> What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before.
that’s literally every patentable invention ever, though.
Remington didn’t invent the hunting rifle… they didn’t even invent the first self-loading or lever action rifle, probably.
“removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical” is more charitably described as “a useful innovation that advances the field”.
Now, the problem is that a lot of patents are issued for things that someone else already has done, so the recipient of the patent isn't actually advancing the state of the art. But on the face of it, "removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical" is literally what patents are supposed to be granted for.
that’s literally every patentable invention ever, though.
Remington didn’t invent the hunting rifle… they didn’t even invent the first self-loading or lever action rifle, probably.
“removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical” is more charitably described as “a useful innovation that advances the field”.
Now, the problem is that a lot of patents are issued for things that someone else already has done, so the recipient of the patent isn't actually advancing the state of the art. But on the face of it, "removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical" is literally what patents are supposed to be granted for.