Amazon would still be the only site offering 1-click checkout and Apple would still have the only phone with Slide-to-Unlock. These are just as important as patent trolls.
What do you mean by as important as patent trolls?
Amazon patented this process and is using it for the benefit of their customers, what's wrong with that? Another company could offer 1-click checkout if they
- pay royalties.
- or own another patent amazon is infringing as a mean to disuade amazon from suing.
Maybe the problem here is that these patents you are referring to seem overly simple and shouldn't be somebody's IP but what seems trivial and intuitive today could have been very innovative at the time they were patented.
> Amazon patented this process and is using it for the benefit of their customers, what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that no competitors can use the same idea without paying Amazon (assuming Amazon would even agree to license it).
What is the benefit to society of preventing someone other than Amazon from implementing 1-click checkout? Do you really think that "innovation" would never have been created without the protection of patents?
I agree that innovation should be more openly shared and licensing should be somehow regulated but I do think there will be less innovation in a world without patents especially in a capitalist world. A lot of the innovation is fueled by research financed by the private sector. Remove the incentive to invest and you reduce the financing and as a result innovation.
