Where are mod points, and $4B, just when I needed them.

I really want to mod you down to -1 for writing 'free' in capitals three times.

Also, you're a troll.

First, design patents are not the same as conventional patents. Second, Apple copied their iPhone look and feel from LG. Third, such copying happens all the time and is a normal and desirable part of the process of improving products. Fourth, HTC were the first significant smartphone producer, thanks mainly to their deal with Microsoft and the Sendo affair. They didn't patent heavily because they competed by producing better products, not paying lawyers to claim ownership of every possible random idea. Fifth, Apple are clearly moving to patent attacks as they lose their ability to innovate. Sixth, I sold my Apple shares and if I owned any I'd sell them now. Because seven, Apple are exactly where Nokia were five years ago, replacing innovation with patents and protectionism. Oh, and eight, nine, and ten, the key ideas that allowed Apple to create such nice touchscreen UIs were all patented 20+ years ago and it was only with the expiry of those patents that Apple was able to develop decent touch screen UIs. Copied, copied, copied. And that's normal, natural, desirable.

It's on its way!

Sent to you

Invite sent to you.

You got it

Invited! :)

Invite sent

done!

Invite on its way to you.

Invite is heading your way now...

The basic idea of the patent system is... extraordinarily confused. The arguments about the benefits of monopolies of ideas vs. free trade in knowledge have been going on for at least 150 years if not longer. Let's get one thing clear: software patents are exactly like all other patents in that they control the use of an idea. There is no inherent difference between the patent for a steam engine and the patent for a linked list.

Patents on steam engines held back the industrial revolution by 20 years. Patents on planes almost crippled the US airforce in WWi. All patents are anti-innovative in nature and by definition, because innovation is a collective act. No-one innovates in a vacuum, and the myth of the "lone inventor" is largely propaganda created by the patent industry.

All the conventional arguments for patents (that they promote innovation, help disclosure, protect small inventors, reward investment, etc.) are almost trivially disproven by the large body of historical evidence. Not least in the software industry. You have to be extraordinarily obtuse to maintain any of these arguments as true, without evidence.

What remains as the sole plausible benefit to society is documentation. Yes, patents seriously hurt the transport industry in the early 19th century, but today you can build a working steam engine from patents. Documentation is, plausibly, worth the significant pain that patents cause society.

And it's here that software patents fail completely. No patent is as good as source code, and in the age of Wikipedia we do not need the patent system to bribe busy people to document their work.

I've been making my software GPLd since 1991. If someone uses it, for free, and makes a derived work, and then tries to stop others from sharing that work, they are ethically and intellectually challenged.

This is not a test case for the GPL, it's a straight-forward copyright violation case, where AVM is taking the work of tens of thousands of people, using it under a license that permits remixing, and then attempting to ignore those license conditions.

Take them to the cleaners, Harald!

Ironically, the French patent establishment largely launched the notion of 'intellectual property' in the late 18th century.

This has been a long, long fight between the patent lobby and the rest of society. The sad thing is no-one really represents society, today, except civil society groups. Government has long become a tool for big business to get laws it thinks it needs, and the big software business (often, US firms like MSFT) still believes (wrongly) that it needs software patents.