5 ms·
>So you're basically saying that Apple innovated but it shouldn't be granted a protective patent. Isn't this what the patent system was created to do? It was c
by mcantelon 14y ago
>So you're basically saying that Apple innovated but it shouldn't be granted a protective patent. Isn't this what the patent system was created to do?
It was created to encourage R&D by granting those who come up with complex implementations a window in which they can recoup the expenses. It wasn't created so the first person to implement an idea in general can have a competitive advantage.
If companies had used the patent system to create artificial monopolies in this fashion throughout the development of personal computing, we'd be living in much less functional world.
- coliveira 14y agoThe very existence of personal computing disproves your point. The patent system is not a new invention, and there are thousands of patents in every step of this development. Each company creates patents and then licenses them to other companies interested in the technology.
- mcantelon 14y ago>The very existence of personal computing disproves your point. Hardly. Of course the patent system isn't new, Apple just isn't behaving like personal computing companies have historically behaved. Licensing complex things like algorithmic implementations hasn't been uncommon, but licensing obvious UI ideas has been.