We all know Apple, Microsoft etc try to keep you on their platform by providing exclusive services that only works on their platform. By patenting these solutions, they effectively block competing platforms from their services. E.g. they can block Skydrive-integration on Linux if they want to. I find it kinda strange that they are allowed to do this, as one might say that "-hey, why can't I access this service from an Apple computer?". A question comes to me, why is this allowed? Patents was about having monopoly on an invention that gives exclusive right on selling this invention. So, if I program an OS and would like to connect to some of the services from Microsoft, they are allowed to have exclusive rights on selling me this service. But this is not happening, they refuse to sell the service to us, because they say they only license the usage to partners whom they choose.
Well. This is where patents have derailed from the ideal runway. The thought of patents was never about exclusive rights on refusing to sell an idea. It was the other way around.
Patents should not be about blocking competitors from your platform. It's like requiring Nike shoes only on some sports courts.
So, ideally in my world, if e.g. Microsoft cannot make a fully compatible Android-client for a service they provide, then you are no longer breaking if you program a competing solution.