And even Google's icon is the same, but with a rotation and different colors.
That's a big difference here.
Anyone can argue that a silhouette of a telephone handset is an obvious icon for a telephony app, but there is no way you can argue that all the other elements of the icons (angle, scaling, color, background, etc.) are self-obvious. The fact that many different smartphones (including many different vendors' releases of Android) do not use the Apple icon is proof.
Your logic is faulty.
If someone was trying to copy the iconography of the physical buttons used on non-smart phones, then the handset itself would be green on some other color (or transparent) background, since that's what feature-phone handsets all use universally. A white icon on a green background (especially one with a very detailed textured background) is not an obvious port.
As for other apps, have you actually looked at the Android screen shots that have been posted here? There are plenty of alternate ways to represent these features. Are you trying to argue that Apple came up with the one and true perfect icon for every application and that companies who don't copy Apple are deliberately crippling their UI to avoid lawsuits? I don't think anybody is going to make such a claim.
The calendar is a perfect example. A round-rect with a red stripe at the top and a large digit below is far from the only possible representation. The Android-standard icon (a calendar page with spiral binding on top, a blue stripe, gridlines and a swirl) is pretty different, but also represents the concept of a calendar page quite well. I don't know if Samsung's calendar icon dynamically updates with the system date the way Apple's does, but if so, then that's another aspect where they copied a feature that is otherwise unique to Apple.
Yes, icons tend to represent real-world objects, but as anyone walking into an office supply store can tell you, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of variations for the design of all these real-world objects. To claim that there shouldn't be similar variety for the icons based on them is just silly.
Well, considering you seemed to be arguing that the other icons were too generic, I believe it does. My point is, they weren't as there are many other ways to represent the meaning of the icons.