer that's only a little thicker than a LCD Monitor! Yeah, I sure see how they're an innovative company.
I say this, with an iPod in my pocket, which I did buy brand new. Apple does nothing more than regurgitate the ideas of others and house them in a gloss white or black.
You, and the rest of the the people marking you insightful need to look up, law, trade dress and this actual case. That way, you won't get yourself in such a muddle next time.
iPhone is good. Android is also good, but much cheaper. Android market share > iPhone market share. Apple market share > any other smartphone vendor market share. One truly killer device = Apple in trouble.
I hate my Android phone. Droid Eris. It has so many annoying hardware and software glitches I can't list them all.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Sure, and never mind the box art layout, the wall wart, the breakout cable, art assets...
This isn't the first time Samsung's been caught cheating either.
Granted, this also isn't Apple's first time trying to sue on "look and feel." Granted, I think this time they've got a much more solid case.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The icon-grid can be tracked back to Xerox' work (which was stolen by both Apple and Microsoft... Which is why Apple got denied when he tried to block Windows).
History, reality. Not your two strong points.
How about - Turnabout is fair play.
Yes, Samsung clearly didn't copy apple... not at all..
MABASPLOOM!
And the bull won't play nice with you like it did in the past!
Yes, Samsung clearly didn't copy apple... not at all..
oh yes, because apple invented every single one of those things. you ignorant fool.
I both agree and disagree with aspects of that.
The box art is a blatant ripoff, no question, they just copied almost exactly what Apple did.
The store icons are pretty fucked up, i wonder if that is actually an official samsung store though, kinda like those unofficial apple stores?
The USB cable I dunno about, i mean one end is obviously a standard, the other end is flat, which of course when you have a thin phone it makes sense to do, sizing it the same means that holders like the proclip ones with removable cables can be used with different devices without replacing it. So there is some logic to that.
With the USB/Power breakout they've made it a different colour, different design and different radius on the corners, but evidently made it - just as apple did - as small as possible to still fit the circuitry and the standard. They could have made it with square edges or a tube just for the sake of it i suppose.
The microphone app is just the fact that they both have pictures of microphones, there's only so much you can do there, again they could have just looked at what apple did and then done it different just for the sake of it.
Lastly the AppleTV looks to be a pretty blatant ripoff of a Western Digital device, so they aren't exactly clear in the copying area themselves.
So realistically Samsung probably should try and differentiate from Apple even if just for the sake of it, but many of those things are the logical way to do it.
People defending Samsung are morons engaging in neo tribalism. It's retarded. Asian companies rarely innovate, probably due to a rigid and hierarchical culture than discourages doing things differently, a culture that is magnified and perpetuated in corporations. They also forget Samsung was fined $3 billion for rounding up all the LCD manufacturers and colluding to price-fix LCDs. And the DOJ was investigating them for price-fixing NAND Flash until they abruptly dropped the case in 2009 (given corruption revelations at the SEC it's not hard to see something backhanded going on). Oh and let's not forget Samsung's CEO's son was caught heading a company that sold blatant ripoffs of the iPad 2's smart covers. Samsung is an extremely amoral company that cares very little for the rules of law. I'm not saying Apple has "morals", but holy cow people trying to defend Samsung in this situation are just blind religious fanatics.
Are you kidding? "Logical way to do it"? Those items are exact replicas. The icons in the store, the USB and power adapters. The boxes, the cables. They follow the exact same shape and form factor. If it was so obvious why didn't Samsung do it before Apple? Look how Samsung redesigned the Galaxy Tab right after Apple released the iPad 2. One of the CEO's sons was caught heading a company that sold blatant ripoffs of Apple's smart covers for the iPad 2. How much more obvious does it need to get?
A rounded rectangle? Have you actually read the trade dress claims?
I only enjoy seeing things like this because Apple wants to play dirty, so I like seeing others turn their own game against them. Granted, due to political views Apple tends to get better deals from most governments, but it's still nice to see someone trying to get Apple to compete in the marketplace instead of just having governments block competition.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Cool story bro.
That's the point everyone else has made - if this is their evidence for infringement then they should be laughed out of court, because Apple has a licence for those "essential" 3G patents.
Samsung is effectively trying to Trojan the 3G standard - if Apple are in violation (after paying for 3G licences, which they demonstrably have done - Samsung themselves have acknowledged this), then every other manufacturer with a 3G device is also in violation.
Are you kidding? "Logical way to do it"? Those items are exact replicas.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'exact'.
The icons in the store
Did you even read what i wrote? I completely agreed with that and asked the question if the store is actually even legit given the obviousness of the copy.
the USB
Again, I already explained why it would make sense to do that, do you believe otherwise?
and power adapters.
I already went through that.
The boxes
So you obviously didn't read what i wrote, the first thing i pointed out is that the boxes are a blatant ripoff.
If it was so obvious why didn't Samsung do it before Apple?
Yet another example proving you didn't even read what i wrote, i never said any of it was obvious.
I also noticed you completely avoided addressing the part where apple copied WD. I have both Apple (ipad, macbook air) and Samsung (TV, omnia) products and it's extremely easy to pick out individual design elements copied from eachother or from other companies.
I wonder if Apple was expecting a reaction of this magnitude when it initiated this tit-for-tat?
BTW if you think this looks like an iPad (or a Samsung Tab) you are beyond help.
Fandroids hate facts.
That would get over 9000 on reddit. But in reddit you know you're facing stupidity while in /. you really have to try to figure if the poster is sarcasm impaired or just plain idiot.
The fact that anyone believes that an 8mp camera and voice recognition is innovating on the mobile market pretty much tells you someone is getting payed by the word. The iPhone 4S seems like a dud, Jobs is Death (RIP) so you all can wait for an overdose of turf babble in the next weeks.
Well, the thing is that normally you get to license those patents on FRAND terms, but Samsung will argue that suing the patent holder with bullshit design patents invalidates the right to FRAND licensing.
This is why they only do it against Apple, and not say Nokia.
I see the reality distortion field stays strong, even with Jobs untimely departure.
Samsung obviously can't compete with Apple without resorting to legal measures because Apple is keeping their products from going to market.
Samsung would be happy to compete with Apple in the market; they have nothing to fear there because they obviously have the technically more advanced products, and at a better price.
Apple sued Samsung because Apple is scared they can't compete in the market. Samsung is suing Apple because Samsung wants to compete in the market.
The wall wart is a standard design, driven by the availability of small power supply designs. In addition, that wall wart is not what's shipping with the Galaxy Tab; the Galaxy Tab charger looks completely different from the iPad charger. Ditto for the Galaxy S II.
That kind of sync connector goes back to Sony, Palm, Compaq, Nokia, and others. In fact, the iPhone really is pretty much a rip-off of prior Palm devices, including desktop sync, charge/sync stand, connection cable, desktop interface, home screen, etc.
Many of the icons Apple ripped off as well, from third parties and other sources.
Nobody minds when companies imitate each other at that level. But it is infuriating when Apple liberally copies other companies and then goes off suing their competitors over trivialities. And it's not the first time Apple has done this.
This isn't about whether Samsung innovates or not. The innovation is in Android, and Android has pulled ahead of iOS because it's better and cheaper. And companies like Samsung make better and cheaper hardware than Apple.
I want companies to compete in the market, not through stupid patents. I want a choice and competition, and Apple is trying to deny me that.
And there is a long list of dirty, underhanded tricks, and a long list of features and ideas Apple has ripped off from others, so they hardly can take the moral high ground here.
But then there's that tricky "discriminatory" part of the licence - you cannot just use your FRAND patents selectively, or as a defence - you can't just say "hey, infringement!" and sue, if they've been paid for already after the fact just because you don;t like a particular company.
It's not discriminatory if you have a clause that says "If you sue us for any reason, we get to sue you with these patents". Though I don't know what their actual agreement if any is (Some posters have claimed that Apple in fact never licenced 3G at all, people just haven't pushed the issue yet) , we'll probably see the details once it goes up in court.
iPhone is good.
Android is better.
Android > iPhone
Apple is an asshole corporation
Android is sold through different corporations, asshole or not
Android diversity > Apple diversity.
Yeah, they built a working physical representation of a "2001 A Space Odyssey" handheld tablet computer
The court in Germany rejected this argument, because there is quite a bit of detail in Apple's design patent, and from the film material it was not possible to decide whether certain details of the design in the film matched Apple's design patent or no, and it was clear that other details did not match.
Samsung has aknowledged that Apple has paid for the 3G licences, so that's not in doubt as far as this goes; in fact, it's one of Samsung's arguments - that they have proof they are violating an essential 3G patent because Apple has paid for 3G licences, they are just claiming that this particular one is not covered (despite the seeming issue with it then being subject to RAND terms and surely covered by the licencing, but that's for a court to determine).
It certainly would be discriminatory to have a clause that allowed them to use those patents for suing you "if you sue us for any reason", since that would effectively create a situation where Samsung would be immune from lawsuits for infringement of any patents/IP/trademarks/copyright from anyone who made a 3G device. Hypothetically they could make a literal copy of the HTC Desire, say, and then be immune from HTC suing them because Samsung could say "ah ah! check your 3G licence, you'll be in violation!" They can't do this because HTC have no choice but to sign up to a 3G licence since it's part of the standard, thus Samsung would never be allowed to put terms like that into the licensing agreement in the first place by the standards body that set it all up in the first place.
As far as I know that's actually how it is. You generally don't mess with companies who you rely on for cross-patenting deals because the counter-suit could destroy you.
The standards body does not in fact (according to other posts) check the terms of the licensing agreements.
The store icons are pretty fucked up, i wonder if that is actually an official samsung store though, kinda like those unofficial apple stores?
Yes, it is an official Samsung "store in store", "coincidentally" opened the same day an Apple Store opened in the same mall. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsamsung.hdblog.it%2F2011%2F09%2F24%2Fcuriosita-samsung-shop-in-shop-aperto-lo-stesso-giorno-e-nello-stesso-luogo-dellapple-store-di-catania%2F - BTW, Samsung changed the icons after a few hours: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsamsung.hdblog.it%2F2011%2F09%2F26%2Fsamsung-si-corregge-spariscono-le-icone-apple-dallo-shop-in-shop-di-catania%2F
And on the same blog I found yet another example, though not actually by Samsung itself. Maybe. Samsung is selling (or rather giving away) this Bada app. Notice something familiar about the icon? Yup, the background looks remarkably like the the iOS Maps App icon. But that's kinda generic, isn't it? Guess again
Fandroids hate facts.
Unfortunately for you, some of us here were born before 1999 when you bought your first Playstation 2 and some of us were alive and working in the 70s when Apple struck its deal with Xerox. Feel free to chalk that reality up to a "reality distortion field" if it makes your world seem like a better place.
And some of us, even if we only started working at the end of the 80's, still remember Apple when they did the look and feel lawsuit against Microsoft failing because Apple hadn't licensed the technology from Xerox and didn't have an exclusive right for its use. So saying Apple stole the icon grid, mouse, etc. from Xerox is an exaggeration, but not that far from the truth. Everyone based their GUIs on Xerox PARC work, and claiming exclusive rights on that derivative work as if it were original has already failed once. The only thing they were allowed to use exclusively was the trash icon.
So basically, Apple didn't steal anything and in your head that means that "Apple stole" isn't far from the truth? You either did or didn't steal, and they didn't, and you manage to some how roll that up into a bad taste "you must be a fanboy" style comment, bravo.
You first preferred to try to pull some kind of "age rank" with me, and when that failed, I am suddenly the one who made a "bad taste" comment. You might not be a fanboi, but you surely sound like someone out of arguments who is now entering the insult path. BTW, I'm not the one who wrote "stole" - I'd rather have written "copied", but I understand the usage on the light of the "great artists steal" as Picasso allegedly said and Jobs "borrowed".
In the same way Apple stealing isn't the way it happened, the way you seem to think this conversation has gone, isn't the way it happened. A statement was made by a poster that "Apple stole from Xerox", well I'm afraid that didn't happen, it didn't happen even a little bit, it didn't maybe happen, it didn't somehow sort of, like, kinda happen. It didn't happen. That reality was pointed out by me, and then you felt that required a tasteless comment about a imaginary fanboy reality distortion field still staying strong after the death of Steve Jobs.
Who'd have thought you'd have got a shitty reply back after that. I'll leave you to have the last word, I'm sure it will be insightful.
Apple's lawsuits over Android are mostly retarded (but Android unquestionably copied iOS's overall design; prototypes before the iPhone were mostly Blackberry knockoffs), but their complaints about Samsung copying their design are legitimate.