[John Commenter @ Nov 17th 2006 3:10PM]

Patents were not designed to protect the individual inventor.

Patents are (for current circumstances, poorly) designed as a disclosure for exclusivity bargain, to statistically accelerate diffusion of new technical ideas in exchange for granting mini-monopolies for a limited time.

A secondary, but related, reason that drug companies like to blather about is to encourage risky research that pays off only once in a while. This of course does not make much sense, as drug exclusivity is overpowered and needs to be nerfed - specifically in the direction of encouraging investment in less-common, horrible diseases rather and away from 15 types of Viagra. In any case, it is a variation of the exclusivity for accelerated technological progress.

The incentive system does not give a crap whether the inventor is an individual or a team or otherwise, or whether the party that owns the invention is an individual or otherwise. Whatever will push progress more reliably.

The political system does care, and this is why some patent legislation is affected by the interests of individual inventors - it is a lobby that gets a lot of bang for its buck because of the overemphasis on inventors in American industrial mythology.

Incentive systems are statistical and have attenuated effects, and anectodal abuses and ridiculous inequities will abound. There's a couple of problems with patents.

First, all we ever hear about is abuse and inequities, because those are more interesting from a news perspective.

Second, notwithstanding that the effects should be gradual and statistical, there is no way to test it for any industry. Economic models are cute, but are immediately overwhelmed by externalities. So the bargain is one of faith.

Combine these two, and you can look forward to a future of repeated stories of trolls, corporate greed, and other interesting news items, all revolving around an incentive system that no-one knows works.

And don't tell me it doesn't work for specific technologies like software or works extra well for others like biotech, because there is no way to find either of those out. You can't draw any causative correlation between anything here, and every attempt I have ever seen eventually descends into personal anecdotes of inequity and commons dogma. We just don't know, and probably won't ever know.

[Major Malfunction @ Nov 17th 2006 3:41PM]

"Patents were not designed to protect the individual inventor."

individual inventor as opposed to megacorporation who simply powerhouses their way into the market overwhelming and undercutting the profitability of a smaller house manufacturing.

"Patents are (for current circumstances, poorly) designed as a disclosure for exclusivity bargain, to statistically accelerate diffusion of new technical ideas in exchange for granting mini-monopolies for a limited time."

Yes, that is a more technical discourse on what a patent is, but the essence of a patent is to provide as you suggest, a time-limited monopoly so the innovator can recover costs and find a profit. The meat of the patent system is to increase the risk/reward scenerio, we can't argue on that point at least.

"The incentive system does not give a crap whether the inventor is an individual or a team or otherwise, or whether the party that owns the invention is an individual or otherwise. Whatever will push progress more reliably."

See above...

"The political system does care..."

And you don't see the patent system as a positive for the small time inventor who can simply demand a license from a larger corporation. I don't need to have the aim of creating the product for my lifetime, it was good enough to spend my second mortgage on the invention and R&D. I should [for the lifetime of the patent] be allowed to demand licensing for IP that I create. You would expect the same for your patent, and hard work.

"First, all we ever hear about is abuse and inequities, because those are more interesting from a news perspective."

True, sadly. But some of us are interested in the entirety, not just the bad seeds.

"Second, notwithstanding that the effects should be gradual and statistical, there is no way to test it for any industry. Economic models are cute, but are immediately overwhelmed by externalities. So the bargain is one of faith."

Interesting verbiage. I'm not much on Faith, which is why I believe in the patent system. Albeit, as you write below, I'm also against corporate greed which apparently is becoming very popular within the construct of the patent system. Regardless, people will find a way to abuse power.

We can't even post a sign without someone finding the loophole instead of adhering to the spirit of the sign. Apply that to the patent system, and you get the same thing.

Opti may not have been the original inventor, but they have the exclusive license granted to them by the assignment of the rights to the invention by the original inventor. They bought the rights, and have the right to seek compensation for its use. Simple.

You will, never, and I mean NEVER EVER, see someone who has spent their time and money suggest that the patent system is defunct unless they are the ones on the better end of the reorganization of the patent system. If you do find one, I'd like to read why they feel it is broken.