This will probably get buried at this point, but…

You're right, we can see similarities on this document. Previous concepts, previous ideas. Inspirations.

This document has also its share of fallacies. First by making comparison on non-iPhone products: who cares if the iPod ads were inspired by something else? It creates a feeling of "Apple copies too!", but it has nothing to do with the point. Then by mixing inspiration and implementation. Come one, look at the first picture, the Ericsson with the grid of icons. Can you say this looks like iOS? There is an idea, but iOS looks vastly different (and better), and everyone knows it. The biggest fallacy is failing to show actual Samsung designs. You can show an Ericsson grid of icons, then an iOS grid of icons. Now present a Samsung grid of icons. Which are more similar one to each other?

Of course the first iPhone was a product of its time. Nothing comes out of the blue. And of course the iOS notification system is almost a copy of the Android one (no excuse for this). And obviously Apple designers look at what others made, steal ideas, make them better or worse, or sometimes copy them blatantly.

But IMO, Samsung deserves what it got because it obviously copied a whole product. Not some ideas, not some inspirations, not one design — but the whole lot. The subtle entanglement of different items and design sources that makes a coherent product. The kind of design that seems obvious afterwards, but that nobody came up with before. With separate items, yes. Not with the whole lot. It makes all the difference in the world.

I understand that technically, Samsung was convinced on arguable terms. I don't like software patents or design trademarks (even if the notion of "trade-dress" makes a bit more sense to me).

But for me, the patents were just tools in this case. Tools to condemn a rip-off. An attempt to do a blatant copy. I don't like the idea of using a law (patent law) to condemn another behavior (ripping-off a product). But maybe sometimes that's what you got to do.

And I think (and hope) that no other product that is somewhat different from iOS will get a patent-attack because it implements pinch-to-zoom. If the overall product is different, who cares if it implement some patented ideas. But if the whole product is a copy, then patents are the tools of our time that can be fired in this case (Hopefully, at some point, we won't need bogus patents for this).