@Axtremus said in The Supreme Court does tech:
@xenon If you can call LEGO’s toy block interface “the product,” why can some other technology not call their API “the product”? At best this argument can only say that this Oracle v. Google case is not a good case to support copyrighting API, not generally show that copyrighting API is a bad idea.
As for “concentration,” I think the real remedy is to just break up the companies that have grown “too big.” Tinkering with patent and copyright laws will not effectively address “concentration.”
Not disagreeing. As I said, I can see the legal rationale.
I guess I reacted strongly because I think the application of the letter of the law is out of sync with the spirit of the constitutional underpinnings of patent law.
It's like if every nail manufacturer could patent their nail design - and regulations made it such that you needed an approved nail design to build anything you wanted to build. It'd lead to a bunch of vertically integrated real estate developers.
Anyways - not a perfect analogy. I just think tech has been hobbled patent law. There's a better solution out there where there'd be more innovation, inventors still get paid for their innovations and there'd be overall more and cheaper SW development.
