Apple Worked A Broken Patent System

I don't know enough to truly defend Apple's actions, but given that they started working on the iPad 10 years ago, and even when it was announced no one could figure out why it was a good idea until they used one... Apple has likely poured years and buckets of money into R&#38;D full of trial and error, like a pharma company trying to hit on a chemical formula, and a good amount of that work can be copied for free by competitors in the absence of patent protection. In that way, what Apple is seeking is exactly what patents are supposed to provide.<p>For example, I still remember how incredibly novel it was to use a web browser on an iPhone and be able to zoom in to click on links, double-tap, etc. This isn't a superficial feature either, as it required a beefy graphics chip. Putting a powerful GPU in a phone and using it to zoom in on web pages and PDFs may have been as innovative as putting a hard drive, and wheel, and a graphical LCD together to make the iPod.<p>On the other hand, maybe "inventing" a form factor or a user interface paradigm and getting exclusive rights to it is as preposterous as it sounds, and the ghost of Steve Jobs should be content that Apple used its prescience to buy up all the high-res LCD panels. They have capitalized on their innovation quite well.<p>I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. I'd trust Google to build a JVM and throw together an API, and not much further.

When consumers realise they are paying too much (i.e. people in Asia will be paying less for the "same" phones), then things will get more interesting.<p>Apple's patent suits will enable it to charge inflated prices. And that's what they will do.<p>The comparisons commenters make to pharmaceuticals are amusing.<p>Apple is not like a drug company that charges high prices for it developed drugs. Those companies are reimbursed for their R&#38;D through government programs and health insurance. Apple is reimbursed directly from people's paychecks or company budgets if the devices are purchased for employees.<p>These devices are cheap electronics. Few people can develop a generic version of a drug in their garage. But with 3D printing, the possibility of making protoypes that rival what Apple is selling is a real possibility.<p>Patents on biological materials came well before patents on software. The seriousness of the problems with the patent system (that would prompt people like Posner to speak out) is due to the behaviour of IT companies, not pharmaceutical companies.

<i>Too many patents granted without enough understanding of the state of the art</i><p>How far would $1B go to better understanding the State-of-the art?

I'm not sure I understand the article's point. In the very first sentence, the author says:<p>&#62; Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square.<p>But the rest of the article gives good arguments for why none of the Apple patents should have been granted in the first place, much less upheld in court. So why exactly should Samsung have been punished at all, then?

It would have been interesting to see if MS had patented AJAX, DOM and other browser goodies, singing its laurels on what an awesome IE6 browser was, where would the internet be today!