Google is infringing on patents. Knowingly, even. That hardly makes them victims.

Yes, absolutely. LG announced the Prada in Dec 2006, and the iPhone was announced less than a month later and shipped less than six months later. You're totally right. Apple stole the Prada design, wrote an entire operating system that acted in totally different ways than that on the Prada, and shipped a breakthrough industrial design that blew away the bulky Prada all in six months? *And* they had a functional demo of it working less than a month later, for MacWorld?

Do you people even read what you write?

HIs point was that the existence of Palm itself owes to Apple. The Newton was around long before Palm, and Palm was created by ex-Apple employees that had worked on the Newton.

I'm getting real tired of the "Apple stole" part. See, when Apple "steals," that means they buy the company or license the technology and/or patents. When Android "steals," they don't do any of those things, because Google doesn't "believe" in patents.

And you do realize that Android looked like a Blackberry before the release of the iPhone right? And just like everyone says "Apple just bought all these companies and used their technology" - well, Google bought Android, too....

hahaha, nothing new in the iPhone, oh man you're good. do you get paid to do this, or? if there was nothing new in the iPhone then why didn't every phone look like the iPhone before rather than after? do you people even read what you write before you hit submit? holy jesus.

I can't believe people still say this. It is not and never has been correct. The Lisa team already had a GUI before the visit to PARC, and the interface that the Lisa and then Mac ended up with had nothing to do with Smalltalk, or even each other for that matter (except for the underlying drawing architecture, LisaGraf/QuickDraw, both being written by Bill Atkinson). You should check your facts next time.

Considering the sales bans are on Android tablets, I seriously doubt the change between "not selling any" and "not allowed to sell any" will affect their bottom line.

Thank you for signing up and owning his ass. I was so frustrated with everyone here saying the warrant was "illegal" just because the article implied it was so. My god people are stupid. I wish I had mod points to give you. Your posts were all excellent and yet the coward that claimed you were wrong didn't even bother to respond because you owned him so thoroughly.

They were not unlawfully seized. Jesus. Does no one read? Withdrawing a warrant doesn't make it illegal. Warrants can be withdrawn for any number of reasons. In this case, Chen chose to cooperate so to avoid ambiguity at trial they withdrew the warrant because they effectively had his permission to search his property. Even *if* the warrant was found to be illegal it doesn't matter because Chen authorized the search at a later date. All of the evidenced seized was seized legally, and it remains so.

As has been previously pointed out, the warrant was issued legally. It was withdrawn later because Chen chose to cooperate and withdrawing it removed any ambiguity. Withdrawal does not imply illegality. That is a logical fallacy.

If the Gizmodo editors were registered iOS devs (which they probably are), then they were bound by the NDA.

I... I have no words.

Yeah, let us know when that actually happens.

There's been absolutely no proof that anything happened other than some guy somewhere claimed some people showed up to his house saying such and such. IMO, it's way more likely it was just some Joe Schmoe lying to get into the tabloids rather than anything actually having happened, but retards here on Slashdot love a good anti-Apple story, lack of facts be damned.