Classic case of citing information out of context.
However, your response does take advantage of my own poor choice of words.
First, I'll provide the context and full text:
Context: "The patent case is over a European patent entitled ‘Touch event model’, which outlines the way that Apple handles accidental presses outside of an intended touch target. Think the heel of your hand hitting a button while you’re tapping something with a thumb. Apple is arguing that Samsung Galaxy devices that run Android 2.3 and higher infringe on this patent."
So, the article is not about the entirety of core multitouch functionality, but rather functionality of the way both OSes handle accidental presses other than where the user intended. Apple has a patent for this in Europe and is alleging that Android and Samsung with Android 2.3 and higher infringe on this patent.
Thus, all arguments made for or against the infringment are narrowly tailored to be relevant to only this functionality - accidental touch input.
Samsung: "While Apple’s technology is a “very nice invention,” the technique used in Android differs from the iOS solution, argued Bas Berghuis van Woortman, one of Samsung’s lawyers. Because the Android based method is more hierarchical the system is more complex and therefore harder for developers to use, he said."
Apple: "“They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true,” said Apple’s lawyer Theo Blomme to judge Peter Blok, who presided over a team of three judges, in a response to Samsung’s claim. The technique used in Android does solve a multiple input “conflict situation” and in that way the Android software essentially does the same as Apple’s, he said."
So, Samsung is saying that the hierarchical structure creates a more complex method making it harder for developers to implement it. Note well that Samsung does not talk about users actually using the device, but developers implementing the technology to allow users to use the device.
Apple's response directly attacks this point. They claim that it doesn't matter how complex the method is or how difficult it is for developers to implement the technology. The end result is that the Android approach mimics iOS to the degree where it "essentially" copies what iOS does, violating the patent.
Thus your quote, "They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true." fails to accurately and correctly convey the true meaning of the article you quoted. I would argue that the author also missed the mark with his interpretation and title of the article. Therefore, the article you quoted does little to support the notion that the Android, when taken as a whole, provides the same user experience as iOS. After all, why would Google bother with Project Butter if that were true?
Finally, the reliance on legal argumentation in court fails to satisfy my question because I challenge anyone to compare the use of the phones side by side. If you can't or won't do that, the article you quoted provides you with weak support for your own claims.
Even Samsung admitted through internal documents released during trial that the iPhone experience was better. They directed their design and engineering staff to copy iOS, to the point where even Google told them they aped the iPhone way too much.
Thank you though, for the article. Whether intentionally or not, you proved my point: the Android reality distortion field overwhelms logic, reason, and plain old common sense.