So what's the takeaway here? Are you saying that apple deserves to own the concept of, essentially, not being shitty, just because they were the first to make a good tablet? yes, Steve jobs' vision inspired his competitors to make better products. That is the single most fundamental tenet of capitalism: Competition drives all the players in a market to do better. Apple does not have a legal right to remain the market leader: they've show the competition what competitors want, if they want to remain the leader it is their responsibility to continue to produce better products. If every market leader could sue their competition for making decent products, thugs would get pretty stagnant pretty fast.
That said Jiro [1] doesn't patent his Sushi,
he simpley makes the best sushi. And he does
quite well for him. If I was Apple I would
spend a lot more of my time in the kitchen
making the best Sushi in the world and a lot
less time in the courtroom.
What I don't agree with is people saying there was prior art. No. Sorry there was no prior art, for most of apples inventions. If you take the subtle details into account.
So how can I agree with you and the above statement? I think we need patent reform. I believe in capitalism. Our current patent laws are anti capitalism, they are pro corporateerism.
If you take the subtle details into account, no one is copying Apple's inventions either (just listen to any iOS enthusiast on Android scrolling, for example).
