> Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this device and the biggest tech company in the world?

They are last I checked the biggest company in history.

But apparently that is not enough reward for their efforts, they need the government to grant them a monopoly on some of the most ridiculously obvious ideas of the last 20 years.

This was hashed out over the last few weeks when they passed the record. They are the biggest in nominal ("dollar") value. The Microsoft of the 90's and IBM of the 80's were larger in inflation-adjusted market cap. And my understanding is that the US trusts of the 1920's were much larger in terms of value as fraction of GDP.

But they're undeniably the biggest, most successful tech company on the planet right now. I think that's enough.

And lets not forgot Standard Oil of the early 20th century. Standard Oil was so big it's revenue (including all the subsidiaries and holdings) almost topped the value of the whole country.

Apple is far from that goal.

Apple might be the biggest company by market cap today but they're a pale comparison to the likes of Standard Oil or US Steel (in their prime).

Also, Apple doesn't have a monopoly is anything unlike (Standard Oil and US Steel). I wish most of you would stop trying to convince us all they do.

We've been down this road before. And it seems to happen every generation - some company gets very rich. And everyone starts screaming about unfair practices and monopolies.

Apple plays the patent game well. So does Google, MS, Samsung, IBM, Oracle, all the drug companies - and everybody else. So what's new?

Right. Everyone is screaming about unfair practices and monopolies because unfair practices and monopolies hurt the market. You honestly don't think MS hurt adoption of otherwise-good platforms in the 90's? There are a bunch of South Korean teenagers who probably wish you physical violence for holding that opinion.

You can't accuse people of using strawmen then proffer one yourself.

I'm reading back and forth between crag's reply and mine looking for a straw man and can't find one. Enlighten me? He strongly implied (it seems clear to me, though maybe you thought he was saying something else?) that the status quo was not a problem because it had happened before. I replied that it was a problem, had happened, and gave an example. Simply inferring an argument is not making a straw man.

The current system enables Apple to be the largest company in the world, in other systems other companies end up winning. So you don't get to assume the same companies win win after significant patent reform.

PS: Plenty of large companies have overthrown governments and enabled atrocities on a massive scale. Sure, someone always wins but it's hard to point to a company as benign as Microsoft or Apple and assume something must be horribly broken. Honestly, after comparing the Apple ecosystem with Android Apple is far better for developers than the more 'open' platform. Ditto for Microsoft, they had their time in the sun and 'hurt' their rivals, but compared to say standard Oil, US steel, or the East India Company there practically a charity.

Or the Dutch East-India Company, which had it's own army and navy...

I share the sentiment of your last remarks so much, I find them quoteworthy.

Apple had sold hundreds of millions of devices before filing a suit or setting foot in a courtroom. They're not only the most valuable public corporation in the world, but at present, the most valuable in history.

The notion that they need protection and compensation and at that, for look and feel elements that aren't even advertised major selling points of the device, is "patently" ridiculous in my view.

>> Isn't it enough that Apple made a great, ground breaking product that enriched us all? Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this device and the biggest tech company in the world?

This is why I didn't like the lawsuit, despite believing that Samsung made some phones that were intentional look-alikes of the iPhone. Just because they could sue and win, doesn't mean Apple should have.

On the other hand, I'd add "Don't hate the playa, hate the game" with respect to all the anti-Apple outrage going on. The system's broken, and it was taken advantage of. People and businesses will always squeeze the most out of any system (the tax system comes to mind), and practically speaking, we're better off trying to fix the system than hope that people and businesses will rise above using a system to their advantage.

We live in an interesting time where we have tools like social media that can actually influence politicians, and I think we need to direct some of our outrage to show that politicians are at risk of losing their jobs if they don't address our concerns related to creating more reasonable IP laws.

No, do "hate the playa" (for want of a better term).

When you hear about the druggie who knocked someone on the head for a fix, the bigger culprits are 1) the law for driving the prices up to cause the druggie to need to rob someone to be able to afford a fix 2) the dealer for supplying the stuff at a high price and purposely "hooking" the junkie 3) the druggie, who has an addictive personality, but choses not to show the strength to say "no"

I place the blame in that order. A similar story can be said for Apple. Apple should be thought of poorly for being a playa. They knew their attack wasn't really at Samsung, or Google, or Android. It was at competition and innovation and hence, at society.

For the record, I come from a family where one member fell into category 3 (druggie). Unless you experience it, it's very hard to understand the non-monetary cost to a family when one of your ranks strays down the path of drugs and destruction. Thankfully, this black sheep seems to be on the mend after -decades- of abuse to us all.

The core browser innovation wasn't pinch, it was page structure analysis.