The Samsung F700 came out about one month after the iPhone. That is much too soon to be a copy. And the F700 looks remarkably like an iPhone. Maybe Samsung was just copying it's own F700 design? Rectangular, rounded corners, flat surface, and so on.
Or, if you want to argue that even month makes it a copy. Then, by that reasoning, the iPhone copied the LG Prada.
Take a look at the history of handsets. NOTHING looked like the iPhone before the iPhone premiered.
Wrong. LG Prada was released before the iPhone.
The Samsung Galaxy models is a flat out copy of the iPhone you know it;s true.
Wrong again. As I explained in another post:
Follow me on this:
LG Prada (KE850): Introduced: December 2006. Released: January 2007 iPhone. Introduced: January 2007. Released: June 2007 Samsung F700. Introduced February 2007. Marketed: November 2007
All of these phones look a lot alike. And they were all introduced in a very short time span.
The iPhone could not have copied the Prada, because the iPhone was introduced too soon afterwards. But, by the same logic, the F700 could not have copied the iPhone.
Since the F700 looks so remarkably similar to the iPhone, how can Apple be sure that Samsung was not just copying it's own design?
LG Prada (KE850): Introduced: December 2006. Released: January 2007 iPhone. Introduced: January 2007. Released: June 2007 Samsung F700. Introduced February 2007. Marketed: November 2007
All of these phones look a lot alike. And they were all introduced in a very short time span.
The iPhone could not have copied the Prada, because the iPhone was introduced too soon afterwards. But, by the same logic, the F700 could not have copied the iPhone.
Since the F700 looks so remarkably similar to the iPhone, how can Apple be sure that Samsung was not just copying it's own design?
The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
Proof?
To me, the Samsung looks like any other tablet. Why not say the samsung copied the prada? Why not say the iphone copied the blackberries in shape, and functionality? If the F700 did not copy the iphone, then how could later version of samsung phones being copying the iphone? Maybe samsung is simply copying their own earlier designs?
But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
But that is in Apple's argument. Oh yeah, and the device also has flat surface, as opposed to being shaped like a bubble, or something.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Maybe. But the Android is a threat to Apple's market share, don't kid yourself about that.
Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
Why because it's rectangular with rounded edges? This is junk lawsuit, you know it, and I know it. Apple is suing Samsung because it's easier than suing Google, and suing Samsung may set a precedent.
This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario.
It certainly is. Apple does not want Android phones, or tablets, to get market share.
"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to get Samsung to stop making Android devices altogether. But Apple is only telling Samsung to come up with their own baby.
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and Oracle, are all trying to harass anybody who uses Android. These proprietary do not a more open, and less expensive, alternative on the market.
Same thing as Apple, and Sony, and Oracle. Tried to kill Android while it's still in it's infancy. And tried to do so by using junk patents to file harassment lawsuits. And all those companies are doing this for the same reason, they feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative.
April 2011: Apple suee Samsung over Android March 2011: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn over Android * December 2010: Sony sues LG over Android October 2010: Microsoft sues motorola over Android August 2010: Oracle sues Google over Android and Java March 2010: Apple sues HTC over Android
* just when B&N announce the Color Nook as an Android Tablet
Prada was announced December 2006 [wikipedia.org]. The iPhone was announced January 2007 [slashdot.org]. So you're telling me that Apple designed, prototyped and finalized their design for the iPhone in one month?
None-the-less, that should tell you that Apple did not invent the idea. So what "invention" is Apple protecting?
The other thing is that Android does not compete directly with them.
That is where you are wrong. People who buy an Android smart phone, will probably not buy an iPhone. So Android is costing Apple sales. So yes, Android is a direct competitor.
Here's how I see things. In computers, Apple still is small compared to PCs. Are they threatened by Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc? Or do they still make their computers regardless of their competitors.
Yes, Apple is threatened by those companies, and even more so by Microsoft. Not saying it will happen, but if Apple's quality fell below that of Microsoft (please, stop laughing) then Apple would lose market share.
Is Apple so threatened that it would sue Microsoft? Yes, they already have. Is Apple so threatened that Apple would sue other PC makers? Yes, Apple has done that also.
Android tablets, that have any hope of competing with an iPad, are just now coming out. And you can be sure that Apple is not too happy about that.
I think it is obvious that Apple feels threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
Am I the only one that caught the fact that Apple is just had YET ANOTHER record quarter?
And you can be sure that Apple wants to keep it that way. And, therefore Apple is threatened by the Android.
Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario
Don't kid yourself. Apple did not create the idea of a device that is rectangular with rounded corners in shape. The idea is not unique or innovative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Don't kid yourself, Android is a huge threat to Apple. Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
The Prada phone obviously did not influence the iPhone. The mere idea is sillly. On the other hand, Android was very clearly inspired by iOS and the iPhone. Have you seen what Android was like even just months before the iPhone was introduced? It was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone came out did it find something better to copy.
Or, maybe "rectangle with rounded corners" is just so obvious an idea that nobody can be said to have invented it? Speaking of blackberries, what sort of shape did they have? And for that matter, didn't blackberries have a lot of features that appeared in iPhones?
In every single one of those cases, they were the first to create a product that people actually bought.
Yep, and good for Apple. Just goes to show: just because a basic idea was copied, does not mean there is no innovation. So if that concept is true for Apple, why not for Apple competitors?
You seem to strong double standard, and bias for Apple. If Apple copies somebody, it is completely okay. But, the other way around is strong grounds for Apple to sue. If Apple can sue Samsung, then shouldn't LG be able to sue Apple? Should blackberry be able to sue apple for the basic shape, and function, of a smart phone?
Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - Microsoft has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
If there was any validity to the Apple fanboyz argument, then Microsoft would certainly not feel threatened by Office alternatives. Certainly Microsoft would have no cause to rig an ISO scam to have OOXML accepted as a standard.
"So Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around to the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. "
That would make sense if Apple was suing Google (for Android).. but they're not.
It also makes sense if Apple was suing Samsung - and they are. Why do you think Microsoft has filed lawsuits against: HTC, Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn? It's easier than suing Google. It would be a lot more difficult for Google to give up on Android, than for the HW makers to give up on Android. Divide and conquer.
Prada was announced December 2006 [wikipedia.org]. The iPhone was announced January 2007 [slashdot.org]. So you're telling me that Apple designed, prototyped and finalized their design for the iPhone in one month?
Maybe not. But I think it's clear that Apple did not invent the design. Yet Apple is the one filing the lawsuit.
It makes no sense to try to "sue your competitors out of existence" (especially by suing someone who doesn't have anything to do with Android itself, other than making a handset/tablet for it - you might as well sue Dell to try and damage Microsoft) when the mobile space is healthier than ever with both of them competing.
It makes perfect sense. By hurting those who sell android, you are hurting android. It is easier than suing google.
Apple's past history with marketshare shows that it doesn't really mind what marketshare it has
Non-sense. I doubt any successful company is every perfectly happy with the marketshare it has. Of course Apple wants more market share.
As far as Apple is concerned it doesn't affect their bottom line - they are selling iOS devices as fast as they can make them, and the more people who look at the smartphone/tablet market (via Android, iOS or otherwise) the better off they are.
Of course Android is a threat to Apple. Android is growing like wildfire. If somebody buys an android, that person did not buy an iPhone, you can be sure that Apple is well aware of that, even if you are not.
Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - Microsoft has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
The only Android poses is one of normal competition, and that's not going to bother Apple at all.
No offence, but you must be hopelessly naive.
You also state that "worthwhile Android are just starting to come out", which is just nonsense - I have seen some awesome Android handsets that have been out for ages, since before the iPhone 4 was released. Are you telling me that no Android handsets have been worthwhile until now?
I guess "worthwhile" is a subjective term. I don't know of any Android tablets that can really compete with an iPad. But Android is getting close, and that makes Apple feel threatened.
Microsoft has been winning in desktop/laptop OSes, and Office software, for a long time. I guess that means that Windows is much higher quality that MacOS.
1. They have to be aggressive because if they don't, someone else will be aggressive to them. It's how it works now.
Could Tanya Harding use this excuse? How about Microsoft? Does being "aggressive" mean it's okay to be unethical? If Apple fans accept this so-called "aggressive" behaviour from Apple, then why do the same fans boo and hiss when Microsoft does this sort of thing?
2. Apple can't "affect" Android because there's nothing to affect. It's an OS and it does its thing. However, when another company makes a reasonable facsimile of their device, on purpose due to popularity and design preference, they have every right to go after them. Right or wrong it's what they have to do in this market.
"Their" design? Who's design? A device that is rectangular with rounded edges is certainly not Apple's design.
Certainly the ideas of rectangular device with rounded corners came out before the iPhone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Apple does an amazing job of taking ideas from others, and improving those ideas, and doing a great marketing job. But practically ever big idea from Apple, did not originate from Apple.
Apple did not invent: - the PC - the GUI - the mp3 player - the online music store - the smart phone - the tablet computer - or much of anything else.
So isn't Apple just as much of a "copycat" as anybody?
Slashdot Mirror
The Samsung F700 came out about one month after the iPhone. That is much too soon to be a copy. And the F700 looks remarkably like an iPhone. Maybe Samsung was just copying it's own F700 design? Rectangular, rounded corners, flat surface, and so on.
Or, if you want to argue that even month makes it a copy. Then, by that reasoning, the iPhone copied the LG Prada.
Either way, Apple is full of shit.
Take a look at the history of handsets. NOTHING looked like the iPhone before the iPhone premiered.
Wrong. LG Prada was released before the iPhone.
The Samsung Galaxy models is a flat out copy of the iPhone you know it;s true.
Wrong again. As I explained in another post:
Follow me on this:
LG Prada (KE850): Introduced: December 2006. Released: January 2007
iPhone. Introduced: January 2007. Released: June 2007
Samsung F700. Introduced February 2007. Marketed: November 2007
All of these phones look a lot alike. And they were all introduced in a very short time span.
The iPhone could not have copied the Prada, because the iPhone was introduced too soon afterwards. But, by the same logic, the F700 could not have copied the iPhone.
Since the F700 looks so remarkably similar to the iPhone, how can Apple be sure that Samsung was not just copying it's own design?
LG Prada (KE850): Introduced: December 2006. Released: January 2007
iPhone. Introduced: January 2007. Released: June 2007
Samsung F700. Introduced February 2007. Marketed: November 2007
All of these phones look a lot alike. And they were all introduced in a very short time span.
The iPhone could not have copied the Prada, because the iPhone was introduced too soon afterwards. But, by the same logic, the F700 could not have copied the iPhone.
Since the F700 looks so remarkably similar to the iPhone, how can Apple be sure that Samsung was not just copying it's own design?
The Prada phone did not inspire the iPhone, the iPhone did inspire Samsung.
Proof?
To me, the Samsung looks like any other tablet. Why not say the samsung copied the prada? Why not say the iphone copied the blackberries in shape, and functionality? If the F700 did not copy the iphone, then how could later version of samsung phones being copying the iphone? Maybe samsung is simply copying their own earlier designs?
But more to the point, don't kid yourself. Apple's argument isn't simply that the phone is a rounded rectangle.
But that is in Apple's argument. Oh yeah, and the device also has flat surface, as opposed to being shaped like a bubble, or something.
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Maybe. But the Android is a threat to Apple's market share, don't kid yourself about that.
Apple isn't suing Google, or Android in general, they are suing one Android handset and tablet maker for making their handsets and tablets too similar to how Apple's look. In their suit they make the point very clearly that Samsung should come up with its own design. There's no reason to copy Apple so closely.
Why because it's rectangular with rounded edges? This is junk lawsuit, you know it, and I know it. Apple is suing Samsung because it's easier than suing Google, and suing Samsung may set a precedent.
This isn't a "baby stabbing" scenario.
It certainly is. Apple does not want Android phones, or tablets, to get market share.
"Baby stabbing" would be if Apple was trying to get Samsung to stop making Android devices altogether. But Apple is only telling Samsung to come up with their own baby.
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and Oracle, are all trying to harass anybody who uses Android. These proprietary do not a more open, and less expensive, alternative on the market.
What did Microsoft do here?
Same thing as Apple, and Sony, and Oracle. Tried to kill Android while it's still in it's infancy. And tried to do so by using junk patents to file harassment lawsuits. And all those companies are doing this for the same reason, they feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative.
April 2011: Apple suee Samsung over Android
March 2011: Microsoft sues Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn over Android *
December 2010: Sony sues LG over Android
October 2010: Microsoft sues motorola over Android
August 2010: Oracle sues Google over Android and Java
March 2010: Apple sues HTC over Android
* just when B&N announce the Color Nook as an Android Tablet
Prada was announced December 2006 [wikipedia.org]. The iPhone was announced January 2007 [slashdot.org]. So you're telling me that Apple designed, prototyped and finalized their design for the iPhone in one month?
None-the-less, that should tell you that Apple did not invent the idea. So what "invention" is Apple protecting?
The other thing is that Android does not compete directly with them.
That is where you are wrong. People who buy an Android smart phone, will probably not buy an iPhone. So Android is costing Apple sales. So yes, Android is a direct competitor.
Here's how I see things. In computers, Apple still is small compared to PCs. Are they threatened by Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc? Or do they still make their computers regardless of their competitors.
Yes, Apple is threatened by those companies, and even more so by Microsoft. Not saying it will happen, but if Apple's quality fell below that of Microsoft (please, stop laughing) then Apple would lose market share.
Is Apple so threatened that it would sue Microsoft? Yes, they already have. Is Apple so threatened that Apple would sue other PC makers? Yes, Apple has done that also.
Android tablets, that have any hope of competing with an iPad, are just now coming out. And you can be sure that Apple is not too happy about that.
I think it is obvious that Apple feels threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
Am I the only one that caught the fact that Apple is just had YET ANOTHER record quarter?
And you can be sure that Apple wants to keep it that way. And, therefore Apple is threatened by the Android.
Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
Apple is doing so much better than its competition, this article is delusional. Apple has always maintained the look and feel of their products as something unique to them. They created it, why should other companies be allowed to copy them? They can come up with their own unique designs. This lawsuit fits perfectly with this idea. No need to project some sort of desperation scenario
Don't kid yourself. Apple did not create the idea of a device that is rectangular with rounded corners in shape. The idea is not unique or innovative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Also, the article is factually incorrect when it states Android is surging past iOS in market share
Don't kid yourself, Android is a huge threat to Apple. Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - MS has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
The Prada phone obviously did not influence the iPhone. The mere idea is sillly. On the other hand, Android was very clearly inspired by iOS and the iPhone. Have you seen what Android was like even just months before the iPhone was introduced? It was a Blackberry clone. Only after the iPhone came out did it find something better to copy.
Or, maybe "rectangle with rounded corners" is just so obvious an idea that nobody can be said to have invented it? Speaking of blackberries, what sort of shape did they have? And for that matter, didn't blackberries have a lot of features that appeared in iPhones?
In every single one of those cases, they were the first to create a product that people actually bought.
Yep, and good for Apple. Just goes to show: just because a basic idea was copied, does not mean there is no innovation. So if that concept is true for Apple, why not for Apple competitors?
You seem to strong double standard, and bias for Apple. If Apple copies somebody, it is completely okay. But, the other way around is strong grounds for Apple to sue. If Apple can sue Samsung, then shouldn't LG be able to sue Apple? Should blackberry be able to sue apple for the basic shape, and function, of a smart phone?
It does indeed make perfect sense.
Android is growing like wildfire. Worthwhile Android tablets are just coming out. Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - Microsoft has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
If there was any validity to the Apple fanboyz argument, then Microsoft would certainly not feel threatened by Office alternatives. Certainly Microsoft would have no cause to rig an ISO scam to have OOXML accepted as a standard.
"So Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around to the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. "
That would make sense if Apple was suing Google (for Android).. but they're not.
It also makes sense if Apple was suing Samsung - and they are. Why do you think Microsoft has filed lawsuits against: HTC, Barnes & Noble, and Foxconn? It's easier than suing Google. It would be a lot more difficult for Google to give up on Android, than for the HW makers to give up on Android. Divide and conquer.
The idea that Apple invented, and therefore owns, the idea of a device having the shape of rectangle with rounded corners is preposterous.
Even if it were not for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
the idea would still be preposterous.
...but there's no denying the Samsung devices mentioned in the lawsuit borrow heavily from the iPhone's design.
There is also no denying that a rectangle with rounded corners is not Apple's design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Prada was announced December 2006 [wikipedia.org]. The iPhone was announced January 2007 [slashdot.org]. So you're telling me that Apple designed, prototyped and finalized their design for the iPhone in one month?
Maybe not. But I think it's clear that Apple did not invent the design. Yet Apple is the one filing the lawsuit.
So who's Fudding who?
What about the LG Prada?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
It makes no sense to try to "sue your competitors out of existence" (especially by suing someone who doesn't have anything to do with Android itself, other than making a handset/tablet for it - you might as well sue Dell to try and damage Microsoft) when the mobile space is healthier than ever with both of them competing.
It makes perfect sense. By hurting those who sell android, you are hurting android. It is easier than suing google.
Apple's past history with marketshare shows that it doesn't really mind what marketshare it has
Non-sense. I doubt any successful company is every perfectly happy with the marketshare it has. Of course Apple wants more market share.
As far as Apple is concerned it doesn't affect their bottom line - they are selling iOS devices as fast as they can make them, and the more people who look at the smartphone/tablet market (via Android, iOS or otherwise) the better off they are.
Of course Android is a threat to Apple. Android is growing like wildfire. If somebody buys an android, that person did not buy an iPhone, you can be sure that Apple is well aware of that, even if you are not.
Apple may be selling all they want now, but what about next year, and the year after that? Of course companies like Microsoft, and Apple, feel threatened by a more open, and less expensive, alternative. It is a lot easier to kill off a competitor when that competitor is in it's infancy, than to wait until that competitor "grows up" and has more significant market share, and mind share. This is a case of baby stabbing - Microsoft has been famous for the tactic for a long time.
The only Android poses is one of normal competition, and that's not going to bother Apple at all.
No offence, but you must be hopelessly naive.
You also state that "worthwhile Android are just starting to come out", which is just nonsense - I have seen some awesome Android handsets that have been out for ages, since before the iPhone 4 was released. Are you telling me that no Android handsets have been worthwhile until now?
I guess "worthwhile" is a subjective term. I don't know of any Android tablets that can really compete with an iPad. But Android is getting close, and that makes Apple feel threatened.
The only motive Apple needs, is their fiduciary duty to protect the value of the design work they've done.
Don't you mean the design work that Apple stole from the LG Prada?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Microsoft has been winning in desktop/laptop OSes, and Office software, for a long time. I guess that means that Windows is much higher quality that MacOS.
Further, Apple and Google are in different markets here;
Hardly. If I buy an Android phone, instead of an iPhone, then Apple has lost market share, and mind share.
Android sales are growing explosively. Of course that threatens Apple. Don't kid yourself.
And Android sales are growing like wildfire. You would have to be a complete fool this think Apple does not feel threatened.
I think the reason they're suing is because Samsung's skin does in fact slavishly copy the iPhone look and feel.
Could that be it??
You just like the iPhone design "slavishly" copies the LG Prada, which came out before the iPhone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
1. They have to be aggressive because if they don't, someone else will be aggressive to them. It's how it works now.
Could Tanya Harding use this excuse? How about Microsoft? Does being "aggressive" mean it's okay to be unethical? If Apple fans accept this so-called "aggressive" behaviour from Apple, then why do the same fans boo and hiss when Microsoft does this sort of thing?
2. Apple can't "affect" Android because there's nothing to affect. It's an OS and it does its thing. However, when another company makes a reasonable facsimile of their device, on purpose due to popularity and design preference, they have every right to go after them. Right or wrong it's what they have to do in this market.
"Their" design? Who's design? A device that is rectangular with rounded edges is certainly not Apple's design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Certainly the ideas of rectangular device with rounded corners came out before the iPhone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA
Apple does an amazing job of taking ideas from others, and improving those ideas, and doing a great marketing job. But practically ever big idea from Apple, did not originate from Apple.
Apple did not invent:
- the PC
- the GUI
- the mp3 player
- the online music store
- the smart phone
- the tablet computer
- or much of anything else.
So isn't Apple just as much of a "copycat" as anybody?