[bullseye]

>> Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls.

It seems like this has been the standard rationale given by companies when they are awarded these kinds of patents. A few years later, we see lawsuits "defending" these ludicrous patents.

The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions.

[zo1]

"The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions."

Wow, that's such a loaded analogy.

You're basically saying that they must willingly sacrifice themselves on the alter of the competition just because you don't agree that this is how the system is to be used. The system isn't "broken" in the conventional sense that it doesn't do what it was built to do. It's doing it perfectly, it's just that you didn't consider the implications of someone taking your laws and systems to their logical conclusion.

All the "moral" companies that agree with your usage of the patent system have not taken advantage of the patent system. The ones you do see are the ones that don't agree with your usage. And for all we know, the former is struggling because it wasn't using all the potential advantages at its disposal like the "immoral" companies did.

[bullseye]

In the context of the conversation, we've been talking about Amazon. You're right... I don't agree with their usage. This isn't some small little guy bravely trying to fight off the wolves with a few patents they got their hands on. I don't see many examples of them using patent system to do "what it was built to do".

I don't care if you want to call it moral vs. immoral. Software at the high level has become a game of who can get a patent and sue everyone else. I think it sucks, and yes, I think it is broken.