Originally Posted by ryb
Your morality must be pretty fuzzy. If I make a port system, anyone can use it to piggy back on the products that I market. Why can't they just clone my product that uses that port? What's the difference? I invented both of them. Port systems are just not important as a part of the way I want to make money from my invention. Really, Apple is not bound to license any of their inventions, they only do so because they believe it will increase their profits for the items that they are marketing. Most of what they do is amoral, profit motivated, not immoral. Unless you think that profit is bad, most people don't think it is.
Disagreeing with the current patent system does not make someone's morals any more or less "fuzzy".
One could choose to draw the line in a variety of different places. It is easy to blindly assume that the status-quo is the pinnacle of morality. But given how much the status-quo has changed over the decades or centuries, that would seem to be a fault assumption.
It is my opinion that the current level of government enforced idea-ownership is unjust. The balance of power has shifted such that rich and powerful people/organizations can leverage the legal system in an unjust manner. That's certainly a broader argument than what is being waged here.
Specifically, I think it is wrong for the government to prevent people from building product accessories. I don't think connectors for consumer product accessories should be patentable.
To some, this may seem like an extremist's position. I disagree, and this is why I pointed out how the status-quo, while taken for granted, isn't static. It is guaranteed to change. My bet is that eventually people will wake up to the power shift that has already happened, and start to scale back what qualifies as "intellectual property".