And there is the crux of the problem. What defines "innovation"? Apparently not common sense looking back to Amazon One-Click patents. Compuserve retroactively going after people using the .gif format, and what about domain squatters just buying up dictionary words and brand names 15+ years ago?
You're right in that I agree if a company has
true innovation, not just a slightly different combination of existing prior work (one click shopping cart), and files a (sane) patent, they should have a period of time in which to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If they file patents and don't release a product, and that patent is simply extending prior art or is common sense, versus true technical achievements, like a new synthetic material, a new CPU (which technically builds on top of existing ideas, so should not be able to be copied intact, but that does not mean the ideas such as for example, L1-L3 cache, can not be), should be protected for a period of time, but common sense or prior art enhancements should be
very limited, if at all.
Apple didn't write the first graphical user interface (xerox parc) nor invent the mouse, nor were they particularly great at multimedia or graphics (contrasted to Amiga, Atari etc.). They didn't invent the LCD, nor the tablet. They weren't the first touch interface, either. One could easily argue that anything based on those items is simply a common sense extension, and assuming no apple copyright images were used, and no one secretly stole Apple's design files and CPU 'blueprints,' then once it entered the public eye, it shouldn't have protection at all, or for a very limited time, in that there is little actually revolutionary there.
Forbes said it well almost 10 years ago - the world is becoming insane with IP and litigation, where companies are formed solely to try to introduce and get approval on patents, to do little work of their own, to later try to 'blackmail' real companies based on those patents. There are quite a few areas, software certainly included, that it's entirely out of control. Common sense and intelligence should rule, but instead, lawyers and cash does, no matter how idiotic much litigation is. The mentioned Forbes article, an interesting read in hindsight.
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/032.html
Inkswamp - if you have a true technological innovation, it should take quite some time for most to reverse-engineer it or duplicate it. If not, and it's simply common sense or an extension of the ideas and work of others, then it's called competition - do it well enough that it will fare well once the copycats jump onboard.
If it's something that can easily be copied within 6 months or so, I'd say it falls into common sense, not a patent. Somewhere between those two points is a balance, but it's unlikely that the current state of fairs is that balance. I'll take honest and reasonably fair (but perhaps a bit less profit) competition any day over a monopoly built on patents and the abuse thereof.
