I agree, and disagree. I have no issue with the concept of patent rights, or IP in general. There are some big issues with the implementation at the USPTO, etc., but that is another topic. I am not one of the "information wants to be free (so I am going to take it)" people.
Where we seem to disagree is what a proper (legally appropriate) response is when aggrieved. You are certainly allowed to defend your IP rights, either through the courts, or by attempting* to protect it technically. I can even empathize with your frustration when your work has been stolen. I was just saying that, as tempting as it may seem, one can't go over to the dark side and start repaying evil with evil. Bricking the end-user crosses that line; passively refusing to operate would be ok. It may not be as satisfying, but wearing the white hat means that one has a larger set of constraints than those in black. (How many more metaphors can I work in here?)
* I say "attempting" because historically the track record of such technical controls are rather poor. There is usually a technical work-around to the technical protection. One can attempt an arms-race, but there are limits to what one can do ethically. Which is back to my original point, again.
Personal insults aside, the citation was not germane to the original argument, but was in response to your questioning the ability to patent the mechanical design of a car seat, which was the parallel example that I was trying to use to make my on-topic argument. I don't have a bunch of case-law to cite, but neither do you. I am merely discussing the ethical ramifications of over-reacting.
P.S. Thanks for the spirited back and forth discussion. You can have the last post if you wish.