Of course Apple is pursuing what is in their mind a good business strategy. The 'best' strategy is one where all competitors are eliminated and no new entrants allowed, however this is a monopoly. All strategies are a subset of this 'best' strategy, the differences being a matter of scope. The Government when aware of a company's monopolistic strategy that is too broad in scope must act in order to protect the market.
Apple may be well within their right, however the Government must look at the effect Apple's actions are having on the market. Then, to the extent appropriate, curtail said actions until the market is corrected.
I invented something, and it came true because I said it out loud.
Can you invent an idea? This statement by Dubber is inaccurate and should be reversed and reworded. He said it out loud and it was invented by someone else.
Now, before people get upset and say "well that's great, but it doesn't mean patents aren't useful," you're right. I'm not saying that any of this negates the need for patents (there are other reasons for that).
I too am amused by those who would seek to tell you how the 'real' world works and give you a lesson on patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Yet these privileges are not 'real'; they are artificial restrictions on the creation of products, flow of ideas, and distribution of literary works, software, music, etc. The privileged (owners of patents, copyrights, and trademarks) have now go on to patent troll and terrorize society as they sue all in their path, with the collateral damage being the sales of their own products. Yet and still they see copyright extensions as the cure and fair use as the curse. A crude analogy would be drivers lobbying for higher speed limits (copyright extension) and no longer yielding to pedestrians (fair use).