I think there's an easy answer to this problem but it gets obscured by an "either/or" mentality. Either you support patents or you think it's ok for Google to outright steal the iPhone interface.
Allow companies to patent innovations but legally force them to license it to others for a "fair price". That way companies can still build on top of each other's innovations but inventors still get financial compensation for their invention.
I recognize there would be a problem in pricing the license but since these cases end up in court anyway (where a judge or jury determines the fair value) I don't see how allowing companies to resolve what "fair price" means would be any different than what we have now. Except it would take out the ambiguity for the consumer(since a company like Google would never have to pull the product from the market).
Either you support patents or you think it's ok for Google to outright steal the iPhone interface.
What if you think they copied the Palm Pilot GUI?
Music publishing has compulsory licensing, so there's some precedent about how it might work, but music copyrights are nearly as fucked as software patents. In neither case is the root problem addressed.
> What if you think they copied the Palm Pilot GUI?
Apple did copy it from the Treo-era PalmOS. A grid of fingertip-sized tappable app icons.
And I'm OK with that, because it fosters progress, competition, and iterative improvements of existing technologies. I don't see the big issue with copying user interfaces. You'll either take the idea and improve on it, or make a mockery of it and your product will fail.
Allow companies to patent innovations but legally force them to license it to others for a "fair price". That way companies can still build on top of each other's innovations but inventors still get financial compensation for their invention.
I recognize there would be a problem in pricing the license but since these cases end up in court anyway (where a judge or jury determines the fair value) I don't see how allowing companies to resolve what "fair price" means would be any different than what we have now. Except it would take out the ambiguity for the consumer(since a company like Google would never have to pull the product from the market).