Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler 
Ah... another perfect example of why I despise the current body of patent laws in the United States.
Companies should not be given monopolies over accessory markets simply because they make their plug a different shape.
To do so is actually at odds with the original intent of patents. Patents were legislated in order to further the public good, not because it was "fair" for inventors. The idea was to make it such that secrets were more likely to be divulged and thus benefit the public. Rewarding inventors is how patents accomplish that goal, not the goal itself.
In this specific instance, Apple is hiding behind patent law to prevent competition, not to protect a novel idea whose inception needs to be rewarded in order to motivate future innovation.
With that said, I think the issue here is that a company is claiming false membership in what amounts to certification program for accessories. In my opinion, that false claim is immoral and illegal, while the the use of the dock connector is not.
Ah... another perfect example of why I despise the current body of patent laws in the United States.
Companies should not be given monopolies over accessory markets simply because they make their plug a different shape.
To do so is actually at odds with the original intent of patents. Patents were legislated in order to further the public good, not because it was "fair" for inventors. The idea was to make it such that secrets were more likely to be divulged and thus benefit the public. Rewarding inventors is how patents accomplish that goal, not the goal itself.
In this specific instance, Apple is hiding behind patent law to prevent competition, not to protect a novel idea whose inception needs to be rewarded in order to motivate future innovation.
With that said, I think the issue here is that a company is claiming false membership in what amounts to certification program for accessories. In my opinion, that false claim is immoral and illegal, while the the use of the dock connector is not.
You're wrong in this.
The intent was to BOTH insure fair return for the inventor, AND insure widespread adoption for the public good.
It also gave others the opportunity (for those who could travel to Washington, a difficult, expensive, and perilous journey in those days) to look at the invention and its patents, in the hope of working out some other way of accomplishing the same thing, or accomplishing something even better.
