(30 Aug 12, 08:35PM)Roflcopter Wrote:(30 Aug 12, 05:45AM)Lateralus Wrote: ...
Personally I don't see the distinction between my vegetable example and the iPhone case. I'm also not sure if you're arguing about how the system "should be" or "is".
On my original post all i was saying is that no, I don't agree that Apple should be able to patent a generic thing by itself. Rectangles with round corners, icons, tap to zoom, etc. are not exactly examples of a system by itself. However, when you put these things together in a certain formula you create a unique recipe that should be protected.
A farmer cannot patent raw materials like crops. But if he/she created a composition with them like a "secret recipe" that may be patented. So I wasn't arguing concerning a supplier that deals with basic ingredients. They cannot and should bot be patented. This is where you and I agree and had a miscommunication I think.
I'm not aware of all the details of Apple vs Samsung but i think a lot has to do with asking whether Samsung intentionally tried to confuse consumers by making the product too similar.
Bottom line for me is that I can see both sides. As a consumer, competition is good. The more competition, the less chance of price fixing. On the other hand businesses should be protected by unfair infringements upon legitimate patents. What makes the system work is checks and balances. Without a legal framework it would go to one extreme or the other.
Patent laws aren't so clear sometimes so they become subjective like in this case. There are bad referees in every sport :)