This is what I've been thinking from the moment Apple started going after Android manufacturers with patents like these, and it's why the patent system is <i>so very flawed</i>, because it doesn't account for how competition actually works in a market.<p>Let's say you have one company "create" a new product category - a new type of product. So they are the first ones doing that, but this is usually done through some combination and improvement of old things.<p>But then you <i>have to</i> get other companies to do the <i>same</i> or <i>very similar</i>, because that's how competition works, and that's <i>exactly</i> what competition is. Making 90% of the same product - so to be in the <i>same</i> product category - but having that 10% as a competitive advantage over the others in that specific market.<p>Competition is not overhauling the product 90%. That's just not how it works, and you don't have to take my word for it. Just look around you at any product category you want. They are all 90% similar and 10% different, not just in how they look, but how they function. The only major "overhaul" happens once a decade or so when that specific market gets disrupted, but then that new market is populated by competitors doing the same, too, and the cycle repeats itself.<p>If you wouldn't have that, you'd have exactly what the article is saying - random "innovations" just for the sake of being different so you don't get sued, less competition from the point of view of the users, because the vast majority of them will prefer a certain way of doing things, and since only one company can own that, it means monopolies will be much easier to form - and it will also be much harder for new entrants.