Wow! Excellent choice of examples, bob.
Polaroid? Yeah, I have one of their tablets... wait, Polaroid is defunct, and they sold their name to another outfit who is trying to make their cheap electronics sound legit.
You are attempting to discredit an article about the longevity of a company that relied too heavily on IP by highlighting a lawsuit with a company that went bankrupt even earlier! Even your IP-addled gray matter should comprehend this.
There is an AMA from two patent examiners on reddit, /r/Android. They both admit that they are pressured to approve patents rather than reject them. They also say they would be much happier if they were pressured to reject instead of approve them.
So you see, both sides would like a higher bar for patents. Only the courts in the middle disagree.
The problem with patent lovers is they don't know how to understand technology or invent anything. If they did, they would understand the tremendous amount of "borrowing" involved in any invention. Instead, they see a partially packaged product and think, "oh, this is totally unrealated to anything I have seen before; therefore it is wholly original." If you want to know an innovator's ideas on patents, why don't you Google Steve Wozniak's opinion on the Apple vs Samsung trial?
The really interesting thing is that, regardless of your, "Big Business" line (on which I call Bullshit), the people who really rake in the cash in any patent dispute are the lawyers... wait, what is your occupation?
This equation assumes that Apple media is radically cheaper than Amazon or Google. Seeing as this is NOT the case (as stated in a previous post) this really doesn't seem like a good simplification of the market.
To me, Apple is using it's sizable group of well-financed fans to promote the higher hardware prices. They know that almost the entire group will go out and buy their latest hardware, so they put out a new version as frequently as possible. They really don't have a reason to discount media, either. They just do.
Amazon also has a large fan base, but they are the bargain-hunters of the internet. You can't gouge them and keep them as customers. Therefore, Amazon keeps both hardware and media margins at a minimum.
To Google, every tablet out there is an opportunity to mine data. Therefore, they are able to sell hardware and media at cost (or even a loss) and still come out ahead.
You will almost certainly see the hardware from Amazon and Google following Moore's law as hardware becomes faster and cheaper, while Apple will have frequent incremental advances.
You sound like a mirror-image of a copyright maximalist. Going to the other extreme doesn't right the wrongs, it just creates the opposite wrong. We need to use these situations to illustrate the stupidity and futility of this level of monopoly protection, and reduce the protection to a level which best benefits everyone.
Let me take this one: there is no search monopoly. Period.
There is a major search engine that a lot of people use, and a whole bunch of other search engines that a few people use.
For those of us who have been on the web longer than 10 years, we have used Alta Vista, Dog Pile, Yahoo, etc. They just don't offer the quality that Google does.
If you don't like Google, use Bing. Or Alta Vista, Dog Pile, etc. But if you call it a search monopoly again, I'll knock the tin-foil hat off your head, and the government will know what you've been thinking for the last ten years!
I just wanted to note that it would appear that the Tims have switched logins. The previous article by Timothy Geigner (supposedly) about Disney was completely mature and factual. Not even a fart joke! And now this...
I'm calling bullshit. Come clean.
It's good to see a blog defend against a bogus lawsuit, but I do wish it wasn't the Apple fanboi-mag Gizmodo. I used to read it all the time, but the last six months have been nothing but Apple-loving and Android bashing. They used to be at least somewhat objective, now they don't even pretend.