Exactly.
Let's translate what happens in the area of software patents to more conventional patents.
Let's say I come up with an idea of a flying car powered by water - quite a generic idea. I can patent that idea. Now, I don't even have to construct that car, I just own the (software) patent. But let's say I build the flying car, it's quite slow, only hovers 2 feet above the ground, but kinda works. Then company X builds another car that floats 2.3 feet above the ground. It doesn't matter how they've done it, but I can sue them because they have infringed my patent (idea). Should I be allowed to sue them? Isn't this stopping innovation?
Well, I would start by saying that I think you would be pissed if someone did that to you. Again, that's just my assumption. But, if you came up with that awesome idea, and actually made it work to boot. While some other company comes up after you and does the same thing, but improves on it. You should have every right to sue (if you so choose too).
Now, I also think your saying that if the idea you came up with is pretty "Generic" in nature, but somehow you were able to get it patented anyway. If that should have been the case, well then IDK. You get a patent because you think your idea is great or worth protecting so that you can develop it further (or at least first), before someone else comes along and possibly steals, copies, clones, or patents it before you do.
Its not stopping innovation, its stopping theft. Innovation comes from doing things differently. Finding another way, developing something new. And even from old ideas that maybe no one could ever get to work before, but someone figured it out. Patents are just supposed to protect those that do it first (or get to the patent office first!). It doesn't stop the next person from trying to get something done in another way. Slide to unlock is a very good idea. But, one could use like a "toggle to unlock" or "voice to unlock", or whatever else for that matter. It's questionable if that should be patented in the first place. But, now that its kind of the way to do it. Maybe it should be allowed to be patented?.. I'll leave that for the courts.
Maybe there could be a way to apply for a patent. If nothing matches it, you get the approval. If someone else applies for a patent on a similar idea. But, somehow gets approval. When it goes to court, it can be forced into some basic FRAND license deal between the 2 companies. Because both companies applied and got approval. At least they did there jobs in making sure they were the only ones to have approval. Honest mistake, not there faults. But, if a company does something with either full knowledge that it already exists, and they do it anyway (without checking first). They get to pay a higher penalty (royalties), that get determined by the courts. For as long as they continue to use that method.
IDK, just throwing something out there.
