I know you're being sarcastic but the springiness of the iPhone controls is one thing I miss when using any Android device. If nothing else it let's you know all your input is being recognized, which is very important. But yes, I'd much rather have an open device without a restrictive dev contract than springy scrolling.

I am sure the android devs would love to implement that, but there were a few patents in the way...

I understand that everyone is on a tirade against software patents right now, and a patent on a springy list control would seem pretty silly.

Buuuuut... honestly, the UI guys at Apple actually invented that, and its awesome. Maybe the REST OF THE MARKET could maybe bring something to the table? I'm almost to the point of being with Jobs on this one: Apple made a solely multi-touch UI work, and now that everyone wants one it doesn't seem fair to allow competitors to just Do What Apple Did and be successful.

The funny thing is mult-touch is the one thing everyone focuses on in the HTC patent suit, but look at what patents where actually used. You might notice something missing.

Well, Microsoft, for example, had been working on (and demoing) multi-touch for years before the iPhone existed, including the pinch, expand, flipping photos/pages, and everything else. I love what Apple has done with it, but I think you're giving them too much credit in saying that others shouldn't be able to implement some of their refinements.

Tell that to Wil Shipley. Oh I forgot, he can't afford to patent and have lawyers to protect the patent, so it's all right. http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/think-ibooks-looks-familiar...

You can't patent a look. Or copyright it. Or trademark it.

I believe the original Apple vs. Microsoft patent spat was for 'Look & Feel' as is part of the current 'Apple vs. Nokia' and 'Apple vs. HTC' patent duels. However my point was that Apple definitely builds on the ideas of others, oftentimes pretty blatantly. So no moral high ground there. What the legal system enables and what is 'right' are two different things.

"Look & Feel" suit was a copyright suit. At least in theory. It established that you can't copyright "Look & Feel", like I said.

What the legal system enables and what is 'right' are two different things.

You were wrongly conflating the two.

  Tell that to Wil Shipley

The inventor of the wooden bookshelf? BTW, why not Andrew Kaz? http://www.classicsapp.com/