[NewsPoster]

An email from Samsung managers alerting the company to a "design crisis" following the launch of the iPhone in 2007 is perhaps the strongest indication yet that Samsung, as Apple has contended in the current trial, began willfully copying Apple's design ethos -- and the evidence was ironically introduced by a Samsung executive. Justin Denison, the chief strategy officer for Samsung's US branch, showed off the internal memo that described the difference between the iPhone and then-current phones as "heaven and earth."

While Denison tried to characterize the memo as "hyperbole" that was typical for the company to use to "energize" its employees and intended to show off Samsung's competitiveness and pride, Apple lawyers pounced on the document over the numerous objections of the Samsung team, all of which were shot down by Judge Lucy Koh, who told Samsung that Denison's reference to the email "opened the door" for Apple's use of it, report AppleInsider. The full quote from the email, likely translated from Korean, goes as follows: "All this time we've been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide ... yet when our [product] is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple's iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth. It's a crisis of design." Samsung and other companies' smartphones prior to the iPhone tended to look completely different in form and functionality, though a handful of designers, including Samsung, were starting to experiment with more advanced designs. When asked by Apple attorney William Lee if there was in his view a difference between competing "fairly and squarely" and copying another company's intellectual property, Denison said there was. On Friday, Denison was forced to acknowledge a number of reports from Samsung (some of which he created) that showed detailed, side-by-side comparisons of Samsung's Galaxy S and Apple's iPhone, along with presentations that had titles like "Beat Apple response strategy" and "recent Apple analysis project." When asked if Denison could provide a similar "crisis in design" type document referring to anything Nokia produced, the Samsung exec admitted he couldn't. [via AppleInsider]

[freudling]

Originally Posted by NewsPoster 

An email from Samsung managers alerting the company to a "design crisis" following the launch of the iPhone in 2007 is perhaps the strongest indication yet that Samsung, as Apple has contended in the current trial, began willfully copying Apple's design ethos -- and the evidence was ironically introduced by a Samsung executive. Justin Denison, the chief strategy officer for Samsung's US branch, showed off the internal memo that described the difference between the iPhone and then-current phones as "heaven and earth."

While Denison tried to characterize the memo as "hyperbole" that was typical for the company to use to "energize" its employees and intended to show off Samsung's competitiveness and pride, Apple lawyers pounced on the document over the numerous objections of the Samsung team, all of which were shot down by Judge Lucy Koh, who told Samsung that Denison's reference to the email "opened the door" for Apple's use of it, report AppleInsider.
The full quote from the email, likely translated from Korean, goes as follows: "All this time we've been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide ... yet when our [product] is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple's iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth. It's a crisis of design." Samsung and other companies' smartphones prior to the iPhone tended to look completely different in form and functionality, though a handful of designers, including Samsung, were starting to experiment with more advanced designs.
When asked by Apple attorney William Lee if there was in his view a difference between competing "fairly and squarely" and copying another company's intellectual property, Denison said there was. On Friday, Denison was forced to acknowledge a number of reports from Samsung (some of which he created) that showed detailed, side-by-side comparisons of Samsung's Galaxy S and Apple's iPhone, along with presentations that had titles like "Beat Apple response strategy" and "recent Apple analysis project."
When asked if Denison could provide a similar "crisis in design" type document referring to anything Nokia produced, the Samsung exec admitted he couldn't. [via AppleInsider]

Well if this implies some kind of guilt then color me and probably every other company out there guilty for having information on competitors and trying to rally employees. Even Jobs basically admitted his whole thing about Google being evil was manufactured to motivate his employees. To create a bad guy that was out to get them. I even sent a fake email to my employees looking like it was from one of our competitors calling our stuff crap. I did it to motivate them to "win".

I mean get real here. This stuff from Denison implies ZERO of anything: nothing but the norm in business.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Even Jobs basically admitted his whole thing about Google being evil was manufactured to motivate his employees.

When and where?

[Charles Martin]

I'm with you on this -- I think that claim is full of nonsense.

[Stuke]

The graphic exhibit says it all...case closed...Samsung stole/copied the design. Disagree all you want, but this fact is indisputable.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

When and where?

If we are to believe Google's Larry Page:

"I think the Android differences were actually for show. I had a relationship with Steve. I think that served their interests. For a lot of companies, it’s useful for them to feel like they have an obvious competitor and to rally around that. I personally believe that it’s better to shoot higher. You don’t want to be looking at your competitors. You want to be looking at what’s possible and how to make the world better."

Read more at http://9to5google.com/2012/04/04/google-ceo-larry-page-says-steve-jobs-fury-over-android-was-just-to-rally-troops/#Q81pdTjLHXFg14zq.99

And looking back at things like Jobs' war video from the 80s making IBM out to be the enemy. Apple's disonformation machine and how Jobs et al. studied Nazi disinformation campaigns and tactics.

To actually believe a grown man thinks companies like Google are evil is absurd. Blackwater? Goodyear Tires with their killing locals and annexing land? Ok, now you're getting warm.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Stuke 

The graphic exhibit says it all...case closed...Samsung stole/copied the design. Disagree all you want, but this fact is indisputable.

And what specifically does the graphic say? It is NOT case closed.

[fractaledge]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Apple's disonformation machine and how Jobs et al. studied Nazi disinformation campaigns and tactics.

Any references for that? Or Are you just trying to invoke Godwin's law?

To actually believe a grown man thinks companies like Apple are evil is absurd.

[fractaledge]

Originally Posted by freudling 

If we are to believe Google's Larry Page:

And why shouldn't we? I mean, Larry Page is well known to be a reliable and neutral source of information on everything Apple, with no conflict of interest whatsoever. After all, Google's motto is "Do no evil." And company mottos never lie.

[Charles Martin]

Yeah, I think freudling's claim that Steve ever qualified those remarks is officially dead in the water.

Not to mention that Isaacson, who ought to know, and Cook -- who ought to know even more so -- have repeatedly rebutted Page's wishful fantasies:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/05/contests.claim.by.page.that.fury.was.for.show/

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

Originally Posted by freudling 

Apple's disonformation machine and how Jobs et al. studied Nazi disinformation campaigns and tactics.

Any references for that? Or Are you just trying to invoke Godwin's law?

To actually believe a grown man thinks companies like Apple are evil is absurd.

FWIW, that wasn't Godwin's law; it was a reference to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM6tAxGUz_s

[freudling]

Originally Posted by chas_m 

Yeah, I think freudling's claim that Steve ever qualified those remarks is officially dead in the water.
Not to mention that Isaacson, who ought to know, and Cook -- who ought to know even more so -- have repeatedly rebutted Page's wishful fantasies:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/05/contests.claim.by.page.that.fury.was.for.show/

Nope.

I don't deny Jobs was pissed over Android. I'd be pissed too. Notice how I haven't said a whole lot about Android? I think Apple has a much better case against Google than they do against Samsung. However, that case will have a lot of issues too.

Anyway, the point is that even if Jobs was pissed about it, to externalize it the way he did to his staff may have been simply to let it out and motivate his staff by creating a boogy man. He did it very piblicly in the 80s creating an enemy that was IBM.

Jobs was a liar and manipulator. A spaz. He regularly lied to the media, discounting the very things they were working on to throw off the competition.

And if you want to learn about how much of a son of a bitch he was, go to the library and read some books. You'll find a lot of atuff you've likely never read about in books about Jobs and Apple from the 80s. A couple of good books to get you started if you haven't already read them are Garden of Eden and Odyssey.

So many things. For instance, when Jobs got back to Apple, he started cutting the fat right away. When he told an Exec to cancel a paid lifetime Mac warranty program they had going, the Exec told him that wasn't fair to the customers. He said "**** em'."

After reading about countless things like this, it's clear that Jobs was interested in making great products but was also a ruthless psychopath who didn't care about the feelings of others. A person like this will manipulate you to get what he wants and move on. Like many have said, Jobs was your best friend when he wanted something, and then couldn't care after he got what he wanted.

Jobs was all about show and results. You get sucked into his manipulative world at your own peril, just like you do believing the government and boogeymen like Bin Laden.

There's a great quote by Voltaire:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

[freudling]

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

Any references for that? Or Are you just trying to invoke Godwin's law?
To actually believe a grown man thinks companies like Apple are evil is absurd.

Out of some 3000 posts I've done here and several in lengthy threads this is one of the first times I've ever referenced Hitler. It has nothing to do with some dude who thinks discussions of length online thpically have references to Hitler. It's because it's directly related to what is being discussed: the Germans disinformation machine has been widely studied ocer the years and even incorporated into business textbooks and business strategy. And this disinformation machine has been related to companies like Apple.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

And why shouldn't we? I mean, Larry Page is well known to be a reliable and neutral source of information on everything Apple, with no conflict of interest whatsoever. After all, Google's motto is "Do no evil." And company mottos never lie.

I mean please. Are things that sad around here that people really believe in boogeymen? That Google is really evil? What defines evil? How specifically is Google evil? Is Apple evil? Sweatshop labour in China? People getting paid crap to build their products.

Please lay out for me how Google is evil. I think I' e been around evil people and worked at evil places. But to me those places make Google look like a joke. I'm serious. I must be missing something about Google doing evil stuff. Please lay it out.

[Charles Martin]

So it is your contention that Google does not build anything in China?

And your contention that Google does not engage in any practices that are similar to the ones you consider Apple to be "evil" over?

Could you clarify that? I just want to be sure we're on the same page before I take the time and effort to info-dump you, because that file is EXTENSIVE to put it mildly.

[fractaledge]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I must be missing something about Google doing evil stuff. Please lay it out.

You are missing something. You seem to have noticed the most salient feature of my rhetoric (mentioning the Google motto) and completely missed its point (that Larry Page can not be trusted to give witness to something Jobs may or may not have said based on Larry's association with Google and therefore having conflicting interests.)

Originally Posted by freudling 

... the Germans disinformation machine has been widely studied ocer the years and even incorporated into business textbooks and business strategy. And this disinformation machine has been related to companies like Apple.

And, I presume, Google? Is Google "like Apple"? Or is their disinformation machine based on something else? Good wishes, perhaps? (See what I am doing there? Don't take the red herring. )

Or are you making a fallacy of going from general to specific?

Originally Posted by freudling 

Jobs was a liar and manipulator. A spaz."

I think that making a gross oversimplification of a character based on limited third-party sensationalist sources is only marginally better than making an argument from character fallacy. What do you think?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by chas_m 

So it is your contention that Google does not build anything in China?

Please, stop injecting this stuff that nobody said. My point is that if Google is really evil, isn't Apple? How different are they?

Right...

Originally Posted by chas_m 

And your contention that Google does not engage in any practices that are similar to the ones you consider Apple to be "evil" over?

I never said that. I'm trying to understand how Google can be evil and Apple not. I'm assuming that the fanboys who believe Google to be evil DO NOT assume that Apple is evil. They assume Apple is the saviour and somehow morally better than Google. This is what's delusional.

Originally Posted by chas_m 

Could you clarify that? I just want to be sure we're on the same page before I take the time and effort to info-dump you, because that file is EXTENSIVE to put it mildly.

Go ahead and info-dump me, I can't wait.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

You are missing something. You seem to have noticed the most salient feature of my rhetoric (mentioning the Google motto) and completely missed its point (that Larry Page can not be trusted to give witness to something Jobs may or may not have said based on Larry's association with Google and therefore having conflicting interests.)

Or that Larry is actually a leader of a huge tech company and you're not. And that he said what he said about rallying employees because he does the exact same thing? That he actually says these things because he understands the mind of Jobs because he essentially has the same job under the same conditions in the world?

And to me it looked like his comments were very respectable toward jobs and sentimental. As a matter of public record it's shown that Jobs gave him good advice to have focus and that's what Google has started to do. Inviting someone over to your place to give business advice doesn't sound like the person doing the inviting truly believes you to be some evil force out to kill you and your business... Or that Jobs was really afraid, etc. It's business.

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

And, I presume, Google? Is Google "like Apple"? Or is their disinformation machine based on something else? Good wishes, perhaps? (See what I am doing there? Don't take the red herring. )
Or are you making a fallacy of going from general to specific?
I think that making a gross oversimplification of a character based on limited third-party sensationalist sources is only marginally better than making an argument from character fallacy. What do you think?

What fallacy are you referring to? You make ZERO sense. None. Most everything I have said is based on pure facts and things as a matter of public record. Apple puts out disinformation all of the time. Period. Full stop. Jobs manipulated people, lied... many people hated him, including some people at my business who used to work with directly with Jobs. Lots of stories of how much of a son of a bitch he was and how he didn't care about anyone but himself. I work with people who worked with Steve and Apple from the very beginning. One of several things: before a shareholders meeting, Steve wound up to punch one of my coworkers in the face because he asked why he named the Lisa computer... Lisa.

Steve got ousted from Apple partly because he was an out of control asshole and partly because Sculley is an idiot for not being able to handle Jobs. Anyway, overall, because Steve was a sort of functional psychopath, does that make Apple evil? I don't think so. Not at all. It's simply a level playing field in the world of tons of people acting like this to get what they need.

Is Ted Bundy evil? Yes. Is Citibank evil, a former employer of mine? Yup. I've never seen so much corruption and screwed up psychopaths in one building as I did at the headquarters I worked at and all the crap that went on. From money laundering, to satan worshipping, to breaking banking laws in Asia, from Enron and all the rest of the crap. This is a company who doesn't care about anyone. Ruthless bastards.

I consider myself somewhat ruthless but I was put to shame by top Citibank managers. I actually have a few moral scruples and a little bit of a conscious.

I see no evidence of Google being "evil". I see a bunch of harmless tech nerds... It's the media and all the fanboy bullshit that perpetuates this stuff.

There's a real world lurking out there my friend, you should jump into it...

[fractaledge]

Originally Posted by freudling 

What fallacy are you referring to? You make ZERO sense. None.

This is getting tedious.

Ok. I use shorter words and simpler sentences from now on. Rather than eliciting leading I will spell out.

No rational argument can be made based on judgement of character.

I never said Google is evil. The converse of "Google is evil" is not "Google is harmless." Nothing is good or evil, good or bad, black or white. Those are all relative terms.

You make some really, really good points. But then invalidate them by bad, irrational, inconsistent, self-defeating arguments. You don't believe the government or in bogeymen like good old Osama, but you believe that Apple is running a nazi-styled disinformation campaign while Google is just a bunch of harmless tech nerds. Oh, and that there is a conspiracy of media perpetuating fanboy bullshit. See the problem?

Originally Posted by freudling 

There's a real world lurking out there my friend, you should jump into it...

Nah, I am pretty happy under my fanboy rock, brainwashed by Apple's nazi disinformation machine as I am. Maybe one day I'll see the pure light of Googly goodness.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

This is getting tedious.
Ok. I use shorter words and simpler sentences from now on. Rather than eliciting leading I will spell out.
No rational argument can be made based on judgement of character.

No, not at all. No character can be judged, period. Ted Bundy was perfect! We're not allowed to judge people's character based on their actions.

Right, meanwhile, the rest of the world passes you by in terms of being based in reality.

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

I never said Google is evil. The converse of "Google is evil" is not "Google is harmless." Nothing is good or evil, good or bad, black or white. Those are all relative terms.

Yes, things are actually good or bad. We can make these distinctions precisely because society has clear definitions of what's good and what's bad. Murdering your girlfriend is bad. Mutual respect and love are good.

Murder is not relatively bad: it's bad. Period.

You can argue all day long that to a tribe called quest in some part of the world nobody lives in where they murder people for good luck in crop growth is "good". But it's not because of one simple thing that we've all figure out: the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Most people simply don't want to die. All life is is self-preservation and evolution. Animals, plants... all vying to live and be healthy. People get scared when their life is threatened. Sex for procreation moves people all over the world and drives them to do things they'd never imagine because "life", the preservation of it, is hardwired into all life. It's one of the single most important driving forces of life: self-preservation and procreation.

And if you still think it's ok for other cultures to do things like murder, that's cool. But I have some shocking news for you. If you live in developed countries like the US, Canada, most of Europe, good and bad is very clearly defined and things like murder are bad and not tolerated.

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

You make some really, really good points. But then invalidate them by bad, irrational, inconsistent, self-defeating arguments. You don't believe the government or in bogeymen like good old Osama, but you believe that Apple is running a nazi-styled disinformation campaign while Google is just a bunch of harmless tech nerds. Oh, and that there is a conspiracy of media perpetuating fanboy bullshit. See the problem?
Nah, I am pretty happy under my fanboy rock, brainwashed by Apple's nazi disinformation machine as I am. Maybe one day I'll see the pure light of Googly goodness.

You actually don't make really good points because you're simply irrational and inconsistent.

You offer ZERO support for pretty much everything you say, discounting the actual experiences of other people who live and are close to people who are part of the business and culture in which you are talking about. Meanwhile, you probably have not worked or been close to people who have worked with Jobs. You probably don't have any real experience in the tech industry or in life.

If you did, you wouldn't be saying the things you are and pointing out fallacy definitions from Wikipedia. You'd be discussing facts that you simply choose to ignore because of delusions and a lack of experience.

[fractaledge]

Originally Posted by freudling 

No, not at all. No character can be judged, period. Ted Bundy was perfect! We're not allowed to judge people's character based on their actions.

Some arguably clear-cut cases can be judged on character in retrospect, therefore all cases can be judged on character all the time. Well done destroying that argument.

Originally Posted by freudling 

Yes, things are actually good or bad. We can make these distinctions precisely because society has clear definitions of what's good and what's bad. Murdering your girlfriend is bad. Mutual respect and love are good.
Murder is not relatively bad: it's bad. Period.
... But I have some shocking news for you. If you live in developed countries like the US, Canada, most of Europe, good and bad is very clearly defined and things like murder are bad and not tolerated.

I have some shocking news for you: Ted Bundy, everyone's favourite serial killer and the internationally recognised standard of evil, has been murdered by the developed state. Cause, like, murder is not relatively bad: it's bad. Period. Like, totally.

Can you give me a clear definition of what is good or bad? You have given one specific and narrow example, and even that one doesn't seem to hold under closer scrutiny. You claim such clear definition exists. Please, provide. I suspect such definition will be a weighty tome as so many of the world's best philosophers, lawyers, politicians and theologians have written so many pages on the matter and yet have not come to any clear definition. It would be a fantastic contribution to our understanding of the world, and you will probably be nominated for a Nobel peace prise. Wouldn't that stroke your ego even more than attempting to insult an online opponent you know nothing about?

Come on. A clear definition of good and bad. Not just some specific or general example, a clear definition as you said. Come on! The real world you claim to know is waiting! Man or mouse? A clear definition is all you need to provide to prove one way or another.

Originally Posted by freudling 

You actually don't make really good points because you're simply irrational and inconsistent.
You offer ZERO support for pretty much everything you say, discounting the actual experiences of other people who live and are close to people who are part of the business and culture in which you are talking about. Meanwhile, you probably have not worked or been close to people who have worked with Jobs. You probably don't have any real experience in the tech industry or in life.
If you did, you wouldn't be saying the things you are and pointing out fallacy definitions from Wikipedia. You'd be discussing facts that you simply choose to ignore because of delusions and a lack of experience.

There you go stooping down to ad hominem again. Tisk tisk.

You seem to know so much about the world in general, and about me in particular, that I can not wait to be enlightened even more by your worldly knowledge and wisdom. Clearly, I am the deluded one.

Oh wise one, please amuse enlighten me more.

[fractaledge]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I think if you keep looking you'll find some more snuff videos. Why don't you go watch more people being murdered and raped.

You clearly have a bit of a rape and murder fetish, don't you? Is that all you can talk about?

So, can't provide a clear definition of what is good or evil? Just the same example of what is clearly evil, that is, unless the state does it?

I have to apologise to everyone reading this thread. This has clearly gone too far.

I am a fool, for arguing with one clearly makes me one.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein

I bow before the infinite and add freudling to my ignore list.

[pairof9s]

All I know is the phone I put in my hand on June 2007 was unlike any phone I had every seen, used, or heard of. In fact, it was both mocked as FAIL as well as praised by those who thought they knew what a successful mobile phone should be. But once you had it in your hand, you knew there was never a chance you'd go back to flips and plastic keyboards.

Samsung, as well as everyone else, copied Apple's iPhone.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by freudling 

... It's clear the only thing you're interested in, Mr. Fresh Faced Recruit around here, is arguing.

Most of our supposedly new "Recruits" are long-time News commenters with hundreds or thousands of posts. Those do not show because the Huddler migration did not import their past news comments, and I lack the access to do a custom import. It's unfair - their seniority has been hidden.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by fractaledge 

You clearly have a bit of a rape and murder fetish, don't you? Is that all you can talk about?
So, can't provide a clear definition of what is good or evil? Just the same example of what is clearly evil, that is, unless the state does it?
I have to apologise to everyone reading this thread. This has clearly gone too far.
I am a fool, for arguing with one clearly makes me one.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein
I bow before the infinite and add freudling to my ignore list.

Indeed you are a fool.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Most of our supposedly new "Recruits" are long-time News commenters with hundreds or thousands of posts. Those do not show because the Huddler migration did not import their past news comments, and I lack the access to do a custom import. It's unfair - their seniority has been hidden.

What does it really matter anyway? The person derailed the thread. It's clear from their posts, talking about theologians, pionting out fallacy definitions on Wikipedia, bringing up good and bad, thinking that there is no defintion for these things, being passive aggressive and incredulous that they're not interested in facts or the topic but arguing.

It's absurd.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Originally Posted by reader50 

Most of our supposedly new "Recruits" are long-time News commenters with hundreds or thousands of posts. Those do not show because the Huddler migration did not import their past news comments, and I lack the access to do a custom import. It's unfair - their seniority has been hidden.

What does it really matter anyway? The person derailed the thread. It's clear from their posts, talking about theologians, pionting out fallacy definitions on Wikipedia, bringing up good and bad, thinking that there is no defintion for these things, being passive aggressive and incredulous that they're not interested in facts or the topic but arguing.

It's absurd.

It wouldn't have happened if you didn't default to arguing like an eight-year-old who's switched to petulant mode.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It wouldn't have happened if you didn't default to arguing like an eight-year-old who's switched to petulant mode.

The only 8 year old around here is you.

People who are hypocritical and constantly deny facts and ignore reality to suit their own position so they can simply argue with people on the Internet.

Notice how I'm an Apple guy yet I'm not so arrogant and ignorant that I think Apple is god. Or that I eat up their bullshit and marketing.

I'm objective: I love Apple and their products but that doesn't mean that I let that cloud the facts. Or that I'll deny the facts.

The facts are the facts. Apple are a bunch of hypocrites, using things like a camera on a cell phone, a rounded rectangle design, a grid of icons, an internal antennae... and somehow they think they own this stuff yet they do not. This stuff has been used years before them and invented by other people.

I do agree that the sum total of these things, however, if meshed together in such a way that the product looks so similar to another with mass confusion in the market that it's not a good thing either. And we'll have to wait and see what evidence they have on this.

But to say a phone looks like another phone... good luck to Apple. Phones have looked like other phones since forever. It's just the way it is: trade dress and attributes that simply are not owned by anyone or patentable. What if Apple made a flip phone? Should Motorola sue them? Because Motorola invented it in 1989. Yet it became obvious and nobody ended up owning that. Again, should NEC sue Apple over their MacBooks: a device with a screen and keyboard that folds on itself? Since they invented this back in 1989 with a product on the market. Should Sony sue Apple over the camera phone? They pretty much invented it in 2000. Or Samsung, who refined it.

How about that phone icon anyway? Does Apple think they own it? Like nobody can use a phone icon with gradients or even a green background? I've got more shocking news: that phone icon was around way before Apple came around. The actual telephone handset icon, a skeumorphic icon, that was invented many years ago and is an iconic design. Should Apple have to pay to use it? Afterall, they never invented it, somebody else did. It's been on payphones all around the world for years. It's as iconic as the "i" sign or the man and woman symbols on bathrooms for years.

It's been used in so many iterations, twisted, tilted, standing straight up, different background colors...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iyCmZg7OArM/SUVL9g4gX9I/AAAAAAAAB7o/FelekJk_kvo/s400/phone+booth.JPG

http://www.masterfile.com/stock-photography/image/700-00178089/Payphone-Sign-Lisbon-Portugal

http://preview.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_2009_07_14__08_02_54/pay_phone_01.jpgeb8fd6d3-2693-49e5-84a6-0645d8becad4Larger.jpg

http://manchestermodernists.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/r0012707.jpg?w=480

Symbian:

http://screenshots.en.sftcdn.net/en/scrn/32000/32850/datemate-2004-1.jpg

http://www.mobiletracker.net/archives/images/P910_1.jpg

The person who actually invented this iconic design should step forward and sue Apple for using it. Too obvious? Why don't you come up with an iconic design. It could have been the butt of a phone with a dial pad. A rotary dial. A cord. Two cans connected by a string. Somebody invented it and it wasn't Apple. Yet they use it with arrogance.

Get real Apple. Even if you put a gradient green on it, you don't own that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Never mind, freudling.

This isn't my fight.