I don't think the comparison holds at all: Yoga is something people do in many different ways, not a specific product, nor is 'the western world' a single entity. When I do Yoga I am not selling my attempt at whatever 'real' yoga is for profit.
This comparison might have made sense, mind you, not much, if I had said that other companies should feel dirty for making tablets after the first one was made.
> Perhaps it's time we recognised ideas and concepts are meant to be taken up and extended by other people?
I agree with this and is a bit stating the obvious. This is, as you say, basically how mankind works.
To be clear I don't think Huawei should be prevented from doing this, I just think it is unauthentic which I don't like. It is purely an expression of my dislike of what they've created not a call to action for some team of lawyers.
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/72228/The-story-of-the-basm...
Because, either no one can clone and customise, or - god forbid - everyone can.
[Oddly its the latter idea that seems to bother many people, even though its clearly and objectively less prejudicial].
It's not perfect, but i don't think there's a better way. Corporate silos is exactly what it's trying to fix.
If someone patented the Decimal System or Abacus or Gun powder or Pythogorus Theorem or Fibonnaci Series or Newton patented its laws of motion and anyone using this laws and formula's in any system needs to pay royalty not sure what weird world will be.
Human knowledge stand on the giant shoulders of others and patent and copyright with ever-greening and useless litigation are making it hard and difficult. Can't fathom someone can copyright a rectangle drawing and sue phone companies for launching rectangle phones.
How is this even an argument, given that patents expire?
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/patent-system-often-stifle...
These days, many patented technologies expire faster than patents on them. In those cases, patents are quite literally halting progress.
Technological progress isn't a line, it's a graph. Someone patents an invention and decides to sit on it, and by the time the patent expires, the entire technological environment has shifted around in a way which makes that invention worthless, and follow-up work unlikely to happen. Whereas, were it not for that patent, the invention would had people extending it further, perhaps generating even more immediately useful technologies.
In this way, a patent - in particular, a defensive patent, taken to prevent anyone from developing a technology that endangers your business - is closing off avenues of progress.
Perhaps it's time we recognised ideas and concepts are meant to be taken up and extended by other people? That's how humans have progressed these thousands of years. Not by paranoid, corporate silos and NIH syndrome and draconian patents.