This is just another good examples of your mischaracterizations and lies about what was said in another thread with no link so that people could verify.
I was not responding to any “challenge” from you. The device had no DVD player. DVD players of that time period had screens that were 7”, 8” or larger, and I do not remember any from that time period having touch screens. You are obviously not even familiar with them.
I did remember the original reason that I purchased the device. It had a slot for full sized SD Cards and I could take them directly from my digital camera which had optical zoom and advanced features. I could pull the card out of the camera and view the pictures that I had just taken or play slide shows on the device. The screen was significantly larger than that on my phone or my digital camera.
Here is what I actually said about it:
"I also have a “MP4 Player” which I purchased slightly before the iPhone came out which had removable storage and was capable of playing a wide variety of music and video files. It also could play video games and had other features as well. The screen was quite a bit larger than phones of the day. It was some type of Chinese device that had a lot of eccentricities but it was a capable device that was more inexpensive than a name brand “MP3 player”"
"I was trying to find it so I could post a few pictures of it. I wouldn't claim that it looked like the iPhone or had the iPhone’s build quality, but it was shiny, black, had a 4.3” screen I believe with large icons, was thin and was rectangular with round corners. I bought it simply to have an inexpensive media player and entertainment device with a decent sized screen that would play videos that I downloaded when away from home."
How does that square with what you claim that I said?
From article 63 of 66 at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3597907/posts?q=1&;page=51
You were responding to a challenge to come up with prior technology. I did a search on Google for 4.3" MP4 player with your specifications in 2006 and multiple Chinese MP4/DVD players came up that had that appearance and had slots for full SD cards. . . and were black (among other colors) and had that 4.3" screen. I perhaps made an assumption. My apologies. . . but it DID have the 4.3" touch screen control you specified.
My overall point, however, still remains; you point to non-responsive technology that is NOT EQUIVALENT that you throw out as somehow germane to the issue when they are not at all of use to the discussion and are just red herrings providing no value and just obfuscating the discussion. That is something you repeatedly do. . . and that was what your MP4 game playing/ music/ photo viewer was, non-equivalent and not responsive to the challenge I had made to you to show technology that was functionally equivalent to the multitouch screens of the 2007 iPhone. You tossed that anecdote out as somehow useful to your argument.
I could not find a 2006/2007 listing for just an MP4 player for the period meeting your criteria, but Google is getting less and less useful for searches of that type. Again, my apologies for misconstruing your anecdotal description.
And, fireman15, I see you are still harping on "big icons," and "shiny, black with round corners" as if that was something dispositive about the design patent Apple has on the iPhone. This is exactly the "know nothing" nonsense I expect from posters who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of these issues. . . and you always go right to the standard talking points of those anti-Apple "know nothings" and parrot the myths and propaganda that I have been shooting down for years. Repeating those false claims shows you have no concept of what, or how, design patents work or how they are described. Apple did not patent rounded corners, etc. as the Samsung lawsuit propaganda they spread claiming they did when Apple filed the infringement suit. That language was merely part of the narrative in the legally required description of what the patent looked like. . . and really had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WAS PATENTED, which is only how the device is designed to appear.
In fact, Fireman, Samsung itself has U.S. design patents that include that EXACT SAME LANGUAGE, because they have design patents that have rounded corners and look similar but is different enough to protect with a design patent!
In the trial, the judge told Samsung's attorneys to quit claiming those words as meaning anything probative and prohibited their attorneys from mentioning it because it had no legal meaning. On the other hand, the layout and design of the icons were copyrighted and were supposed to be included in the suit, but Judge Koh forced Apple to drop those in the interests of expediting the suit. All you are doing is showing your ignorance of facts.