a) yes, when it's used anti-competitively; which it almost exclusively is. I haven't been sold on the idea that idea exclusivity funds creative and public works and value-stores. I tend to believe that capitol does that -- and I think capitol can be generated regardless of copyright state.

b) Yes, I have a cc0 1.0 license on anything I release outside of the contracts i'm beholden to from other entities. My thingiverse profile, for one, is filled with general purpose models and assets that are all licensed cc0 1.0 -- these took real person-hours to produce and have actual value for some folks.

other than the occassional irritation with persnickety users here and there I enjoy the work and view it as a social good -- I hope others find the work valuable and use it themselves; surely others exist with the same motivations.

The concern is that they're double-dipping. They had a patent. Patents expire after 20 years, but give you exclusive right to use an invention in the meantime. After a patent expires, what's supposed to happen is that anyone can make use of it.

After the patent expired, they started abusing copyright to kill competition.

It's incredibly unethical to try and have it both ways. They had their patent. Their patents is gone. Competitors should be allowed to use the technology in that patent, without worrying about a random court for some forsaken reason allowing them to abuse copyright to stop competitors from being able to compete.

I like the Brompton and tried one in a shop, but decided I couldn't see springing $1400+ for one unless I was sure I would use it a lot, so I would possibly start with a lower cost folding bike and see how I liked it. That was pre-pandemic so I put the whole thing aside.

I'm not concerned about travelling with the bike. The attraction of a folder to me is just an easier time getting it in and out of an apartment for commuting purposes.