said by Desdinova:As amused as I typically am by Apple (and usually not amused in a good way) I think owlyn has a good point in the preemptive, potentially GOOD aspect of this move...namely this good be a way of PREVENTING this from ever happening.
If someone with an altruistic heart (I know, this is Steve Jobs we're talking about, stop laughing) were to control the ability for another company (like Windows, say) to be able to implement system-crippling advertising, this altruistic person could prevent it from ever happening (or at least make a good effort). They'd also be able to financially punish anyone who tried anyway.
In effect creating a non-law enforcement agency with legal power (sort of): "Yeah, you can put this crap in your software but if you do, we're suing your ass back to the stone age so you probably don't want to."
I doubt the patent will get approved (it just seems a bit too broad in its claims), but this COULD be a good idea. Just think, if someone had patented the processes involved in being a douchebag, the MPAA and the RIAA would have been sued out of existence years ago! On second thought, it wprobably would have been them who owned the patent...
The whole idea smacks of support for browser/website interaction to prevent users from blocking advertising by taking control of the device at system level to prevent advertising avoidance. Something all content providers on the internet are lusting after; Big Brother DRM.
