[Sprint HTC EVO 4G LTE] LiquidSolstice:
Being released in a device and being purposefully patented are not the same thing. See, this is why I do not read these Android blogs. They have (you'll excuse the language) Android and Android-beliefs shoved so far up their rear-ends and have little dancing Androids in their eyes and it hinders their ability to use rationale because so many of these blogs just have Apple in their crosshairs for any reason they can find.

The "Slide to Unlock" was one of the most iconic features of the iPhone. It made it instantly recognizable by everyone. For such a trademark concept, a patent was the logical step to take for them. Not because they're corrupt, not because they're greedy, but because they are a business. They are (whether you agree with it or not) attempting to protect their name and prevent spinoffs that profit from their work. Yes, I said their work, because it is they who pushed the concept of Slide to Unlock to be so famous. They made the OS, they took the concept, they sold it to people, and people loved it.

You know what's hilarious? Google also has a trademark on the word "google" and even has legal limitations on how you use the word. Oh, but it's Google, that's why these blogs don't post anything about them. But here it is, straight from the actual Google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html

Oh, look at that! Google has....oh, what's the word? A brand to protect. Much like Apple does. And RIM. And Moto. And Samsung. And every single bloody company that has ever existed. Google has quite a few more examples of this sort of thing, but the problem is that for some reason people are conditioned to believe that the quality of Android somehow exempts Google from the same criticism.

Want scary? Stop looking at Apple, take a look at Google's terms of service.

We criticize Apple for constantly "stealing other peoples" ideas, but we conveniently ignore the multitude of ways that people have attempted to bring Apple products to non-Apple ecosystems. We had iOS skins for every platform. We had OS X skins for all sorts of platforms. Linux started to really pimp it's "Window Expose" effects and other window effects. We have companies like Samsung blatantly copying Apple design wise (seriously, I like Android, but you'd have to be brain-dead to not see some of the obvious copying done) because they know what people want and they knew people would be influenced by it.

But we don't mind that.

We have ultrabooks purely because the MacBook Air showed us what an ultra-portable machine can be. But what do they all look like? Why would they take their cues from the Air?

Retina displays become the norm on iPhones. Suddenly, manufacturers are rushing to create high-resolution displays.

iOS comes out with Siri, a voice assistant that can translate freely flowing human speech into aggregated data. Suddenly, a million Siri clones come out, claiming they can do it better. Google then jumps into the game.

Face unlock has existed for ages. But now suddenly it's popular. (by the way, the oh-so-holy HTC, you know, the ones you all sided with when complaining about Apple's import ban holdup, they actually have a patent on Face Unlock. Because you know, it's HTC, not Apple, therefore it's okay)

Who's ripping who off again? Who's taking ideas from who?

There are several answers to this. One crowd (the popular "messiah" types) claim that it's alright because it's "good for competition" and pushes companies to innovate (which basically means take technology that Apple has made successful--note how I said 'made successful' and not 'created'-- and integrate it into their own ecosystem). These same people will violently outrage when Apple does any sort of similar "copying" and "adapting of existing ideas".

Another crowd says that Apple rips off Google, Microsoft, Sanyo, Atari, whatever, the most vague and obscure companies, citing examples from different devices that are long lost and somehow making the connection that "omg, this existed before Apple so greedy trying to patent".

This world, this entire planet's commerce is built on businesses. Businesses seek to maximize their profits, protect their investments and IP, and to the fullest extent possible, legally remove their opponents from the game.

Apple is a business. Microsoft is a business. Google is a business. They are doing what they've always done. How much or how little you enjoy the products or experiences they create has literally no bearing at all on what their legal decisions should be. This is why I hate patent battles, and why I hate so many people who have arbitrary opinions on them.

Sorry for the extra large post, I should have made this reply it's own thread.