What's the issue? Over-simplifying "slightly" the argument is: HN: patents are terrible and should be abolished also HN: while patents are terrible, it's a re

What's the issue? Over-simplifying "slightly" the argument is: HN: patents are terrible and should be abolished also HN: while patents are terrible, it's a reality that they're not going anywhere right now. so in the meantime, it makes sense to apply their most annoying implications also and especially to a huge corporation that is one of the most powerful pro patent advocates and patent (ab)users. I don't see an inconsistency here. Edit: flipping this around, why should it be this? Also HN: let's give apple a pass here. sure, they can and do use patents as weapons, but we should show them lenience when they're on the receiving side.