I know I'm risking the death of a thousand downvotes with this one but, try as I might, I can't let it go without comment.
A lot of folk, here and elsewhere, are bandying around words like "stolen code" and "reverse engineered". Show me some evidence -- any evidence -- that Apple has "reverse engineered" Greg Hughes' code and I'll concede that we may have a proper story. In the meantime all we have is Mr. Hughes crying his tale of woe to any media outlet that'll listen.
But what makes this case so special? Computing history is littered with legacy third-party applications that became superfluous when their features were later implemented in the host OS. I don't recall the mainstream media dedicating so much as a column inch to any of those stories.
More recently Microsoft has made available, free of charge, several products that stamp quite heavily on the toes of the multi-billion dollar Windows anti-virus industry. Only the history of antitrust cases has kept these programs from being offered as part of Windows Update; once installed they are, for all intents and purposes, part of Windows. By doing this Microsoft have actually been celebrated in the technology media, for finally allowing users access to long-needed and long-wanted features without needing to pay third-parties.
Sound familiar? Microsoft does something and they're told they're finally getting things right. Apple does the same and they get accused of plagiarism.
No, there are only two reasons why this story is running. The first is because of the icon similarity which, as others have already pointed out, is meaningless. Any facility to synchronise over WiFi was almost inevitably going to be called WiFi Sync, and its icon was always going to be an amalgam of the WiFi logo and the sync symbol. It's not even news.
The second reason is that it's easy to spin this tale into the archetypal David versus Goliath story so beloved of the media, with big bad Apple on one side and the plucky British developer on the other. Easy and lazy.
As for Greg Hughes being "completely shocked" at Apple's latest revelation, perhaps the stress of his exams has dulled his memory? Only last year he was quoted as admitting that "he never really expected the wi-fi sync app to be approved because, in effect, he was messing with Apple's own technology." (the words of interviewer Rory Cellan-Jones). And that he "thought it was a bit of a grey area. It doesn't break specific rules, but it's something that Apple would prefer to do themselves." (the words of Greg Hughes).
He can't have it both ways. Either he knew Apple would be working on this in-house and would eventually incorporate and release it, or he was completely shocked at the announcement. I know which one I'd vote for.
The simple truth is that Mr. Hughes' year-old cash-cow -- which if the message boards are to be believed didn't work properly for a great many users anyway -- is now deceased. And rather than accept it and move on he's decided to play the victim, ably assisted by lazy journalists keen to generate quick link-bait and stir up yet another Apple flame war on the comments pages. At last count there were 133 responses on here and 11 on The Telegraph. Forgive my cynicism, but that's a lot of clicks and eyeballs for very little effort.