"The problem with this is that prior to the introduction of the iPhone, android was designed to look like and work on phones like the blackberry. It was a better feature phone OS. After the iPhone came out, Google changed courses and counterfeited the iPhone.

If google wanted to compete, they could have spent 7 years investing in fundamental innovations-- like Apple did with touch-- to create their own new UI. Maybe they could have done a voice driven phone. OR, if touch was inevitable, they could have done their own, innovative take on touch UIs.

They did not. They turned around and cloned the iPhone and then gave the OS away for free."

Fundamentally incorrect; the T-Mobile G1 running Android 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 (with modification), did, in fact, come with its own user interface, utilizing widgets on the home pages, wallpapers before iOS was even capable of such a thing unjailbroken, and a different method by which the applications are accessed -- those particular elements are present to this day in Android software. Notably, it wasn't until 2.x that the G1 gained multitouch. Back then, Android's home screen metaphor more resembled the standard desktop of a computer than anything else -- of course, with the addition of widgets. On top of everything else, Android did notifications in a brand new way -- in fact, in a way that was so innovative, Apple ripped them off in iOS 5!

Also, in 2.x, Android gained the feature of dynamic image wallpaper -- i.e. "live wallpapers" -- where the wallpaper is quite dynamic. This is a feature Apple simply does not have yet.

Furthermore, there are different interface conventions in application design, different methods of application development -- in fact, an entirely different language with a platform-agnostic binary format, and, in general, different UI mechanisms for everything.

This is not even to mention copy & paste, which Android had before iOS proper did.

In short: they did not clone the iPhone nearly as much as you say they did. Manufacturers are the ones that did that later, with form factor.

"They were able to do this because the patent system requires Apple to publicly disclose their inventions. In exchange for this disclosure, Apple gets a monopoly on the use of their inventions. If you don't like this, that's fine, amend the constitution, and take it up with your congressman."

Actually, just because Apple publicly disclosed their patent doesn't mean Google read the patent and purposely implemented anything exactly the same way Apple described. In fact, I'm absolutely positive that multitouch doesn't work quite the same way simply because the API to access touch is completely different. The end (user-facing) result winds up the same, though -- but the end result is what's at issue here, isn't it? To that end, I'd say, sure, multi-touch is copied -- but, there aren't a whole lot of common-sense ways, on a screen like that, to enlarge something (beyond buttons and such).

"Google is now claiming that the government should step in and use force-- that is, decrees backed by men with guns and the threat of violence-- to allow google to steal other companies innovations and get away with it."

Blatant, incorrect hyperbole -- unless you can back up the "use force" part. No, the DoJ is stepping in because the major parties involved with the Nortel patent acquisition are also direct competitors with Google -- in fact, the parties are all the major mobile companies that aren't Google. These are companies that did not invent or patent the technologies themselves, but the patents are going to them and are potentially usable for the purpose of crushing Android with litigation rather than by the merit of the products themselves.

"Think about that. Google cannot compete fair and square, so they steal their competitors technology. When this is pointed out, they call for the use of violence to let them get away with it! Talk about Doing Evil!"

"They call for the use of violence" -- citation needed. Honestly, the fact that Google's competitors seem to be (may not be, but the patent acquisition seems to be far more than coincidence here) colluding to squash Google by means of patent litigation is more evidence that Google's competitors can't compete "fair and square", that is, by technical merit.

"People only say 'anti-competitive' when someone is competing successfully and they don't like it."

This sounds like something that would be strangely pro-Microsoft back when MS was abusing its monopoly... but a move to block new competition from entering a market, or a move to exclude (by disqualification) a very specific competitor seems pretty anti-competitive to me.

"Either way, Once again, Apple-- the only company in Silicon Valley with a track record of genuine innovation--"

Are you ignoring Facebook or something? I'm fairly certain Google's search engine indexer is genuinely innovative, too. Oh my.

"If its taken away from them, it will not be justice, and it will not be moral."

If it's not, it will not be moral to allow three out of the four mobile companies to arbitrarily kick the fourth out just because none of them can top it or stop it on technical merit alone.

Oh -- as for Apple being the most innovative company... http://www.gsmarena.com/showpic.php3?sImg=newsimg/11/06/ios-...