Originally Posted by jragosta
There's nothing there that changes reality, either. A property owner has every right to do whatever they want with their property. Whether you (or wikipedia) likes it is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's OK for a real estate owner or farmer to keep people off of their land even if they're not using it, but not for a patent owner.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Just because you own an acre somewhere doesn't prevent me from owning a seperate acre elsewhere.
If this were the software patent world, it would.
I'm really at a loss as to how one can argue that Google took Slide to Unlock from Apple (when there is prior art on a wealth of devices), but can then turn the other way and say that iOS had and/or invented the Notification Shade and didn't take that from Android.
To be honest, both are an evolution of software and have their roots in earlier products--and to claim ownership either way is ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that complex, business-specific algorithms should be patentable. Again, the user-music matchmaking that iTunes uses to present to you music that it believes you'll enjoy--that is enforceable. (As a plus, it's hidden away, and nobody outside of Apple's engineers should ever see that code first-hand, making a true "infringement" neigh impossible, at least in concept.) Look and feel, user interface and experience is something that we learn from and all interact with.
Where would we be without the first early monitor? The mouse? Would we even have the concept of icons representing applications that one could click on to launch software? Everything we have now is a descendant of what's come before us, and we'll only continue to grow and innovate by experimenting and creating new devices, interfaces and experiences, and taking from them the best concepts to continue improving.