>It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets. That is one interpretation of the intent of patent law. In th

>It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets. That is one interpretation of the intent of patent law. In the USA, our Constitution spells out the intent pretty clearly: >"to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" It's worth pointing out however, that Apple is acting in complete accordance of your version of intent though (patent law's purpose = disclosure of technology). All of the patents they are litigating on have been disclosed and readily available. It doesn't change the substance of the fact that they are not wielding patent law abusively. >However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements. Again, this is different, and has zero to do with Apple and everything to do with the how patent law is designed. I agree with you whole-heartedly. But as long as we focus the blame on companies exercising their rights in absolutely mundane ways in accordance with the law instead of the law itself, I'm afraid not much is going to change. It really misses the point. And I'll stress it again, of all of the disputes on the patent landscape, Apple seems to be one of the least abusive litigants, in stark contrast to FRAND litigators and patent troll firms.