Oh please. Can we stop pretending Apple invented everything in 2007 and everyone else had been clueless for centuries before? I get to see this every week on HN and it gets seriously old.
And even if it were true it seems like Apple never had a problem to keep selling their devices while the evil copiers were swarming the market. Hardly a good example of useful patent protection.
This is like the desktop idea Microsoft stole from Apple. Doesn't matter that Xerox did it first or that it was inevitable as computers were becoming more powerful.
It's not like there is prior art for most of the touch patents with the diamond touch. The patents are also as absurd as patenting the double click.
For any touch device, we want to maximize touch area. To do that, a square is best. A square doesn't fit well in pockets so a rectangle is better for a phone. It's also very uncomfortable to have a rectangle with sharp edges in your pocket. But wait... we don't have the freedom to design something useful, Apple did that first!
What really ticks me off is that touch based phones were coming with or without Apple as the technology was becoming cheap enough. The only difference is that Apple did it first and they did it well (few companies do anything well). They didn't really invent much in the process but combined many existing concepts into an awesome product. What scares me is that most of these patents are obvious and completly ridiculous and shouldn't be grounds for granting Apple a monopoly on smartphones.
(slightly OT but Apple paid Xerox for the GUI and then did significant development on it - compare a Smalltalk/80 system to the Lisa and you can see how much Apple did to improve it)
Don't you remember? Or are you too young to recall what phones were like prior to the first iPhone. I despise the current climate of litigation; but I remember., and all the claims otherwise won't make me forget.
That's the opposite of the good old tiger repellent rock. Patents don't do anything look how well Apple does without them, wait Apple has and uses them. The truth is we don't know what a high tech international corporation would be like without patents because they all have them. You can't even say Apple would be as successful if they where less aggressive because they are already successful and they do use them.
My point is that Apple was doing very well without having to resort to patent claims/protection - when it came out with the iPhone, it was a success not because they had patents for it, but because people were BUYING it willingly. People buys things and do not care what is protected by patents or what is not. As long as Apple make desirable devices, why do they need to resort to patents ? They already have a significant advantage on the supply chain side that nobody else can reproduce so far. There are many ways you can protect your business without having to take the patent claims to court. It's very obvious.
And even if it were true it seems like Apple never had a problem to keep selling their devices while the evil copiers were swarming the market. Hardly a good example of useful patent protection.