I was a little annoyed when I first saw the Cougar QBX and how blatantly it cribbed ideas from the M1 (right down to the top-facing optical drive), but beyond the basic layout and a few details it differs in some pretty significant ways. Since then I can't say I've ever been bothered by any supposed M1 "clones." I don't even consider anything I've seen to be a clone, but more like layout-siblings.
However, I don't think something as general as a layout should be subject to private ownership. Look at all the mid tower ATX cases that share basically identical layouts. Would you be okay with one company monopolizing the entire case market, like Asetek did with the AIO market for so many years? N.b., I'm not suggesting that Josh is in any way has bad intentions, per se; I am suggesting that patenting layouts should not be okay, and it sets a bad precedent that could lead to abuse.
If Josh's patent were merely a design patent, I would have no problem with it. But patenting the layout - something any skilled practitioner in the field could easily arrive at on their own - that steps over the line IMO.
Are we forgetting that these cases are a dime a dozen? The Node 202, RVZ01/02, Falcon NW Tiki, Digital Storm Bolt, Alienware X51, etc. Unless I'm mistaken and his patent doesn't actually cover any of those, which if true is the case he should make to actually address my objections. And if it doesn't, I wonder why he went through the time and expense to file a patent at all, since apparently it doesn't cover much worth covering.
I actually looked up some of these out of curiosity, and at least the X51, Tiki, and Bolt predate his patent filing (October 29th, 2012) by some months.
Josh's personal or professional history isn't relevant to my objections, which only relate to this specific patent.
