Upload & Sell: Off
Of course, a student of innovation, IP, and modern capitalism might have a longer view on patents:
The rule is that on one hand patents can spur innovation, while on the other hand patents can indeed become an obstacle to innovation. Protection of innovative ideas so that prices can be kept high to recoup "invention costs" (time, money, other) creates an incentive to experiment and innovate. But, patents can also be used to prevent leaner, better competition from finding money on the table (which is about as close as one gets to a definition of capitalism finding efficiencies) and taking it-- or tinkering with someone else's product to make it both better and cheaper.
Allow for very broad patents, and nobody can tinker.
Allow for very narrowly defined patents, and patents don't protect.
Allow for very long-lasting patents, and at a certain point you prevent ongoing progress/innovation/efficiency seeking behavior.
Allow for only very brief-lasting patents and you lose longer-term, more costly innovation-- at least if we're assuming our system of reward is monetary and not of some other unit (like respect, legacy, stewardship; it's safe to say our current system rests on monetary reward).
So in this conversation about IP, patents, efficiencies, and economics-- notably in markets that don't agree on the rules of IP law-- there are few black and white cases. One can argue in many directions-- moral, economic, etc-- and one should probably consider the divergence between Law as it is and Law as it could be to achieve "best" outcomes. The two often do not align in practice for a variety of reasons (one of which is influence of money, which, ironically, can be produced in large quantities on the bases of the laws said money can influence...)
None of this is taking a particular stance on this particular product. But I think it's worth keeping in mind.