I thought LG Prada also called as KE850 was sold in the USA. So how come it's not considered prior art.
I searched the net and came with this comparison done against the Prada when Iphone first came out.
Also, it most probably was available through Amazon in the USA.
I never would have thought, for the briefest moment, that the words 'may" and "could" were in Jobs' vocabulary.
So it appears to me that Jobs could have been insecure, hiding behind intimidation - this may make sense to me now.
I'm with Dylan. This proves what everyone already knew. Companies always study each others' products in the greatest detail.
As to copying patented features, I've yet to see what features of the ones mentioned so far could be construed as credibly patented.
This is a matter of when technology reaches a certain stage, a flurry of new products can emerge, and they do. Certainly we saw this happening with the single-chip computer, with digital image compression, and countless other examples from the Industrial Revolution to today. Almost like a floodgate opens up, when a key invention is made.
Apple cannot credibly prevent progress.
This will the most ridiculous lawsuit of the century, if it wouldn't be happening. Apple's great competitive position is only due to good design and good marketing. The technology itself comes from others (e.g. Samsung in Korea). Even the assembly is done in China. Get real!
The emails are interesting but not core to the case, IMHO. They establish industry practice is to examine in great detail competing products.
The emails do not speak directly to whether Samsung copied Apple's patented technologies.
Would love to be a juror on this one.
I know I'm not seeing the whole picture just from these selected emails in this article, but what I see so far is not convincing of either side's case. Also, the timeline is unclear from the dates of these emails. Who allegedly copied who, and when?
Great reading. Shows what everyone knew all along: both companies benchmark and evaluate other products and ask themselves what they can do to incorporate and build on the features and capabilities they find. I am no lawyer or judge, but I would argue that the Jobs email is the most damming of all.