You do realize that the patent system was designed for the express purpose of granting individuals and companies a legal monopoly on technology that they can exploit in the marketplace, with the goal of using that carrot to encourage innovation in pursuit of that monopoly power, right?
What you are labeling as 'abuse' is much closer to 'using the system precisely as it was intended'. You may not like the system. You may disagree with the goals of it, or you may think (as I do) that the goals are worthwhile but the system is actually a hindrance to the goals in many cases, but it is clear that Apple is litigating to protect it's IP in direct accordance with the intent of patent law. They aren't using litigation as a revenue stream like patent-troll shell firms, they aren't using litigation for retribution on FRAND, they are protecting specific designs and technologies for which they have been awarded patents and they choose (as is their right) not to lisence.
Abusing a system != using a broken system expressly as it was designed.
It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets.
However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
>It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets.
That is one interpretation of the intent of patent law. In the USA, our Constitution spells out the intent pretty clearly:
>"to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's worth pointing out however, that Apple is acting in complete accordance of your version of intent though (patent law's purpose = disclosure of technology). All of the patents they are litigating on have been disclosed and readily available. It doesn't change the substance of the fact that they are not wielding patent law abusively.
>However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.
Again, this is different, and has zero to do with Apple and everything to do with the how patent law is designed. I agree with you whole-heartedly. But as long as we focus the blame on companies exercising their rights in absolutely mundane ways in accordance with the law instead of the law itself, I'm afraid not much is going to change. It really misses the point. And I'll stress it again, of all of the disputes on the patent landscape, Apple seems to be one of the least abusive litigants, in stark contrast to FRAND litigators and patent troll firms.
The definition from the constitution just underscores my point. Progress is not promoted but blocked.
Companies may act according to law, but laws can be unjust. As a customer you have the power to punish companies for their wrongdoing, and that is one reason I will not buy Apple products. Just sitting there passively and saying they are not breaking any laws while they are laughing in your face is not an option.
I think you are focusing too much on the letter of the law and forgetting the intent. The intent, as clearly stated, is promotion of science and arts. As we established, the current patent system is not able to do that for software. It seems you want to cover your eyes and try more of the same but clearly this will not be the solution. If you have some insight into programming you will quickly realize that it makes no sense at all in that field.
What you are labeling as 'abuse' is much closer to 'using the system precisely as it was intended'. You may not like the system. You may disagree with the goals of it, or you may think (as I do) that the goals are worthwhile but the system is actually a hindrance to the goals in many cases, but it is clear that Apple is litigating to protect it's IP in direct accordance with the intent of patent law. They aren't using litigation as a revenue stream like patent-troll shell firms, they aren't using litigation for retribution on FRAND, they are protecting specific designs and technologies for which they have been awarded patents and they choose (as is their right) not to lisence.
Abusing a system != using a broken system expressly as it was designed.