Like I said, regulators stepping in is an overstep for the reason you're stating. It's a free market, they built a better mouse trap.
But at this point, USBC is the better mousetrap, they're now just using their market dominance to force a worse mouse trap on everyone to keep milking lucrative patent fees outside of what an efficient market would allow.
So again, fuck em.
Side note, this is why I really hate IP law (or at least the over the top term lengths of it). If they didn't have a monopoly on lightening connectors this wouldn't be a problem and the market would resolve this "problem" on it's own.
You don't get to act like they're just behaving like a free market participant should when they're actively exploiting a different market regulation.
I wonder what the fix here is. Would it be choosing a patent term length that optimises for spurring innovation?
Too short and you make it not worth while. Too long and things stagnate like this. Why does society put up with such suboptimal market parameters?
USB-C is, in fact, NOT at all the "better mousetrap" in terms of an iPhone connector. It has no significant advantages for Apple users who already are using Lightning.
You seem to be leaving out all the ways in which it's better for Apple's customers to have, and to keep, Lightning, so, let's review so you can argue in good faith and from an informed perspective next time:
1) Lightning is significantly more compact than the USB-C port, enabling a more durable case in the vulnerable area surrounding the port
2) Lightning is more durable as well
3) Lightning even FEELS better to plug in and to use
4) Lightning has superior ability to be waterproofed
5) Billions of Lightning cables and accessories have already been manufactured and are in use and it'd be nice to not replace them all until that's actually necessary
But at this point, USBC is the better mousetrap, they're now just using their market dominance to force a worse mouse trap on everyone to keep milking lucrative patent fees outside of what an efficient market would allow.
So again, fuck em.
Side note, this is why I really hate IP law (or at least the over the top term lengths of it). If they didn't have a monopoly on lightening connectors this wouldn't be a problem and the market would resolve this "problem" on it's own.
You don't get to act like they're just behaving like a free market participant should when they're actively exploiting a different market regulation.
I wonder what the fix here is. Would it be choosing a patent term length that optimises for spurring innovation?
Too short and you make it not worth while. Too long and things stagnate like this. Why does society put up with such suboptimal market parameters?