Apples plot to kill android (sues HTC and won)

http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Plot+to+Kill+Top+Android+Maker+HTC+Nears+Fruition+With+Win/article22173.htm

Apple has won a huge case against htc one of androids top manufactures for android devices.

I dislike apple products greatly and this makes me pretty upset considering i have a HTC phone and i love their hardware. this is complete BS imo. what do you guys think?

(i apologize for just pasting the link it wouldnt "work for me")

Since they are not named Microsoft, people will likely excuse apple for this.

note to thread: not free market principles, love your artificial government monopolies

note to thread: not free market principles, love your artificial government monopolies

surrealnumber5

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of the free market, as well as any (truly) free society. If HTC infringed on patents that were issued to Apple, then the ITC made the right call.

It's only a preliminary ruling anyway. When the full ITC panel hears the controversy, they will bring in more evidence and try to determine whether the technology HTC used actually was close enough to what Apple patented to constitute patent infringement. If it was, well, HTC should have followed U.S. patent law.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

note to thread: not free market principles, love your artificial government monopolies

Communistik

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of the free market, as well as any (truly) free society. If HTC infringed on patents that were issued to Apple, then the ITC made the right call.

It's only a preliminary ruling anyway. When the full ITC panel hears the controversy, they will bring in more evidence and try to determine whether the technology HTC used actually was close enough to what Apple patented to constitute patent infringement. If it was, well, HTC should have followed U.S. patent law.

edit: you just cannot hold control over the thoughts of others, and if you dont want a thought to be shared keep it to your self

I don't care. Practically every company jumps on whatever bandwagon Apple starts.SolidSnake35

True. But many of those said companies do a better job at. Like HTC.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I don't care. Practically every company jumps on whatever bandwagon Apple starts.MarineXXII

True. But many of those said companies do a better job at. Like HTC.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

note to thread: not free market principles, love your artificial government monopolies

surrealnumber5

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of the free market, as well as any (truly) free society. If HTC infringed on patents that were issued to Apple, then the ITC made the right call.

It's only a preliminary ruling anyway. When the full ITC panel hears the controversy, they will bring in more evidence and try to determine whether the technology HTC used actually was close enough to what Apple patented to constitute patent infringement. If it was, well, HTC should have followed U.S. patent law.

edit: you just cannot hold control over the thoughts of others, and if you dont want a thought to be shared keep it to your self

Yes, property rights are absolute in a free market system, so much so that it extends to your inventions and ideas for innovation. But you're totally off-base. This is NOT about copyrights; it is about PATENTS, as it said in the article. Patents and copyrights are not the same. A patent gives the inventor of a certain technology the exclusive right to sell it for a limited period of time (in the United States, 20 years from the date you applied for the patent). This is consistent with the free market principle of rewarding people for technological innovation, and you just said you were ok with a "short term copyright," which is essentially what a patent is, except it's not a copyright, it's a patent. So if HTC is infringing on Apple's patent, why do you have a problem with the ruling? Apple gets a limited period of time to exclusively market their technology, and if that time has not passed, HTC cannot also market it.

And even though this discussion is not even about copyright, copyright IS consistent with free market principles. It protects authorship (of visual art, movies, music, books). It protects ideas just like a patent, and it prevents people from coming along at any point in the future and claiming credit for your work. Copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy your idea, and to keep other people from taking credit for it (by copying it themselves). That's just as important for encouraging artistic innovation as patents are for encouraging technological innovation.

Your idea of how intellectual property law should work is essentially communist ("if you don't want a thought to be shared, keep it to yourself"). Everybdy owns everything, and nobody owns anything...that is NOT free market. If you have an idea before anyone else, and then decide to sell your good, it WILL take something away from you if other people begin using it: all of the profits you would have made if those people had not copied your idea, which is your reward for being smart enough to innovate.

I guess I'm making several points here. First, you're wrong. Second, you have a twisted and uninformed view of copyright law. Third, you don't understand the fundamental differences between the major types of intellectual property recognized in America. Fourth, you don't understand what a free market system should actually look like, or how its benefits and burdens should operate. Fifth, you sound like an ignorant kid who is mad because "the government" and "the evil corporations" won't let him illegally download music and movies for free.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of the free market, as well as any (truly) free society. If HTC infringed on patents that were issued to Apple, then the ITC made the right call.

It's only a preliminary ruling anyway. When the full ITC panel hears the controversy, they will bring in more evidence and try to determine whether the technology HTC used actually was close enough to what Apple patented to constitute patent infringement. If it was, well, HTC should have followed U.S. patent law.

Communistik

edit: you just cannot hold control over the thoughts of others, and if you dont want a thought to be shared keep it to your self

Yes, property rights are absolute in a free market system, so much so that it extends to your inventions and ideas for innovation. But you're totally off-base. This is NOT about copyrights; it is about PATENTS, as it said in the article. Patents and copyrights are not the same. A patent gives the inventor of a certain technology the exclusive right to sell it for a limited period of time (in the United States, 20 years from the date you applied for the patent). This is consistent with the free market principle of rewarding people for technological innovation, and you just said you were ok with a "short term copyright," which is essentially what a patent is, except it's not a copyright, it's a patent. So if HTC is infringing on Apple's patent, why do you have a problem with the ruling? Apple gets a limited period of time to exclusively market their technology, and if that time has not passed, HTC cannot also market it.

And even though this discussion is not even about copyright, copyright IS consistent with free market principles. It protects authorship (of visual art, movies, music, books). It protects ideas just like a patent, and it prevents people from coming along at any point in the future and claiming credit for your work. Copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy your idea, and to keep other people from taking credit for it (by copying it themselves). That's just as important for encouraging artistic innovation as patents are for encouraging technological innovation.

Your idea of how intellectual property law should work is essentially communist ("if you don't want a thought to be shared, keep it to yourself"). Everybdy owns everything, and nobody owns anything...that is NOT free market. If you have an idea before anyone else, and then decide to sell your good, it WILL take something away from you if other people begin using it: all of the profits you would have made if those people had not copied your idea, which is your reward for being smart enough to innovate.

I guess I'm making several points here. First, you're wrong. Second, you have a twisted and uninformed view of copyright law. Third, you don't understand the fundamental differences between the major types of intellectual property recognized in America. Fourth, you don't understand what a free market system should actually look like, or how its benefits and burdens should operate. Fifth, you sound like an ignorant kid who is mad because "the government" and "the evil corporations" won't let him illegally download music and movies for free.

i gave you both what a free market is and where i thought things should be. just because i dont mind something does not mean it would hold true with an ideologue

[QUOTE="MarineXXII"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I don't care. Practically every company jumps on whatever bandwagon Apple starts.surrealnumber5

True. But many of those said companies do a better job at. Like HTC.

First, you can patent a recipe if it is useful, novel, and non-obvious enough to warrant a patent. Second, if Apple did not own the chip or buy the rights to it, they wouldn't have been issued a patent, plain and simple. The burden of proof would be on you to show that they did not, and you'd have a hard time, because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office obviously says they did. Also, you can patent a "style." It's called a Design Patent, and they can be issued to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Utility and Plant patents last for 20 years, and design patents last for 14 years. If you've seen a cheap version of something on a WalMart shelf within fewer than 14 years, it's because the company didn't patent it.

Maybe do a little reading up on patent law and come back.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you really do not understand, is not copy right but property rights are absolute. this happens because an idea is infinite, there is a term for this that is escaping me at the moment. if i have an idea and decide to share it(by selling my good), it will not remove that idea from me if anyone else uses it, this is the largest contradiction ayn rand had with most free-marketeers. now i dont have a problem with some short term copy right, it grants special favor to innovators, but the way the current system is, is down right laughable and often political. copy right is in no way a free market principle, though property rights are absolute in a theoretical free market system

edit: you just cannot hold control over the thoughts of others, and if you dont want a thought to be shared keep it to your self

surrealnumber5

Yes, property rights are absolute in a free market system, so much so that it extends to your inventions and ideas for innovation. But you're totally off-base. This is NOT about copyrights; it is about PATENTS, as it said in the article. Patents and copyrights are not the same. A patent gives the inventor of a certain technology the exclusive right to sell it for a limited period of time (in the United States, 20 years from the date you applied for the patent). This is consistent with the free market principle of rewarding people for technological innovation, and you just said you were ok with a "short term copyright," which is essentially what a patent is, except it's not a copyright, it's a patent. So if HTC is infringing on Apple's patent, why do you have a problem with the ruling? Apple gets a limited period of time to exclusively market their technology, and if that time has not passed, HTC cannot also market it.

And even though this discussion is not even about copyright, copyright IS consistent with free market principles. It protects authorship (of visual art, movies, music, books). It protects ideas just like a patent, and it prevents people from coming along at any point in the future and claiming credit for your work. Copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy your idea, and to keep other people from taking credit for it (by copying it themselves). That's just as important for encouraging artistic innovation as patents are for encouraging technological innovation.

Your idea of how intellectual property law should work is essentially communist ("if you don't want a thought to be shared, keep it to yourself"). Everybdy owns everything, and nobody owns anything...that is NOT free market. If you have an idea before anyone else, and then decide to sell your good, it WILL take something away from you if other people begin using it: all of the profits you would have made if those people had not copied your idea, which is your reward for being smart enough to innovate.

I guess I'm making several points here. First, you're wrong. Second, you have a twisted and uninformed view of copyright law. Third, you don't understand the fundamental differences between the major types of intellectual property recognized in America. Fourth, you don't understand what a free market system should actually look like, or how its benefits and burdens should operate. Fifth, you sound like an ignorant kid who is mad because "the government" and "the evil corporations" won't let him illegally download music and movies for free.

i gave you both what a free market is and where i thought things should be. just because i dont mind something does not mean it would hold true with an ideologue

A "true" free market is different from a free market, and a truly free society cannot have a "true" free market. The "true" free market in the 1700's and 1800's gave rise to slavery, and if you asked the slaves, I doubt they would have considered themselves to be "free." If you don't use a certain amount of government to inject virtue into the "true" free market, you end up with a free-for-all where people can own people, and anyone can take credit for anyone else's idea.

Zoning has nothing to do with intellectual property, and neither I nor anybody else ever claimed that zoning is an attribute of the free market. In fact, it's pretty much universally agreed that the motivation for zoning is to circumvent the free market and manufacture geographical order through government intervention, so that's a totally irrelevant and meaningless point to make here.

Linked so people do not have to copy and paste a second time.

Those Patents by apple are so broad how can a electronics manufacturer dealing in networks and information data not break it. Those patents never should have been given to apple in the first place. Apple might as well patent the sun and charge everyone to use it's rays. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

Yes, property rights are absolute in a free market system, so much so that it extends to your inventions and ideas for innovation. But you're totally off-base. This is NOT about copyrights; it is about PATENTS, as it said in the article. Patents and copyrights are not the same they are both government granted monopolies so on that level yes they are the same. A patent gives the inventor of a certain technology the exclusive right to sell it for a limited period of time (in the United States, 20 years from the date you applied for the patent)in the us it varies depending on how the intellectual property is ****fied and even then they are often extended. This is consistent with the free market principle of rewarding people for technological innovation, and you just said you were ok with a "short term copyright," which is essentially what a patent is, except it's not a copyright, it's a patent this is completely false, i doubt you have ever read anything on the free market by someone who promotes a free market. So if HTC is infringing on Apple's patent, why do you have a problem with the ruling the patent was granted after HTC had a market product, for a chip set both them and apple get from another agent and for a visual look they both share apple has no case here? Apple gets a limited period of time to exclusively market their technology, and if that time has not passed, HTC cannot also market it that is all well and good for what ever kind of protectionist market you want but it has nothing to do with a free market.

And even though this discussion is not even about copyright, copyright IS consistent with free market principles again it is a protectionist policy set forth by a large and imposing central government, that has nothing to do with a free market. It protects authorship (of visual art, movies, music, books) and that is why these policies were granted by the governing body, but that still has nothing to do with a free market. It protects ideas just like a patent, and it prevents people from coming along at any point in the future and claiming credit for your work. Copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy your idea, and to keep other people from taking credit for it (by copying it themselves). That's just as important for encouraging artistic innovation as patents are for encouraging technological innovation.

Your idea of how intellectual property law should work is essentially communist ("if you don't want a thought to be shared, keep it to yourself") ideas are not scarse like nearly all other good, there is no damage done when a person uses or shares an idea not of his own creation, but when a person does this with any scarce recourse it removes it from the original holder causing damages and violating his property rights, property rights do not extend to the ethereal. Everybdy owns everything, and nobody owns anything...that is NOT free market never said anything like that. If you have an idea before anyone else, and then decide to sell your good, it WILL take something away from you if other people begin using itwhat will it take away?: all of the profits you would have made if those people had not copied your idea, which is your reward for being smart enough to innovate lol youre going to argue that potential is a physical loss, potential is nothing, you also dont seem to have a firm grip on what trade is.

I guess I'm making several points here. First, you're wrong. Second, you have a twisted and uninformed view of copyright law. Third, you don't understand the fundamental differences between the major types of intellectual property recognized in America. Fourth, you don't understand what a free market system should actually look like, or how its benefits and burdens should operate. Fifth, you sound like an ignorant kid who is mad because "the government" and "the evil corporations" won't let him illegally download music and movies for free. personal attacks i bet that means youre right, because that is where people go when they have a lot of arguments left

Communistik

i gave you both what a free market is and where i thought things should be. just because i dont mind something does not mean it would hold true with an ideologue

A "true" free market is different from a free market, and a truly free society cannot have a "true" free market. The "true" free market in the 1700's and 1800's where? and what? gave rise to slavery absolute violation of personal and property rights "true" free market lol wut?, and if you asked the slaves, I doubt they would have considered themselves to be "free." and if you asked a slave if he were in a free market or indentured servitude he would not say free If you don't use a certain amount of government to inject virtue into the "true" free market, you end up with a free-for-all where people can own people, and anyone can take credit for anyone else's idea i think this like speaks for its self, you get your freemarket ideas from your communist pholipisers but we could have guessed that from your name.

Zoning has nothing to do with intellectual property, and neither I nor anybody else ever claimed that zoning is an attribute of the free market it has just as much to do with a free market as controlling the ideas and actions of other men something that seems to be the cornerstone of your "free market". In fact, it's pretty much universally agreed that the motivation for zoning is to circumvent the free market and manufacture geographical order through government intervention, so that's a totally irrelevant and meaningless point to make here it is not irrelevant because intellectual property has the same effect.

I hope this doesn't stop me from getting my phone, but it sure sounds like it will. Apple has just lost all my business. If I decide to get another MP3 player, it will be the Zune now instead of an Ipod touch.

I don't care. Practically every company jumps on whatever bandwagon Apple starts.SolidSnake35

Yes and they not only improve on concepts introduced by Apple (some of which are far too broad to patent), but force Apple to continually innovate and keep the price fair. Competition is always beneficial for the consumer.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I don't care. Practically every company jumps on whatever bandwagon Apple starts.Dark_Knight6

Yes and they not only improve on concepts introduced by Apple (some of which are far too broad to patent), but force Apple to continually innovate and keep the price fair. Competition is always beneficial for the consumer.

I hope this doesn't stop me from getting my phone, but it sure sounds like it will. Apple has just lost all my business. If I decide to get another MP3 player, it will be the Zune now instead of an Ipod touch.

AmazonTreeBoa

I don't care. Practically every company jumps on whatever bandwagon Apple starts.SolidSnake35

Hmmmmm, let's see, IBM creates the first home PC. Apple follows suit with their own computer. Motorola designs first cell phone, Apple decides to finally jump on the cell phone bandwagon. Apple copies as much as anyone else. Tablet PCs were on the market long before the iPad was introduced as were MP3 players before the iPod. Apple is just a greedy company.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]

I hope this doesn't stop me from getting my phone, but it sure sounds like it will. Apple has just lost all my business. If I decide to get another MP3 player, it will be the Zune now instead of an Ipod touch.

tjoeb123

Name one product that Apple has come up with that was an original idea.

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]

I hope this doesn't stop me from getting my phone, but it sure sounds like it will. Apple has just lost all my business. If I decide to get another MP3 player, it will be the Zune now instead of an Ipod touch.

WhiteKnight77

Name one product that Apple has come up with that was an original idea.

It's not over yet.

Wonder who apple stole the ideas they're suing over from...

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"] A Zune? Like my Game Room thread in GGD, Microsoft practically forgot that (the Zune hardware) too! They want us to buy Windows Phone 7s. And honestly, this doesn't really concern me as I don't see a SINGLE Android device like the iPod Touch. If there is indeed one then please gladly point me to it. Here's the way I see this whole thing: Apple gets an idea of a product. Apple lays it out and patents it and all releated components. Apple (eventually) release the product. Samsung, HTC, etc. all see the profit they could make out of such product. They steal the design and ideas and claim it as their own. Their product gets released. Apple sees the mock-up versions of their product. Apple plants exploding Apples in HTC and Samsung's faces. They blow up. Apple wins.Apple kills all other related companies. And who knows, maybe Apple will try to take on Google next. But what's funny is that Apple has a design for a certain feature that belongs to Microsoft, and they're not suing squat.DroidPhysX

Name one product that Apple has come up with that was an original idea.

Hmmmmm, are you sure that transferring of data over a cable was not created earlier even if the connector and speeds were different?

I don't care, not even slightly. They are a company trying to make it to the top. They will do what ever it takes to get there. Nothing new in this. It's all cut throat baby.

I hope this doesn't stop me from getting my phone, but it sure sounds like it will. Apple has just lost all my business. If I decide to get another MP3 player, it will be the Zune now instead of an Ipod touch.

AmazonTreeBoa

Anyone that thinks HTC make better phones than Apple are living in denial, and are most likely anti Apple PC fanboys (the majority of this forum). HTC are a carbon copy of the iPhone but inferior. By all means buy a HTC, but don't hate on Apple in the process, if it wasn't for them smart phones wouldn't be what they are today. You'd still be using a stylus.

Anyone that thinks HTC make better phones than Apple are living in denial, and are most likely anti Apple PC fanboys (the majority of this forum). HTC are a carbon copy of the iPhone but inferior. By all means buy a HTC, but don't hate on Apple in the process, if it wasn't for them smart phones wouldn't be what they are today. You'd still be using a stylus.

Asim90

Android osowns on the iPhone os. Maybe it's time to update the iPhone os and then they wouldn't have to worry about android taking all their business. Apple got comfortable because everyone has an iPhone. I hope HTC wins the appeal.

I like options. Therefore i dislike Apple.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"] A Zune? Like my Game Room thread in GGD, Microsoft practically forgot that (the Zune hardware) too! They want us to buy Windows Phone 7s. And honestly, this doesn't really concern me as I don't see a SINGLE Android device like the iPod Touch. If there is indeed one then please gladly point me to it. Here's the way I see this whole thing: Apple gets an idea of a product. Apple lays it out and patents it and all releated components. Apple (eventually) release the product. Samsung, HTC, etc. all see the profit they could make out of such product. They steal the design and ideas and claim it as their own. Their product gets released. Apple sees the mock-up versions of their product. Apple plants exploding Apples in HTC and Samsung's faces. They blow up. Apple wins.Apple kills all other related companies. And who knows, maybe Apple will try to take on Google next. But what's funny is that Apple has a design for a certain feature that belongs to Microsoft, and they're not suing squat.DroidPhysX

Name one product that Apple has come up with that was an original idea.

Also, you can patent a "style." It's called a Design Patent, and they can be issued to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.

Communistik

That dosn't apply to clothes. Clothes are too utilitarian to be copyrighted however you can patent your logo which is why you see them plasted over so many designer pieces these days.

The mouse? Thunderbolt? Keyboardless smartphone? Tablet that makes competitors cry? iTunes? Just about every one of their key products were game changers because they want the quality of their products to be what everyone expects.tjoeb123

Mouse = Stanford

Thunderbolt = Intel

keyboardless smartphone = had been used by various PDAs including ones with phone capabilities for over half a decade prior to the iPhone

iTunes = Based off of SoundJamMP, Ritmoteca predated apple by 3 years with the digital music sotre idea

I bet Apple's marketing execs are happy to see their work convinced you they were inovators ;)

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"]The mouse? Thunderbolt? Keyboardless smartphone? Tablet that makes competitors cry? iTunes? Just about every one of their key products were game changers because they want the quality of their products to be what everyone expects.markop2003

Mouse = Stanford

Thunderbolt = Intel

keyboardless smartphone = had been used by various PDAs including ones with phone capabilities for over half a decade prior to the iPhone

iTunes = Based off of SoundJamMP, Ritmoteca predated apple by 3 years with the digital music sotre idea

I bet Apple's marketing execs are happy to see their work convinced you they were inovators ;)

Not to mention mouse was originally coined by Bill English's 1965 publication "Computer-Aided Display Control."

Apple sold it's first computer some 20 years after the first computer was created.

MP3 programs were around before iTunes was even released. Musicmatch Jukebox dates to 1992 with the MP3 dating back to the 80s.

Apple does nothing original. They may sell masses of products, buy nothing is original, someone else has already created it. USB 1 predates Firewire by a year. Even touching something with a stylus is no different than using your finger, your finger becomes the stylus. The first MP3 player was sold in 1998, 3 years before the iPod. Apple does nothing original. They make stuff that is simplistic and people like it. The one thing they have done is get others to simplify their designs.

Apple is just butthurt over people doing stuff better than they did. Nothing more.

[QUOTE="markop2003"]

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"]The mouse? Thunderbolt? Keyboardless smartphone? Tablet that makes competitors cry? iTunes? Just about every one of their key products were game changers because they want the quality of their products to be what everyone expects.WhiteKnight77

Mouse = Stanford

Thunderbolt = Intel

keyboardless smartphone = had been used by various PDAs including ones with phone capabilities for over half a decade prior to the iPhone

iTunes = Based off of SoundJamMP, Ritmoteca predated apple by 3 years with the digital music sotre idea

I bet Apple's marketing execs are happy to see their work convinced you they were inovators ;)

Not to mention mouse was originally coined by Bill English's 1965 publication "Computer-Aided Display Control."

Apple sold it's first computer some 20 years after the first computer was created.

MP3 programs were around before iTunes was even released. Musicmatch Jukebox dates to 1992 with the MP3 dating back to the 80s.

Apple does nothing original. They may sell masses of products, buy nothing is original, someone else has already created it. USB 1 predates Firewire by a year. Even touching something with a stylus is no different than using your finger, your finger becomes the stylus. The first MP3 player was sold in 1998, 3 years before the iPod. Apple does nothing original. They make stuff that is simplistic and people like it. The one thing they have done is get others to simplify their designs.

[QUOTE="markop2003"]

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"]The mouse? Thunderbolt? Keyboardless smartphone? Tablet that makes competitors cry? iTunes? Just about every one of their key products were game changers because they want the quality of their products to be what everyone expects.WhiteKnight77

Mouse = Stanford

Thunderbolt = Intel

keyboardless smartphone = had been used by various PDAs including ones with phone capabilities for over half a decade prior to the iPhone

iTunes = Based off of SoundJamMP, Ritmoteca predated apple by 3 years with the digital music sotre idea

I bet Apple's marketing execs are happy to see their work convinced you they were inovators ;)

Not to mention mouse was originally coined by Bill English's 1965 publication "Computer-Aided Display Control."

Apple sold it's first computer some 20 years after the first computer was created.

MP3 programs were around before iTunes was even released. Musicmatch Jukebox dates to 1992 with the MP3 dating back to the 80s.

Apple does nothing original. They may sell masses of products, buy nothing is original, someone else has already created it. USB 1 predates Firewire by a year. Even touching something with a stylus is no different than using your finger, your finger becomes the stylus. The first MP3 player was sold in 1998, 3 years before the iPod. Apple does nothing original. They make stuff that is simplistic and people like it. The one thing they have done is get others to simplify their designs.

Funny how no one disputes my point about firewire with a valid statement.DroidPhysX

I already asked you if you mean the ability to transfer data via a cable or just the connector and speed? As I pointed out, USB was a year ahead of Firewire.