I'm not sure. It's kind of the same thing. If they can't make the car any other way because they're not capable of inventing equally good tech, meh. Like App

I'm not sure. It's kind of the same thing. If they can't make the car any other way because they're not capable of inventing equally good tech, meh. Like Apple allegedly did PR stunts to slander Qualcomm, to make them look bad despite creating incredibly good tech for the baseband, without which you couldn't eg have an app store because the apps wouldn't have the same bandwidth. No iPhone without it. So they pitched the jury emotional appeals, like "does this seem fair to you?" with Qualcomm's demands. They just couldn't get the tech working, that was the real problem. Qualcomm had a legitimate inventor's monopoly from my perspective. And secondly, in terms of algorithms, Qualcomm actually hires algorithm engineers whereas Apple appears not to as much. Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Intel, Synopsys, AMD, ARM, those guys hire algorithm designers the most. Well I suppose Apple must because they make chips, so Pennsylvania Semiconductor (IIRC). The difference between algorithms is much greater than the difference between eg mechanical engines, the efficiency improvement scales up, so a 10% difference at one scale becomes 40% if you double the scale. My point is algorithms are highly elitist and there will ordinarily be one design downstream that everyone wants, and it will be highly protected by IP law. The alternative is to come up with a better one independently, nobody's stopping anybody from doing that, but this turns out daunting and expensive.