And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong.The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple.
Can you please cite that? For example This case showed the Supreme Court stating that consensual oral and anal sex cannot be banned in private, overturning a previous ruling.
I don't disagree that there is a disconnect in society where sex and nudity is seen as the worst possible thing to expose children to. I also don't disagree that there has been no proof that pornography causes any lasting detrimental effects on children.
Where I will disagree is that violent video games do not incite any illegal acts, in fact quite the opposite. Video games have been linked with a decrease in violent crime.
Why not make a game out of you playing the character and showing oral genital penetration, girl-on-guy-on-guy-girl-girl... or any combo? We'll see how fast video games are protected.
I don't get your point here. The point the Supreme Court made was that despite any inherent differences as a result of it being a new medium, there is no difference with respect to the law. Violent video games are protected because they don't fall into one of the categories to which there is an exception. Currently precedent states that obscenity is not protected speech. Thus it is logically consistent that a game which features sex would not be protected under the concept of obscenity.
This has nothing to do with "programming" of children. There's no hyprocrisy in this decision (there is, in fact, hypocrisy in society's elevation of obscenity to be the horrible boogeyman but that's a different situation). The majority opinion decided that they were not going to create a new exception to free speech for violence and they also decided that violence does not fall under obscenity. Seeing as these are the only ways that they could constitutionally allow a censorship free speech, the law was unconstitutional. There's no hypocrisy there, just they decided not to overturn a past ruling by the court to change the precedent regarding obscenity.
Exactly. It costs you electricity, plus the fact that you have a computer. Are you *REALLY* trying to say this costs you nothing? You are a fucking liar. Shame on you.
If you divide the cost of my computer over ALL of the uses I have for it and that I have used it for, then each individual use become infinitesimal. As such the "cost" of having a computer that is contributed to copying a song is essentially zero. Same thing for the electricity that is used "solely" for the creation of that digital copy. From a philosophical standpoint all it costs me is time.
So, if someone steals your car, but returns it before you need it, no big deal?
Of course not, during the time they stole my car, I have no use of it. Not only that, but they could get into an accident that I would be liable for, take other belongings of mine (deprive me of their use) that are in the car, etc.
That's just a rationalization on your part for benefitting off of the work of others.
Believe what you like, but it's a logical explanation, not just a rationalization. Not only that, but everyone benefit's off the work of others without paying. Do you pay the man who invented the microprocessor EVERY time you turn on or use a computer? Do you pay the man who invented traffic lights every time you drive and manage to survive because traffic laws use traffic lights to keep order? Give me a break. In my case, I make a point in my life to support the artists that I enjoy with my money by either buying merchandise or just donating directly to the artist. This is a very common occurrence and how a lot of artists make their living and it works.
The only reason you keep possession of your car, when it's in the street completely out of your physical control, is because an artificial law says it belongs to you. That's completely imaginary. It's not real.
Really? I thought it was because of the locking mechanisms that I have the key to? That's imaginary? Huh...I thought locks were real. Do you know how often a car that is stolen is actually recovered? Most stolen cars end up either chopped up for parts, or modified so as to be unidentifiable. It is physical property that if someone else "takes" I would be without the use of. That is called theft, taking property and depriving its owner of its use.
This is exactly the same as copyright. It's not real. It's not inherent to reality.
The car is real, the car is inherent to reality. The copyrighted material is not. It's a conceptual idea that exists as a series of 1's and 0's that can be infinitely copied for free. The car is a physical entity that has raw materials and creating a new one would cost more raw materials.
But enough people have decided it makes sense that men with guns will make this imaginary thing real.
And enough people have decided that piracy does not harm artists or moviemakers. Yet some people still insist it does. Lots of people deciding something is not the basis of an argument.
You are swine. You are a parasite. You believe you have the inherent right to live off of the work of others.
I give money to give an incentive for the creation of that which I enjoy, and I do not give money to that which I do not enjoy. It's an actual free market solution where only the content that is good is rewarded. The result of widespread piracy will eventually be less content that is true. However, the result will be that the content that survives will be better quality! It will be the better products and better content that will be given money by pirates and non-pirates alike because they enjoy it.
It's pathetic
oh wait....i think I know you......Kristopelt? Is that you?
Context isn't telepathic. If that's what you meant, then SAY that.
As for an answer to your question, it's because the American public seems to think that depictions of nudity and sexuality are much more harmful than violence and as such long ago carved an exception to free speech that "Obscenity" is not protected. Thus the difference between an ultra-violent video game and a rated "X" movie, is the movie violates ridiculous puritanical values and is considered obscene, the game is just violent.
1) Forcing parents to make the decision of the materials their children have access to.
Parents already have to make that decision, regardless whether it is enforced by the state, the store itself or neither. Where are the children going to play these games? If a parent doesn't know what their child is up to in this type of case, the problem is the parent. This type of law doesn't protect against a parent who doesn't pay attention, they will just purchase the game for their child anyways.
2) A state's right to decide what material is OK for children to purchase.
In cases of obvious and documented harm, that may be fine and allowable, if there is no documented and obvious harm, the state should have no right to decide that a child cannot purchase something.
I don't want to have to deal with public displays of nudity and sexuality and the loss of innocence for kids that comes along with it.
Loss of innocence? You realize that the reason why it's seen as a "loss of innocence" and is regarded as such a big thing is because we, as Americans, make such a big deal about it. We repress it. In fact, if public displays of nudity and sexuality were more commonplace, as they are in other countries, then it would no longer be such a big deal to kids, it would be a normal thing. But of course....treating nudity and sexuality like a normal thing would destroy society...right?
Actually, Sex, under the title of "obscenity" has not been upheld as an artistic right under the first amendment. Obscenity is not protected under the first amendment and hasn't been for quite some time. Thus historical regulation comes into play in the form of precedent and previous Supreme Court decisions. In order to allow sex, or obscenity, as protected under the first amendment, they would have to overturn previous precendent and decide to bring it back under first amendment protection. This is why Yee tried to argue that extreme violence should be considered obscene and thus seen without protection as obscenity.
Philosophical question: If you could copy a car identically and perfectly without expending any resources nor depriving the owner of its use, would you do it?
I copy a digital file copy of a song, movie, etc. It costs me nothing, It in fact, costs nothing other than the electricity to run the computer.
But unless you have physical control over something, any "exclusive control" you may have (for example, a car you have parked in the street, but left unlocked with the keys in the ignition) is also "imaginary".
Perhaps, however someone else taking use of that car deprives you of having use of it. Someone else having use of a song, movie, etc. does not deprive you of having use of the same thing. That is the difference.
Sure I can. If it is copyrighted under the GPL or the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license, it is perfectly legal to upload such copyrighted content. Not only that, but while software does exist that can copy a Blu-Ray disk, in most cases ripping a blu-ray disk is beyond the average user.
Actually, side-loading on Android does not require messing with the software at all in any way. It requires checking a single box in a settings menu. So where's the sliding scale?
Once again: What about if you have purchased a DVD or CD and the disk has gotten scratched/lost/otherwise unreadable? Then this is a very useful tool to reacquire something you have already purchased. Or what if you have a blu-ray dvd and you do not have the capability to rip it and would like to have a backup? This is a useful legitimate reason for that functionality.
What about if you have purchased a DVD or CD and the disk has gotten scratched/lost/otherwise unreadable? Then this is a very useful tool to reacquire something you have already purchased. Or what if you have a blu-ray dvd and you do not have the capability to rip it and would like to have a backup? This is a useful non-infringing tool for that.
I buy a blu-ray dvd. I scan it and find a torrent to download it. That is a non-infringing use. I have a CD album and i've lost the disk, i scan the barcode and download it. That is non-infringing. It has substantial non-infringing uses.
Hmm.....a group of people who would own a smart phone, too poor to afford to buy music and would use the smart phone to pirate music...how about a lot of college students?
Most college students that have smart phones did not purchase them themselves and with the expense of college, books, etc. would be too poor to afford to buy music. And a college student with a smart phone that can be used to assist in pirating music, is going to use it to do so. Well, whaddya know, college students actually DO form a very significant portion of pirates.....I guess you're point doesn't stand anymore.
Actually, most Sci-Fi conventions where celebrities are making appearances, taking a photo with the celebrity is free. It's getting an autograph taht they charge for. It's rare that they will charge for a photograph and in fact, I would call the celebrity a dick for charging for a photograph. I understand the charging for an autograph, especially for older celebrities who aren't active anymore. This is how they make a living and they are providing something that is unique and special, a personalized autograph.
"Fashion patents" are a relatively new phenomenon. As for copyright, if you copy that Gucci design, but you don't call it Gucci and don't use the Gucci logo, and don't pretend at all that it's actually a Gucci product, then you're perfectly fine.
The difference is that imaginary property costs nothing to reproduce (copy a CD, movie, etc.) whereas physical property costs raw materials to create. Acquiring imaginary property does not deprive someone else of it's use, acquiring physical property by definition means you have exclusive control over it.
the point is that unlike on Android phones, if an app is removed from the store, then no one can install it anymore. If you get a new iOS device or perform a reset, that's it. You lose the application and cannot get it back. At least on Android you can download the Application from somewhere else and install it yourself. (Not counting jailbreaking the iPhone)
If you build your house in a prime location, should i get to come live in it without paying any construction costs or rent just because I would have built a similar house there if I would have found the property first?
Having an idea that is the obvious solution to a particular problem is in no way analogous to building a house.
However, you argue that almost everything is obvious IF someone has the knowledge/skill and IF they think to identify the problem and IF they choose to solve the problem, concluding they will identify the same invention. Yeah, great, but they did not, so it is indeed not obvious.
My argument was that most things that are being given patents, specifically dealing with software because that's what I know, are things that were obvious to any programmer given that particular problem. Why would someone working on a completely different product or program spend their time to work on a completely unrelated issue? For example, you're a manufacturer of cars. Now, if you wanted to manufacture something else you would instantly know the obvious way to do it based on your experience in manufacturing cars. However, you're making a good profit making cars so you've never thought of manufacturing that other thing. You don't care about it because it's not relevant to what you do right now. When someone comes along and then applies the basic tenants of the engineering behind manufacturing to manufacture something that's not a car and then patents it, does it make their solution any less obvious because they just happened to be the first person to do it? Despite the fact that given the same problem, any expert in manufacturing would immediately come to the same conclusion? No. It is still obvious.
It's not just the patent trolls that are a problem. When a company like Apple or Microsoft or IBM patents something that would be obvious to any programmer who was confronted with that specific problem by applying some basic expertise, that hurts all software engineers. I'm sure that similar problems exist in other industries regarding patents. It's just more prominent with software due to how fast moving the industry is.
Except the intent was not to recreate the original album art, the intent was to create a transformed version of the album art with a stylistic difference. It is sufficiently different that it is transformative and therefore fair use.
but innovation will certainly suffer if innovators are assured to lose benefit from their work.
You make the assumption that without patents innovators are 'assured' to lose benefit from their work. Yet the people who make the most money on 'inventions' nowadays aren't the small inventor who created something. It's the company who purchases the patent from the inventor and the companies who troll with their patents. The only industry I know well enough to comment in this context is the software industry, and It's very easy to see right now how patents have slowed innovation in this industry. Software is a fast moving industry where many companies might come up with the same idea within months of each other but because one company got a patent first, they effectively lock out competition. Look at the current situation in the mobile space, there's an all out patent war with tens of millions of dollars being given to lawyers rather than being put into R&D or somewhere else productive. Software patents hinder creativity, lock out competition, and severely slow down innovation.
For slower moving industries, patents make more sense but still I'm sure that examples can be found where patents have hindered innovation rather than helped it.
If something was so obvious that it will certainly be invented, why didn't it exist before it was invented?
That sentence is a nightmare and I think I understand what you are trying to ask, considering that you're basically asking me why something didn't exist...before it existed. Anyway, many "inventions" that are being patented right now (again, I only really watch the software industry since that's what I know) are things that anyone with knowledge in the field would see as the logical next step, such as Multi-touch. If the patent was more narrow then there might be an argument for their particular implementation of it, yet since multiple companies have created their own ways to do it already it seems that the patent wasn't all that novel and then becomes overly broad so that implementations that are just "similar" but not the same, would infringe and thus it becomes easy to lock out competition.
In addition, usually something might be obvious to someone in that field, if they were working on that particular problem. If they aren't currently working on a specific problem, then obviously they won't have published that particular solution. Yet, the result that is patented would be something that any expert in the field would see as the logical way to solve it if they were faced with the same problem. As I said, someone else just happened by chance to be faced with that problem first, why should they have the right to prevent someone who comes up with the same solution completely independently, from using the same solution? It's ridiculous
Slashdot Mirror
Precedent.
And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong.The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple.
Can you please cite that? For example This case showed the Supreme Court stating that consensual oral and anal sex cannot be banned in private, overturning a previous ruling.
I don't disagree that there is a disconnect in society where sex and nudity is seen as the worst possible thing to expose children to. I also don't disagree that there has been no proof that pornography causes any lasting detrimental effects on children.
Where I will disagree is that violent video games do not incite any illegal acts, in fact quite the opposite. Video games have been linked with a decrease in violent crime.
Why not make a game out of you playing the character and showing oral genital penetration, girl-on-guy-on-guy-girl-girl... or any combo? We'll see how fast video games are protected.
I don't get your point here. The point the Supreme Court made was that despite any inherent differences as a result of it being a new medium, there is no difference with respect to the law. Violent video games are protected because they don't fall into one of the categories to which there is an exception. Currently precedent states that obscenity is not protected speech. Thus it is logically consistent that a game which features sex would not be protected under the concept of obscenity.
This has nothing to do with "programming" of children. There's no hyprocrisy in this decision (there is, in fact, hypocrisy in society's elevation of obscenity to be the horrible boogeyman but that's a different situation). The majority opinion decided that they were not going to create a new exception to free speech for violence and they also decided that violence does not fall under obscenity. Seeing as these are the only ways that they could constitutionally allow a censorship free speech, the law was unconstitutional. There's no hypocrisy there, just they decided not to overturn a past ruling by the court to change the precedent regarding obscenity.
Exactly. It costs you electricity, plus the fact that you have a computer. Are you *REALLY* trying to say this costs you nothing? You are a fucking liar. Shame on you.
If you divide the cost of my computer over ALL of the uses I have for it and that I have used it for, then each individual use become infinitesimal. As such the "cost" of having a computer that is contributed to copying a song is essentially zero. Same thing for the electricity that is used "solely" for the creation of that digital copy. From a philosophical standpoint all it costs me is time.
So, if someone steals your car, but returns it before you need it, no big deal?
Of course not, during the time they stole my car, I have no use of it. Not only that, but they could get into an accident that I would be liable for, take other belongings of mine (deprive me of their use) that are in the car, etc.
That's just a rationalization on your part for benefitting off of the work of others.
Believe what you like, but it's a logical explanation, not just a rationalization. Not only that, but everyone benefit's off the work of others without paying. Do you pay the man who invented the microprocessor EVERY time you turn on or use a computer? Do you pay the man who invented traffic lights every time you drive and manage to survive because traffic laws use traffic lights to keep order? Give me a break. In my case, I make a point in my life to support the artists that I enjoy with my money by either buying merchandise or just donating directly to the artist. This is a very common occurrence and how a lot of artists make their living and it works.
The only reason you keep possession of your car, when it's in the street completely out of your physical control, is because an artificial law says it belongs to you. That's completely imaginary. It's not real.
Really? I thought it was because of the locking mechanisms that I have the key to? That's imaginary? Huh...I thought locks were real. Do you know how often a car that is stolen is actually recovered? Most stolen cars end up either chopped up for parts, or modified so as to be unidentifiable. It is physical property that if someone else "takes" I would be without the use of. That is called theft, taking property and depriving its owner of its use.
This is exactly the same as copyright. It's not real. It's not inherent to reality.
The car is real, the car is inherent to reality. The copyrighted material is not. It's a conceptual idea that exists as a series of 1's and 0's that can be infinitely copied for free. The car is a physical entity that has raw materials and creating a new one would cost more raw materials.
But enough people have decided it makes sense that men with guns will make this imaginary thing real.
And enough people have decided that piracy does not harm artists or moviemakers. Yet some people still insist it does. Lots of people deciding something is not the basis of an argument.
You are swine. You are a parasite. You believe you have the inherent right to live off of the work of others.
I give money to give an incentive for the creation of that which I enjoy, and I do not give money to that which I do not enjoy. It's an actual free market solution where only the content that is good is rewarded. The result of widespread piracy will eventually be less content that is true. However, the result will be that the content that survives will be better quality! It will be the better products and better content that will be given money by pirates and non-pirates alike because they enjoy it.
It's pathetic
oh wait....i think I know you......Kristopelt? Is that you?
Context isn't telepathic. If that's what you meant, then SAY that.
As for an answer to your question, it's because the American public seems to think that depictions of nudity and sexuality are much more harmful than violence and as such long ago carved an exception to free speech that "Obscenity" is not protected. Thus the difference between an ultra-violent video game and a rated "X" movie, is the movie violates ridiculous puritanical values and is considered obscene, the game is just violent.
1) Forcing parents to make the decision of the materials their children have access to.
Parents already have to make that decision, regardless whether it is enforced by the state, the store itself or neither. Where are the children going to play these games? If a parent doesn't know what their child is up to in this type of case, the problem is the parent. This type of law doesn't protect against a parent who doesn't pay attention, they will just purchase the game for their child anyways.
2) A state's right to decide what material is OK for children to purchase.
In cases of obvious and documented harm, that may be fine and allowable, if there is no documented and obvious harm, the state should have no right to decide that a child cannot purchase something.
Actually, R and X rated movies ARE available for rent and sale in almost every state. They are just not allowed to be rented or sold to a minor.
I don't want to have to deal with public displays of nudity and sexuality and the loss of innocence for kids that comes along with it.
Loss of innocence? You realize that the reason why it's seen as a "loss of innocence" and is regarded as such a big thing is because we, as Americans, make such a big deal about it. We repress it. In fact, if public displays of nudity and sexuality were more commonplace, as they are in other countries, then it would no longer be such a big deal to kids, it would be a normal thing. But of course....treating nudity and sexuality like a normal thing would destroy society...right?
Actually, Sex, under the title of "obscenity" has not been upheld as an artistic right under the first amendment. Obscenity is not protected under the first amendment and hasn't been for quite some time. Thus historical regulation comes into play in the form of precedent and previous Supreme Court decisions. In order to allow sex, or obscenity, as protected under the first amendment, they would have to overturn previous precendent and decide to bring it back under first amendment protection. This is why Yee tried to argue that extreme violence should be considered obscene and thus seen without protection as obscenity.
Philosophical question: If you could copy a car identically and perfectly without expending any resources nor depriving the owner of its use, would you do it?
That's absolutely incorrect
I copy a digital file copy of a song, movie, etc. It costs me nothing, It in fact, costs nothing other than the electricity to run the computer.
But unless you have physical control over something, any "exclusive control" you may have (for example, a car you have parked in the street, but left unlocked with the keys in the ignition) is also "imaginary".
Perhaps, however someone else taking use of that car deprives you of having use of it. Someone else having use of a song, movie, etc. does not deprive you of having use of the same thing. That is the difference.
Sure I can. If it is copyrighted under the GPL or the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license, it is perfectly legal to upload such copyrighted content. Not only that, but while software does exist that can copy a Blu-Ray disk, in most cases ripping a blu-ray disk is beyond the average user.
Actually, side-loading on Android does not require messing with the software at all in any way. It requires checking a single box in a settings menu. So where's the sliding scale?
Once again: What about if you have purchased a DVD or CD and the disk has gotten scratched/lost/otherwise unreadable? Then this is a very useful tool to reacquire something you have already purchased. Or what if you have a blu-ray dvd and you do not have the capability to rip it and would like to have a backup? This is a useful legitimate reason for that functionality.
What about if you have purchased a DVD or CD and the disk has gotten scratched/lost/otherwise unreadable? Then this is a very useful tool to reacquire something you have already purchased. Or what if you have a blu-ray dvd and you do not have the capability to rip it and would like to have a backup? This is a useful non-infringing tool for that.
I buy a blu-ray dvd. I scan it and find a torrent to download it. That is a non-infringing use. I have a CD album and i've lost the disk, i scan the barcode and download it. That is non-infringing. It has substantial non-infringing uses.
Hmm.....a group of people who would own a smart phone, too poor to afford to buy music and would use the smart phone to pirate music...how about a lot of college students?
Most college students that have smart phones did not purchase them themselves and with the expense of college, books, etc. would be too poor to afford to buy music. And a college student with a smart phone that can be used to assist in pirating music, is going to use it to do so. Well, whaddya know, college students actually DO form a very significant portion of pirates.....I guess you're point doesn't stand anymore.
Actually, most Sci-Fi conventions where celebrities are making appearances, taking a photo with the celebrity is free. It's getting an autograph taht they charge for. It's rare that they will charge for a photograph and in fact, I would call the celebrity a dick for charging for a photograph. I understand the charging for an autograph, especially for older celebrities who aren't active anymore. This is how they make a living and they are providing something that is unique and special, a personalized autograph.
"Fashion patents" are a relatively new phenomenon. As for copyright, if you copy that Gucci design, but you don't call it Gucci and don't use the Gucci logo, and don't pretend at all that it's actually a Gucci product, then you're perfectly fine.
The difference is that imaginary property costs nothing to reproduce (copy a CD, movie, etc.) whereas physical property costs raw materials to create. Acquiring imaginary property does not deprive someone else of it's use, acquiring physical property by definition means you have exclusive control over it.
the point is that unlike on Android phones, if an app is removed from the store, then no one can install it anymore. If you get a new iOS device or perform a reset, that's it. You lose the application and cannot get it back. At least on Android you can download the Application from somewhere else and install it yourself. (Not counting jailbreaking the iPhone)
If you build your house in a prime location, should i get to come live in it without paying any construction costs or rent just because I would have built a similar house there if I would have found the property first?
Having an idea that is the obvious solution to a particular problem is in no way analogous to building a house.
However, you argue that almost everything is obvious IF someone has the knowledge/skill and IF they think to identify the problem and IF they choose to solve the problem, concluding they will identify the same invention. Yeah, great, but they did not, so it is indeed not obvious.
My argument was that most things that are being given patents, specifically dealing with software because that's what I know, are things that were obvious to any programmer given that particular problem. Why would someone working on a completely different product or program spend their time to work on a completely unrelated issue? For example, you're a manufacturer of cars. Now, if you wanted to manufacture something else you would instantly know the obvious way to do it based on your experience in manufacturing cars. However, you're making a good profit making cars so you've never thought of manufacturing that other thing. You don't care about it because it's not relevant to what you do right now. When someone comes along and then applies the basic tenants of the engineering behind manufacturing to manufacture something that's not a car and then patents it, does it make their solution any less obvious because they just happened to be the first person to do it? Despite the fact that given the same problem, any expert in manufacturing would immediately come to the same conclusion? No. It is still obvious.
It's not just the patent trolls that are a problem. When a company like Apple or Microsoft or IBM patents something that would be obvious to any programmer who was confronted with that specific problem by applying some basic expertise, that hurts all software engineers. I'm sure that similar problems exist in other industries regarding patents. It's just more prominent with software due to how fast moving the industry is.
If a photographer does not defend those rights by lawsuits then those rights go away.
Copyright is not a trademark. You do not have to defend it or lose it. Copyright does not work that way.
Except the intent was not to recreate the original album art, the intent was to create a transformed version of the album art with a stylistic difference. It is sufficiently different that it is transformative and therefore fair use.
but innovation will certainly suffer if innovators are assured to lose benefit from their work.
You make the assumption that without patents innovators are 'assured' to lose benefit from their work. Yet the people who make the most money on 'inventions' nowadays aren't the small inventor who created something. It's the company who purchases the patent from the inventor and the companies who troll with their patents. The only industry I know well enough to comment in this context is the software industry, and It's very easy to see right now how patents have slowed innovation in this industry. Software is a fast moving industry where many companies might come up with the same idea within months of each other but because one company got a patent first, they effectively lock out competition. Look at the current situation in the mobile space, there's an all out patent war with tens of millions of dollars being given to lawyers rather than being put into R&D or somewhere else productive. Software patents hinder creativity, lock out competition, and severely slow down innovation.
For slower moving industries, patents make more sense but still I'm sure that examples can be found where patents have hindered innovation rather than helped it.
If something was so obvious that it will certainly be invented, why didn't it exist before it was invented?
That sentence is a nightmare and I think I understand what you are trying to ask, considering that you're basically asking me why something didn't exist...before it existed. Anyway, many "inventions" that are being patented right now (again, I only really watch the software industry since that's what I know) are things that anyone with knowledge in the field would see as the logical next step, such as Multi-touch. If the patent was more narrow then there might be an argument for their particular implementation of it, yet since multiple companies have created their own ways to do it already it seems that the patent wasn't all that novel and then becomes overly broad so that implementations that are just "similar" but not the same, would infringe and thus it becomes easy to lock out competition.
In addition, usually something might be obvious to someone in that field, if they were working on that particular problem. If they aren't currently working on a specific problem, then obviously they won't have published that particular solution. Yet, the result that is patented would be something that any expert in the field would see as the logical way to solve it if they were faced with the same problem. As I said, someone else just happened by chance to be faced with that problem first, why should they have the right to prevent someone who comes up with the same solution completely independently, from using the same solution? It's ridiculous