You're reinterpreting what's written to fit your argument. Failure of others should be considered to define obviousness when you come up with something new that

You're reinterpreting what's written to fit your argument. Failure of others should be considered to define obviousness when you come up with something new that succeeds where others failed. Not because you can patent something someone else invented just because you sold better than the original inventor. That's absurd. Apple's inventions existed before, so there's prior art, that's all. It's this simple.